Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives 9781138630345, 9781032278759, 9781315209463

Citation preview

Chinese English

This book offers a distinct exploration of Chinese English –​which has the largest rising population of speakers in the World Englishes (WE) family. Xu focuses on the fundamental issues of “names” and “norms” that are closely related to Chinese English and the “narratives” of the speakers of Chinese English. In addition to current approaches to WE research, this book proposes a novel theoretical and analytical framework based on classical Chinese and Western philosophies. The volume has an empirical basis, drawing upon interview and questionnaire survey data from proficient speakers of Chinese English. It is also based on an extensive review of the relevant literature on both WE and Chinese English, and it draws upon the author’s research experience of over two decades on the subject. This is the third research book on Chinese English that the author has contributed to WE literature, and it will be a valuable read for students and scholars alike. Zhichang Xu is Senior Lecturer in Linguistics and English Language at the School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts, Monash University, Australia. His research areas include Chinese English, world Englishes, applied linguistics, cultural linguistics, intercultural education, and translation and interpreting studies. His major publications include Chinese English: Features and Implications (2010), Chinese Rhetoric and Writing (co-​authored with Andy Kirkpatrick, 2012), Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art (Eds. Xu, He and Deterding, 2017), and Chinese-​ English Interpreting and Intercultural Communication (co-​authored with Jim Hlavac, 2020).

Routledge Studies in World Englishes

Series Editor: Ee Ling Low, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore and President of Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics

This Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics book series will provide a starting point for those who wish to know more about the aspects of the spread of English in the current globalized world. Each volume can cover the following aspects of the study of World Englishes: issues and theoretical paradigms, feature-​based studies (i.e. phonetics and phonology, syntax, lexis) and language in use (e.g. education, media, the law and other related disciplines). Titles include: English in China Language, Identity and Culture Emily Tsz Yan Fong English in East and South Asia Policy, Features and Language in Use Edited by Ee Ling Low and Anne Pakir Nominal Pluralization and Countability in African Varieties of English Susanne Mohr Philippine English Development, Structure and Sociology of English in the Philippines Edited by Ariane Macalinga Borlongan Chinese English Names, Norms and Narratives Zhichang Xu For a full list of titles in this series, visit www.routle​dge.com/​Routle​dge-​ Studies-​in-​World-​Englis​hes/​book-​ser​ies/​RSWE

Chinese English Names, Norms and Narratives Zhichang Xu

First published 2023 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business © 2023 Zhichang Xu The right of Zhichang Xu to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 9781138630345 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032278759 (pbk) ISBN: 9781315209463 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9781315209463 Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

To my parents, family and friends.

Contents

List of Figures List of Micro-​narratives Foreword Preface Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1 Introduction

viii ix x xiii xiv xvi 1

2 Revisiting Chinese English

16

3 Developing a framework for Chinese English

59

4 Decoding Chinese English names

105

5 Unpacking Chinese English norms

171

6 Reconstructing Chinese English narratives

205

Epilogue References Appendix Index

261 267 278 281

Figure

3.1  A pentagram or star pentagon framework for Chinese English

77

Micro-​narratives

1 Conceptualising Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Experiencing Chinese English Conducting a meta-​analysis of Chinese English A dinner conversation on Chinese English My evolving understanding of Chinese English Conducting my doctoral research on Chinese English Revisiting and re-​searching Chinese English research My understanding of languaging, translanguaging and narrative knowledging Deconstructing a post-​varieties framework A “dinner conversation” in Suzhou with Chinese English scholars My two meetings with Prof. Wang Rongpei “Well, Marc is not my official name” Reflecting on my own names My marked and unmarked names Names and identities Discovering dominant and recessive norms Norms as communicative “appropriacy” Appropriacy or appropriateness, that is the question Researching xiao (filial piety) Conversations with Japanese exchange students Reconstructing narratives of Chinese speakers of English A WeChat conversation on the prefix trans-​

7 12 17 20 22 23 27 63 71 106 118 139 143 157 167 172 176 177 193 198 209 263

Foreword

In this remarkable and ground-​breaking book, Xu offers a new perspective for viewing, describing and classifying varieties of world English using Chinese English as his reference point. He argues that Chinese English is no longer (if it ever was) a variety of English dependent upon the norms of native speaker varieties of English, but that it is both norm-​developing and norm-​providing. He further questions whether Chinese English is a variety at all, seeing it rather as translanguaging practice among people with various degrees of linguistic and cultural knowledge, proficiency and competence in both Chinese and English. The data, drawn from a range of local Chinese and global contexts, illustrates that Chinese English is not a static variety but a functional practice drawing upon repertoires of bilingual and multilingual Chinese and English speakers as agents in contexts where their agential habitus and ti (体, a Chinese word referring to body or embodiment) operates alongside field, capital and yong (用, a Chinese word referring to function or application). Xu thus integrates Chinese and Western philosophical concepts, borrowing the notions of ti and yong from the Chinese philosopher Wang Bi (226–​249) with Bourdieu’s notions of habitus, field and capital. From these notions he develops a star pentagram framework with which to analyse Chinese English. This is what makes this book so original and important, as it provides a completely new way of analysing a variety of world English using philosophical concepts from China and the West. The originality of the book is also evident in the use Xu makes of what he calls “micro-​narratives”. These are the reflections contained in his inner dialogues when considering particular aspects of his investigation into the nature of Chinese English. Xu records these, and this allows the reader to share these reflections or inner dialogues which he conducted with himself in the course of writing the book. In this sense, the book combines an ongoing narrative enquiry into discussions and debates about the nature of Chinese English alongside an intellectual inquiry into the deep-​rooted and metaphysical nature of Chinese English. In a collection of essays entitled Researching Chinese English: The state of the art, of which Xu was one of the editors, I suggested that the most important question facing researchers into Chinese English was to investigate “the extent to which Chinese English is, in addition to fulfilling an

Foreword  xi instrumental function or practical use or yong, also providing Chinese English speakers with some ti or essence as an integral part of their developing identity as multilinguals” (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 288). This book provides a brilliant and rigorously researched answer to that question. The book also provides scholars of World Englishes with a much-​needed new pathway and methodology for the study of World Englishes. It is a book of truly ground-​ breaking significance. Andy Kirkpatrick, Professor Emeritus, Griffith University 9 September 2021

Preface

This book explores Chinese English as a translanguaging practice from the perspective of world Englishes, focusing on Chinese English and its speakers regarding their names, norms and narratives. On the basis of extensive practice and research of Chinese English over the past two decades, this book takes a step forward in developing an analytical framework for understanding Chinese English and its speakers. This framework, namely a pentagram or star pentagon framework, draws upon five relevant Chinese and Western philosophical concepts: Chinese neo-​Daoist philosopher Wang Bi’s ti and yong (i.e., essence and utility) and French philosopher Bourdieu’s habitus, field and capital. This framework focuses on the uses and users of Chinese English in both local and global contexts. Specifically, this book applies the pentagram framework to unpack the various naming issues of Chinese English, including China English and Chinglish, and the naming practices of Chinese English speakers. In terms of the norms associated with Chinese English and its speakers, this book challenges the traditional classification of norm-​providing, norm-​developing and norm-​dependent varieties of English, and proposes that Chinese English is not exclusively norm-​dependent but is also norm-​developing and norm-​providing in the context of world Englishes. This book also examines critically the narratives of Chinese English speakers in relation to their learning and use of English for intra-​and international communication. These narratives include individual anecdotes as well as collective experiences of the contemporary users of Chinese English.

Acknowledgements

It has been a long journey since I started conceptualising this book: Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives. Since my first monograph, entitled Chinese English: Features and Implications, I have been having ongoing conversations with friends, students, colleagues, researchers and scholars who share my interest in Chinese English. I am indebted, first and foremost, to Prof. Andy Kirkpatrick, who led me into the paradigm of world Englishes around the beginning of the 21st century. I have always been inspired by his leading research and profound insight in the changing field of world Englishes. I also acknowledge, with my deepest respect, Prof. Wang Rongpei, whom I met in person twice, and whose seminal work on “China English” has a tremendous impact on my research and that of many other scholars of Chinese English studies. I would like to give my special thanks to Prof. Kate Burridge, my colleague across the corridor, with whom I had an interesting discussion when I was finalising the book manuscript regarding whether to include the old Oxford comma (also called the Harvard comma, as she told me), between “Norms” and “and” in the title of the book, i.e., Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives. As a result of the discussion, I have decided not to include it, mainly because, as Kate pointed out, there is no ambiguity created whichever way I choose, and I was reminded that it is “a very contentious issue”. I would like to thank the participants in my data collection, whose names I am unable to mention due to the anonymous nature of the project. They have been very informative and engaging throughout our interviews and follow-​up correspondence over the years. During the initial stage of the project, Ms. Monica Li worked as a research assistant to help me organise interview questions and collect and transcribe data for a pilot study. I would also like to thank our Routledge team, Ms. Christina Low, Ms. Samantha Phua, Ms. Katie Peace and Mr. Shubhayan Chakrabarti, who have facilitated this book project and extended their great support and understanding when extensions for the manuscript were requested. During the production stage of the book project, Mr. Ed Robinson and Ms. Sue Clements communicated with me in a highly timely manner, and I was particularly impressed, with a grateful heart, by the meticulous editing work of Ms. Sue

Acknowledgements  xv Clements. In addition, I would thank the series editor of Routledge Studies in World Englishes, Prof. Ee Ling Low, for her vision in World Englishes studies and ongoing collaborations with generations of World Englishes scholars in Asia and round the world. Last but not least, I am profoundly indebted to my beloved parents, siblings, and my wife and daughter, who have given me their love, care, time, support and understanding throughout the years of this book project and beyond.

newgenprepdf

Abbreviations

BA CCTV CE CLT CNKI CSE EAL EFL EIL ELF ELT ENL ESL MA NSE PRC SE SLA TESOL UK US WE WSSE

Bachelor of Arts China Central Television Chinese English Communicative language teaching China National Knowledge Infrastructure Chinese speakers of English English as an additional language English as a foreign language English as an international language English as a Lingua Franca English language teaching English as a native language English as a second language Master of Arts Native speakers of English The People’s Republic of China Standard English Second language acquisition Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages The United Kingdom The United States World Englishes World standard spoken English

1 Introduction

Background There are times when I meet people and they ask me what I do for my work and research, I might say, “I do Chinese English”. One of the most likely reactions is “Oh, Chinglish!”, followed by some examples of prototypical Chinglish expressions, such as Good good study, day day up; People mountain, people sea, or better still, Long time, no see. Sometimes more creative and recent expressions come up, e.g., Horse horse, tiger tiger, and You can, you up with a bit of a witty smile. I would respond by saying, “Yes, but not really. I understand what Chinglish is, but Chinese English and Chinglish are a bit different”. I would then continue by saying, Chinese English is a kind of English people use to talk about Chinese things, or Chinese culture, like when Chinese English teachers, journalists, translators, business people and other professionals use English in their daily and professional contexts, they may use Chinese English. Chinese English can be a developing variety of English, or it’s about how and what we do with English, like what Singaporeans and Indians do with their Singaporean English and Indian English. And these are indeed world Englishes. Upon hearing the plural form of English, i.e., Englishes, there could be, expectedly or unexpectedly, some subtle eyebrow-​raising. I would then explain that, “by world Englishes, I mean British English, American English, Indian English, Singaporean English, Malaysian English, and of course, Chinese English”. As I reflect on such anecdotes about Chinese English, I often ponder: Is Chinese English really a variety of English yet, or will it ever become a variety? To what extent is Chinese English different from Chinglish, so that I have to consciously make a distinction? In a more professional context, looking at the bigger picture worldwide, world Englishes, with the acronym WE, as an ongoing area of inquiry, has undergone more than half a century of theorization and practice. The English language now “belongs to those who use DOI: 10.4324/9781315209463-1

2 Introduction it as their first language, and to those who use it as an additional language, whether in its standard form or in its localized forms”, and in this sense, the study of world Englishes “symbolizes the functional and formal variation in the language, and its international acculturation” (Kachru & Smith, 1985, p. 210). Over the decades since the 1980s, many scholars have interpreted the term world Englishes; for example, Bolton and Davis (2006, p. 6) point out that the study of world Englishes consistently sought to ground its work in the “sociolinguistic realities” of all English-​using societies worldwide. Its approach has had particular relevance for the English-​using societies of the postcolonial Outer Circle (and Expanding Circle), including many African, Caribbean and Asian locations, but the resonances of WE are now felt in many Inner Circle societies. Kirkpatrick (2007, p. 1) points out that the “most remarkable fact” behind the increasing use of English among speakers of world Englishes is that “the majority of English speakers are now multilingual people who have learned English and who use English to communicate with fellow multilinguals”, and that “there are many more speakers of world Englishes and people who use English for international communication than there are native speakers of it”. He also points out two common trends regarding the current development of world Englishes and what the future holds regarding world Englishes: One common trend that can be discerned across all these Englishes is that they are created via some form of mixing. They are all the result of some form of linguistic and cultural contact. A second common trend is that the great majority of English speakers are now native speakers of languages other than English. We have moved beyond a postcolonial period and are entering a post-​Anglophone period, where it is likely that the multilingual speaker of English will soon be determining its future. (Kirkpatrick, 2010, p. 13) In addition, Seargeant (2010, p. 97) points out that the term “world Englishes” is used “for the diversity of varieties around the world today”, and it indicates “the multiplex nature of English by adopting a plural noun”. He provides a taxonomy of the names of English according to “function”, “community”, “history”, “structure”, “ecology” and “multiplex” (Seargeant, 2010, p. 101). The “function” category includes English as a second language (ESL), English as a foreign language (EFL), English as an additional language (EAL), English as an international language (EIL) and English as a lingua franca (ELF); the “community” category includes metropolitan standards, regional dialects, social dialects, immigrant Englishes, native/​ non-​ native varieties and global English; the “history” category includes language-​shift

Introduction  3 Englishes, colonial standards and indigenised Englishes; the “structure” category includes Pidgin Englishes, Creole Englishes and hybrid Englishes; the “ecology” category includes Inner Circle varieties, Outer Circle varieties, Expanding Circle varieties, world Englishes and new Englishes; and the “multiplex” category includes world English and English language complex (Seargeant, 2010, p. 101). Viewing world Englishes from a paradigmatic perspective, Proshina (2014, pp. 1–​2) argues that the world Englishes paradigm “shook the 20th century” for at least two decades and that the paradigm “revolutionized the linguistic, sociocultural, and educational world, and has had a great impact on theory and practice of the new millennium”. She also points out that the acronym WE represents a “dynamic cline” of the world Englishes family, that it serves as a symbol of the principle of inclusivity that is the cornerstone of the world Englishes paradigm, and that it is “inclusive of all varieties and variants of English, of many cultures and ethnicities, of many topics and subjects, of various approaches and perspectives”. One of the central issues of world Englishes, according to Proshina (2014, p. 4), lies in “intelligibility of form, comprehensibility of meaning, and interpretability of sense” among different varieties of English. A few decades since the inception of world Englishes, Low and Pakir (2018, pp. 1–​2) call for “all scholars working within the field to reflect upon how they can continue to rethink the paradigm and to grow the field within their respective related disciplines in the post-​Kachruvian era”. My endeavour throughout this book is in line with this call, although I have conceived the idea of working on the names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English since my first research monograph on the features and implications of Chinese English was published in 2010 (Xu, 2010b). Throughout another decade of rethinking or engaging in the “noetics” of Chinese English, a term used by Y. Kachru (1992), I have witnessed the ongoing shift of the world Englishes paradigm, and I have even challenged or critiqued my own definition of Chinese English in terms of 1) the extent to which it is a “developing variety” of English, 2) what constitutes a variety that deserves a national or regional modifier such as Chinese or China, and 3) who we really are as Chinese bilinguals or Chinese users of English, as we move across the Kachruvian Circles (Kachru, 1982b; B. Kachru, 1992) and different linguistic and cultural landscapes. At this juncture, after years of living and working as a Chinese speaker of English and reflecting on the use of English by millions of Chinese English speakers, I define Chinese English as a translanguaging practice among people with various degrees of linguistic and cultural knowledge, proficiency and competence in both Chinese and English. Based on this operational definition, Chinese English may not have to be necessarily nation-​state based, given the increasing de-​territorialisation of English around the world, nor is it necessarily a variety per se with uniformly identifiable and codified features. As such, Chinese English is not a static linguistic entity but a functional

4 Introduction practice drawing upon the repertoires of bilingual or multilingual Chinese and English speakers, as agents, in contexts where their agential habitus and ti (or 体, a Chinese word referring to body or embodiment) operates alongside field, capital and yong (用, a Chinese word referring to function, application or utility). These are the five major components of a pentagram framework, which I construct and apply throughout the book. There has long existed a tradition of distinguishing ti from yong in language and cultural learning in China. Ti refers to the essence or substance of a culture, whereas yong refers to its utility. From the late 19th century up to now, the predominant principle of education in general and language education in particular has been “Chinese learning as ti; Western learning as yong”. (Gao, 2009a, p. 113) The increasing mobility of speakers of world Englishes across the three Kachruvian Circles and the unprecedented spread of English worldwide have made it a default scenario for the English language to be in constant contact with other languages and to be adopted and adapted in multilingual and multicultural milieus. As a result, one of the sociolinguistic realities is the existence and extensive use of world Englishes, including Chinese English, as global and local lingua francas for inter-​and intra-​cultural communication throughout the world. Since the turn of the 21st century, there has also been an evolving digital virtual reality, where mediated interactions in hybrid forms involving world Englishes alongside different other languages and semiotic expressions are commonly occurring in the sense of a translanguaging practice. In light of the exponential development of world Englishes, Seargeant (2012, p. 13) argues that “English can be thought of not as a noun but as a verb. That is, English is an activity rather than an object; it is something people do rather than something they acquire, possess, or use”. This book, in line with the current development of the field of world Englishes, may not be read or perceived as a prescriptive text in any sense about Chinese English, or a descriptive account of distinctive features of Chinese English as a variety. What I have attempted throughout this book is to move beyond prescriptions and descriptions of Chinese English features and explore Chinese English as a translanguaging practice, addressing issues of names and norms of Chinese English through reconstructing narratives of Chinese speakers of English. As far as Chinese English is concerned, Bolton (2017, p. v) points out that “the essential conundrum is not how many folk are studying or have studied the language but rather how many people in China actually use the language in their everyday lives”. Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 276) also points out that “there is little research into where exactly English is being used, i.e., who is using Chinese English, with whom and for what purposes?”. Looking at the future of researching Chinese English, Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 278) calls for further

Introduction  5 research “to investigate the breadth and depth of Chinese English use across China”, and he suggests that the most important question for Chinese English researchers to investigate in the future is the extent to which Chinese English is, in addition to fulfilling an instrumental function of practical use or yong, is also providing Chinese English speakers with some ti or essence as an integral part of their developing identity as multilinguals. Other researchers on China and English have also suggested the relevance of the ti–​yong dichotomy to foreign language learning and use in China. For example, Lo Bianco (2009, p. 303) points out that Chinese national discourses have long deployed a dichotomy between indigenous or native learning as the essence alongside a pragmatic, utilitarian or instrumental benefit accruing from foreign languages. This has been operationalised in the binary division between essence and utility (体-​用 ti-​yong) discernible in longstanding Confucian representations of knowledge. In addition, Gao (2009b, p. 74) argues that the ti-​yong conceptualization was intended to empower the nation and restore identity integrity while facing the “solid ships and powerful cannons” of the West. Sociohistorically situated, the ti-​yong tension has embedded in it a profound inferiority-​superiority complex, which has become a part of the Chinese habitus and generates repeated practice. In terms of the breadth and depth of Chinese English use across China, Xu and Zhang (2020, p. 607) have explored the expanding functionality of English in China through interviewing Chinese speakers of English in two major Chinese cities, Beijing and Kunming, and they have discovered that English in China, together with Chinese in the verbal repertoires of Chinese-​English bilingual speakers, serves an overarching nexus function in the sense that it connects the local with the global, the real and virtual realities, as well as multiple ethnicities and communities for a whole range of functions. In addition, Bolton, Botha, and Zhang (2020, p. 523) point out that English connects Chinese people to the world “either directly, through travel or education abroad, or even symbolically, by connecting young people to life outside mainland China, at a range of levels, from popular culture to current affairs or to various forms of academic knowledge”.

6 Introduction Here follows an example of Chinese English being adopted and utilised as a translanguaging practice to serve the nexus function for academic purposes among the three editors of Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art (Xu, He, & Deterding, 2017), including me (coded as X) and two scholars (coded as H and D). We interacted with one another during the co-​editing process through email communication extensively between 2015 and 2017. One of our earliest exchanges of email messages included here shows the translanguaging nature of Chinese English at work. Sat. 10 January 2015 X:  […]

I look forward to a collaborative and productive 2015 (the Year of Goat/​Sheep/​Ram) with both of you. I’m a hard working horse, what about you? H:  […] We know X [the English name of X is used here] is a hard working horse, but I may not say I am a hard working tiger since people seldom say it in this way. Speaking of horse and tiger, I am very glad that we have D [the first name of D is used here] as our third editor, or our volume may get a horse horse tiger tiger editor team. ^_​^ D:  Does that make me a horse? Or a tiger? Or both? Or maybe just ma-​ma hu-​hu! H:  […] I mean the team would be ma ma hu hu without you. Since we have got you in our team, we will never be a horse horse tiger tiger team, but a horse tiger monkey team. You know monkey symbolizes a very clever animal in Chinese, so our team will be very clever and successful because of you. :-​) It is worth noting that the three editors were undoubtedly communicating in English, but this English is not necessarily British English or American English, and it is highly coloured or flavoured to the extent that it assumes certain shared linguistic and cultural awareness, proficiency and competence specifically regarding Chinese knowledge and Chinese ti (essence) involving Chinese language and specific Chinese cultural schemas and metaphors, e.g., 1) 2015 was the Year of the Goat; 2) a horse is understood as a hard-​ working animal; 3) horse, tiger and monkey in this context refer to people, i.e., the three editors themselves; 4) horse horse tiger tiger is a Chinglish expression, directly translated from Chinese, i.e., 马马虎虎 (mă mă hŭ hŭ), which means careless or average; 5) a monkey symbolises a clever animal; 6) the act of H complimenting X as a hard-​working horse while denying himself as a hard-​working tiger can be perceived as a reflection of the Chinese politeness principle (cf. Gu, 1990, pp. 246–​248), i.e., the self-​denigration maxim: denigrate self and elevate other to show respectfulness and modesty; 7) another speech act of complimenting D is performed by H when he implies that D is a clever monkey, and claims explicitly that “our team will be very clever and successful” because of D (Xu, Deterding, & He, 2017, pp. 3–​4).

Introduction  7 This example illustrates the use or yong (i.e., utility) of Chinese English as a translanguaging practice, and what it is capable of encoding, considering the respective habitus of the three editors involved, including how things are named, e.g., the Year of the Goat/​Sheep/​Ram; what Chinese norms are, e.g., the pragmatic practice aligned with the self-​denigration maxim of the Chinese politeness principle, and the speech acts of complimenting and responding to compliments; and how people, not necessarily Chinese exclusively, narrate their daily and professional experiences through intra-​and intercultural communication involving Chinese English. In addition, this example shows the relevance of ti and yong in unpacking communication in Chinese English, and that Chinese English may not be a static entity with codified vocabulary or grammar, but a dynamic translanguaging practice among users of Chinese English.

Introducing micro-​narratives While conceptualising and preparing for the manuscript of this book, I find myself oftentimes talking to myself about ideas or thoughts regarding the major themes of the book, i.e., names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English. Then, one day, while I was working on the third chapter of the book, i.e., Developing a framework for Chinese English, the idea of micro-​narratives occurred to me. By micro-​narratives, I mean my inner voice or stream of consciousness that runs through me (sub)consciously while I engage in this book project. These micro-​narratives can also be seen as my monologues or soliloquies; they are like speech bubbles in comics and cartoons, except that they vary in length and are mostly my own first-​person narratives, or flashbacks of past events or experiences that are relevant to this book project. As such, all the micro-​narratives in this book are presented as standalone items in boxes, labelled and numbered sequentially throughout the book, e.g., Micro-​narrative 1, Micro-​narrative 2, and they are cohesively and coherently intermixed wherever possible with the running text of the book. Micro-​narrative 1, following, serves as an example.

Micro-​narrative 1:  Conceptualising Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives For many years since the publication of my very first research monograph on Chinese English, entitled Chinese English: Features and Implications (Xu, 2010b), I have been conceptualising another monograph, exploring other aspects of Chinese English beyond its linguistic features. This embodies a major shift in my research focus from Chinese English as a “variety” with its own distinctive features to the actual speakers of Chinese English from a practice-​based and norm-​oriented perspective.

8 Introduction In between the first monograph and this current one, I have edited, together with two other researchers, Dr. Deyuan He and Prof. David Deterding, a research volume on Chinese English, entitled Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art (Xu, He, & Deterding, 2017). However, my story with Chinese English has not been easy to untangle, as Chinese English has been a lived and living experience throughout my academic life since I started teaching and researching English professionally in the early 1990s in Beijing, China. Over the years, I’ve been researching Chinese English in different localities, including Beijing, Perth (Western Australia), Hong Kong and Melbourne (Victoria, Australia). These metropolises happen to coincide with the Kachruvian three concentric Circles (Kachru, 1982b), enabling me to think outside the box and reflect on Chinese English across the Circles personally and professionally, inside and out. My current research interests regarding Chinese English are the evolving nature of Chinese English and the associated sociolinguistic and cultural pragmatic issues surrounding the names, norms and narratives of Chinese English, and Chinese speakers of English.

Chinese speakers of English across the Kachruvian concentric Circles The People’s Republic of China (the PRC) and Chinese diasporas across the globe constitute, as predicted, the largest numbers of Chinese speakers and Chinese speakers of English. The population of the PRC passed the 1.4 billion mark in 2015, and it is over 1.448 billion and rising in 2022. In addition, the vast majority of residents in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, with a total population of approximately 32.1 million, are speakers of Chinese. Going beyond the PRC, there is also a large Chinese diaspora with a considerable population. The term overseas Chinese refers to the Chinese migrants and their descendants since the 19th century, primarily from the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. The vast majority of overseas Chinese currently live across East Asia, including South Korea and Japan, in Southeast Asia, including Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and in New World countries, such as the United States, Canada and Australia, and now they also live in Europe, South America and Africa. The estimated number of overseas Chinese speakers across the diasporas, whether Chinese is their first language (L1), second language (L2) or additional language, is approximately 50 million. It can be estimated that if 20–​30% of the entire population of Chinese speakers around the world were to learn and use English, there would be 300–​460 million Chinese speakers of English, presumably speaking a mixture

Introduction  9 of different Englishes with Chinese English as one of its translanguaging constituents. However, the sheer number of Chinese speakers of English across the Kachruvian concentric Circles does not seem to translate into a comparable recognition of Chinese English and its associated Chineseness in relation to the worldliness of world Englishes. While people have generally accepted the notion of world Englishes due to decades of vigorous research into different varieties of English on both regional and global scales and the unprecedented process of globalisation currently taking place in every corner of the physical world as well as the Internet-​ based digital virtual reality, whether the worldliness of world Englishes or WE-​ness includes the Chineseness associated with Chinese English has been a controversial issue and is under much debate. It is interesting to note that, from a metaphysical perspective, if the worldliness of English becomes exclusionary in terms of treating the culture-​specific-​ness, such as Spanishness, Frenchness, Indianness, and Chineseness, as the otherness or even as the weirdness, how could then world Englishes be characterized by the worldliness of English and hence be world Englishes per se in the first place? From this perspective, the estimated 300–​460 million Chinese learners and users of English crossing Circles in geographical, linguistic and socio-​cultural as well as virtual dimensions contributes to a great extent to the worldliness of world Englishes. At this point in time, the field of world Englishes appears to be revisiting and reiterating its tenets of inclusivity and worldliness, and the field seems to have reached a “slight impasse” (Maraceni, 2015, p. 3). World Englishes began very much as an anti-​ establishment, revolutionary philosophy, which opposed old, traditional, anachronistic, stale and unrealistically monolithic ideas about English, and proposed new, fresh, modern ideas that would take into consideration the diverse sociolinguistic realities in which English had relocated. Now, the novelty is somewhat wearing off. (Maraceni, 2015, p. 3) Given the current under-​ researched awareness and recognition of Chinese English as a translanguaging practice and the “slight impasse” that the field of world Englishes may have reached, it is time to explore Chinese English from a user-​focused practice perspective to seek a way out and a step forward.

Chinese English at a crossroads Chinese English has existed and been documented for centuries in China due to contacts between Chinese and English and their mutual influence on each other. Bolton (2003a, p. i) has explored “the history of the English language in China from the arrival of the first English-​speaking traders in the early seventeenth century to the present”. The influence of Chinese, e.g., Putonghua and

10 Introduction Cantonese, on English has a long history, which can be traced back to early contacts between speakers of English and Chinese. The details of this “contact” were recorded in around 1637 in the diary of an English mercantile trader, Peter Mundy, whose writings were published as The Travels of Peter Mundy. Some of the early examples in Mundy’s diary, with Cantonese as a source language include “chaa” for tea, “leicheea” for lichee, “Macao” for Macau, and “Paquin” for Peking (Beijing). (Bolton, 2003b, pp. 85–​86; Xu, 2010b, pp. 27–​28) In terms of the influence of English on Chinese, Mencken (1965, p. 688) observed around the mid-​20th century that “even in China, [it] is already very considerable”. Not only does Chinese absorb a great many English and American loan-​ words, it also tends toward grammatical and syntactical accord with English. In the United States these tendencies are naturally very noticeable, not only among the rank and file of Chinese-​speaking immigrants, but also among the Chinese students who frequent American universities. (Mencken, 1965, p. 688) It can be argued that languages have always been in contact, generating synergies of new meaning and grammar. The following account made over a century ago in 1919 by Dr. Arthur W. Hummel, chief of the Division of Orientalia in the Library of Congress, shows the contact of Chinese and English and how English exerts an influence on the use of Chinese in syntax, e.g., word order. Dr. Hu Shih, leader of the current literary revolution in China, has told me, what I had myself previously observed, that his Chinese word-​order is very much like that of English. He says that whereas, before he came to America to study, he could not get good English by keeping to the Chinese word-​order, he now finds that he can translate his Chinese writing almost word for word. This is, perhaps, more true of Hu Shih’s writings than of others; nevertheless, it represents a rather wide-​spread tendency, due to the fact that all Chinese youths who go to school at all must spend time on English. (Mencken, 1965, p. 688) Although English and Chinese have been in contact for centuries, and observations of the mutual influence between the two prominent languages have actually been the day-​to-​day experiences of most bilingual speakers of Chinese and English, relevant research on Chinese English as a potential variety of English rather than an interlanguage only got started in late 1970s and early 1980s, when Chinese scholars (e.g., Ge, 1980; Wang, 1991) made

Introduction  11 their first attempts to distinguish between Chinglish and what they named China English. Prior to that, Chinese English had been commonly associated with Chinglish. (For a detailed discussion on the changing names of Chinese English, please refer to Chapter 4.) Since then, there has been an increasing body of research on China English as a variety of English in relevant Chinese domestic and international journals and other academic research publications. I have conducted a meta-​analysis on the scholarship of Chinese English from 1980 onwards and identified major themes that have emerged in relation to researching Chinese English. These themes include 1) whether Chinese English exists; 2) how to name the variety if it exists; 3) how to define Chinese English; 4) how to distinguish between Chinese English and Chinglish; 5) the China English debate; 6) awareness of and attitudes towards Chinese English; 7) the acceptability of Chinese English; 8) functions and significance of Chinese English; 9) features of Chinese English; 10) applications of Chinese English; 11) implications of Chinese English for ELT; 12) reviews of Chinese English research; 13) stages of researching Chinese English; and 14) methods for researching Chinese English (Xu, 2017). It can be noted that a few fundamental issues and themes surrounding Chinese English are primarily concerned with its very existence, its various names and its definitions. Given the wide range of themes emerging since the 1980s, research in Chinese English has taken only the first few steps in its Long March (a pun intended here, as Long March, a Chinese English expression, refers to a historical event, i.e., the military retreat undertaken by the Red Army of the Chinese Communist Party between 1934 and 1935 to evade the pursuit of the Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang army), and it is still largely at a crossroads. The meta-​analysis that I conducted regarding Chinese English (Xu, 2017, pp. 236–​238) shows that Chinese English research falls into four distinct periods, primarily marked by the number and topics of relevant research publications. I have tentatively termed these periods the Chinese Enlightenment (1980–​1997), the Great Leap Forward (1998–​2001), the Chinese Renaissance (2002–​2012) and the Open Door (2013 onwards) periods (Xu, Deterding, & He, 2017, p. 11). The Chinese Enlightenment period of Chinese English research, in which Ge Chuangui’s (1980) article shed great light on people’s awareness of China English, and Wang Rongpei’s (1991) article and his definition of China English set a milestone and sparked the debate on what China English was. The Great Leap Forward period of Chinese English research is characterised by a marked increase in the number of research publications on China English, with a heated debate on what China English was and how to define it. The Chinese Renaissance period of Chinese English research was when Chinese scholars engaged in a wide range of research topics on Chinese English, from cultural movements of incorporating Chinese culture teaching into the ELT curriculum in China to the continuing momentum on researching Chinese English. The Open Door period of Chinese English research is currently characterised by the increasing awareness of Chinese English in terms of the expanding functionality of English, and the range and depth of the use

12 Introduction

Micro-​narrative 2:  Experiencing Chinese English I have experienced and witnessed the different stages of researching Chinese English. I started my interest in Chinese English research in 2000, having previously learned presumably British English in my secondary school and then American English at university for a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree, majoring in English education and Chinese–​English translation from 1970s to the late 1980s. I continued my studies for a Master of Arts (MA) degree in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics with a specialisation of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) between 1989 and 1992. Since the majority of my foreign teachers (or waijiao as we would call them) at the department where I did my BA and MA were from the United States, I had the perception that I acquired and used primarily American English rather than British English. During the eight years between 1992 and 2000, I was a university lecturer, teaching English to university students across different faculties, mostly aeronautical science and engineering. The teaching materials were largely American and British English oriented; however, local Chinese English materials, such as texts from China Daily (newspaper) and other English media in China, including broadcasts from Radio English on Sunday, China Radio International (formerly Radio Beijing) and China Central Television (CCTV), were also sparingly adopted and adapted for my classroom teaching. However, I didn’t become fully aware of varieties of English other than British English and American English until 2000, when I went abroad to Perth, Western Australia, where I was exposed to many different varieties of English, including Australian English, New Zealand English, Singaporean English, Malaysian English, Philippines English, and mixed varieties of European, African, and South and North American Englishes. Adequate exposure to and increasing familiarity with these varieties of English have aroused my interest in exploring my own “variety” of English, realising that apart from British English and American English, what I had really been learning, acquiring and using was indeed a mixture of different “Englishes”, with primarily Chinese English as a major component of the blend or “mix” of my own English.

of English in China and the Chinese diaspora overseas. Different approaches, e.g., eco-​linguistics, corpus linguistics, cultural linguistics, and metaphysical and philosophical approaches to researching Chinese English, have been suggested, and world Englishes theories have been systematically introduced to China, applied and critiqued by Chinese scholars. This book comes at a time when Chinese English is at a crossroads, in need of a direction for further development or in search of a locally appropriate

Introduction  13 model for unpacking its existence as a translanguaging practice, or perhaps non-​existence as a codified “variety” of English, in relation to the sociolinguistic and cultural pragmatic realities of Chinese English and Chinese users of English. There is no denying that Chinese English exists, and it has existed since the earliest contact(s) between Chinese and English speakers. However, whether Chinese English exists as a codified variety of English, or whether it should be perceived or accepted as such, can be an entirely different issue from an ongoing and evolving “practice” perspective. Canagarajah (2017, p. 7) argues that “we shouldn’t treat labelled languages as the starting point for the analysis of social and communicative practices” and suggests that “we should consider how diverse verbal resources (unrestricted by their labels) are taken up by people to establish meanings and negotiate relationships”. In this sense, Chinese English may not yet be identified or treated as a static linguistic entity but as a translanguaging practice among users of Chinese and English.

A metaphysical approach to Chinese English There have been ongoing developments over the past decades regarding world Englishes research, theory and practice. One of the developments is that world Englishes as a discipline is currently being metaphorically perceived as a “bridge half-​built” from a macro interdisciplinary perspective (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 127). Another development is that alongside half a century’s paradigm shift from a monolithic English to pluricentric world Englishes, the field of world Englishes appears to be moving beyond the Kachruvian Circles, metaphorically speaking, realising that the “paradigm gap” between world Englishes (WE) and mainstream second language acquisition (SLA) among millions of English learners and users needs to be bridged from both ends, and “it is a bridge only half built”. Building the rest of the bridge will involve making full use of all that the WE paradigm has brought to light about Second Language Acquisition and use: research on the dimensions of intelligibility, the nature of bilingual creativity, the much broader range of contexts and genres of second language use which serve as sources of data, the tension between local and global allegiances with respect to issues of economics, identity, power, prestige, and authenticity which make English such a rich, resonant, and controversial mode of communication around the world. (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 137) This book is an attempt and endeavour to build the other half of the bridge. To understand what Chinese English is and how Chinese learners and users of English engage in a translanguaging practice among themselves and other speakers of world Englishes, there needs to be a metaphysical approach, which is yet to be developed. The term metaphysics has an original meaning in Greek referring to something over or beyond physics. It is adopted primarily

14 Introduction to approach philosophical questions regarding the nature of being and becoming. Philosophical as it was, metaphysics has been applied to many fields of research dealing with explorations of social realities both individually and collectively, as it deals with the intricate relationships among human beings, i.e., our subjective mind and the objective reality. A metaphysical approach to Chinese English research, as proposed and applied throughout this book, is intended to explore issues surrounding the being and becoming of Chinese English in terms of what Chinese English is, who Chinese English speakers are, and how Chinese English is perceived and narrated by its speakers. To address such epistemically fundamental questions, I intend to explore issues in relation to the names and norms of Chinese English and the narratives of Chinese speakers of English. In particular, I intend to adopt a deconstructionist approach (Derrida, 1967, 1997) in order to develop a theoretical and analytical framework for understanding Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English. This framework draws upon relevant Chinese and Western philosophical concepts, including ti and yong, i.e., essence and utility, as well as habitus, field and capital, which I would call a pentagram framework, with the shape of a star pentagon. Specifically, this book applies the pentagram framework in order to decode the various names of Chinese English, including China English and Chinglish, and the naming practices of Chinese speakers of English. This book also challenges the traditional categorisation of norm-​providing, norm-​developing and norm-​dependent varieties of English, and proposes that Chinese English, as a translanguaging practice, is not only norm-​dependent but also norm-​developing and norm-​ providing in the context of world Englishes. In addition, this book examines and reconstructs the narratives of Chinese speakers of English in relation to their English learning and acquisition as an intra-​and international language, and their use of English for intra-​and intercultural communication. The pentagram framework proposed, constructed and applied throughout this book focuses on the use and users of Chinese English in both local and global contexts. Such a framework, at the stage of the book proposal, has been encouragingly as well as critically appraised by the three anonymous reviewers, seeing it as an “ambitious and intriguing” framework; a “key advantage” of the book, as it is a “distinctive feature” that sets itself apart from “previous publications related to this research field”; and commenting that the uniqueness of the book lies in its “novel theoretical framework for researching Chinese English on the basis of Chinese and Western philosophies”.

Structure of the book This book focuses on the fundamental issues of names and norms that are closely related to Chinese English as a translanguaging practice from a world Englishes perspective, and the narratives of the Chinese speakers of English. There are six major chapters, including this introductory chapter, and an epilogue. Chapter 1, as it were, introduces the background, in my first-​person

Introduction  15 narrative, of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English, and the structure of this book. Chapter 2 is Revisiting Chinese English, which consists of two sections, including an updated review of Chinese scholarship of researching Chinese English, and an ongoing review of how Chinese English has been mapped onto studies of world Englishes. Chapter 3 is Developing a framework for Chinese English, and it applies a deconstructionist approach so as to deconstruct a novel theoretical and analytical framework, i.e., the pentagram framework, for researching Chinese English, based on classical Chinese and Western philosophies, drawing upon metaphysical concepts including ti and yong (essence and utility) and habitus, capital and field. Chapter 4 is Decoding Chinese English names, and it elaborates on the naming dialogue and discourse on Chinese English, Chinglish and China English. It also reports on a survey and a number of interviews regarding whether Chinese speakers of English have or should have English names for intra-​and intercultural communication and their own naming practices. Chapter 5 is Unpacking Chinese English norms, and it explores socio-​pragmatic norms associated with Chinese speakers of English. It draws upon the nexus between cultural linguistics and world Englishes to analyse the discourse and pragmatic norms of Chinese English to challenge and critique the traditional distinctions among norm-​providing, norm-​developing and norm-​dependent varieties of English. This chapter explores, in particular, how Chinese speakers of English perceive and enact certain Chinese culturally constructed concepts which underlie their linguistic, cultural and behavioural norms, such as filial piety. Chapter 6 is Reconstructing Chinese English narratives, and it analyses individual and collective experiences, stories and anecdotes regarding Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English through exploring the narratives of a number of proficient Chinese speakers of English, in the sense that they use English in their personal and professional contexts, touching upon topics such as how they have learned or acquired English, how they perceive English, and what their experiences are as Chinese speakers of English. This book concludes with an Epilogue, showing an example of a social media exchange on the topic of the prefix of trans-​in relation to translanguaging practice among Chinese speakers of English, and extending the narratives of my own journey, as a Chinese English learner, user, researcher and sojourner over the past 30–​ 40 years across a few major cities, including my hometown Fushun and Beijing as well as Perth, Hong Kong and Melbourne. It also extends the Chinese “noetics” in English and looks forward to the future of Chinese English.

2 Revisiting Chinese English

In this chapter, I revisit relevant research literature on Chinese English. I regard this as a meta-​analysis of Chinese English research, in the sense that it is a broad review of relevant literature through which previously published studies on Chinese English are identified and reviewed, and relevant themes are synthesised and re-​analysed in order to summarise specific trends that may not be evident by reading individually published studies on Chinese English. In the first section, I summarise the extensive meta-​analysis review work (cf. Xu, 2017) that I have conducted in relation to Chinese English research published domestically in Chinese academic journals in China. In the second section, I review more recent publications regarding Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English. The purpose of this chapter is to map the current research of names, norms and narratives onto the extensive Chinese English research literature against the backdrop of the ongoing research and development of world Englishes.

Chinese research scholarship on Chinese English This section is primarily based on Xu’s (2017) meta-​analysis of Chinese scholarship on Chinese English research. The meta-​analysis involves 100 research articles on Chinese English, published between 1980 and 2013 domestically in Chinese academic journals in China. These articles were identified, selected and retrieved from the China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, aka China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Since scholarship on Chinese English published by Chinese scholars is primarily in Chinese, it can be a blind spot for researchers outside China and non-​Chinese readers. This meta-​analysis is therefore of significance in terms of showcasing how Chinese scholars perceive and research Chinese English, and what the emerging themes are regarding Chinese English research. Based on a close meta-​analysis of the distribution and topics of the 100 research articles on Chinese English mentioned in Micro-​narrative 3, I have proposed that there are certain patterns and distinct periods of researching Chinese English domestically in China. These periods are primarily marked by the number of research publications and key publications, among which Ge DOI: 10.4324/9781315209463-2

Revisiting Chinese English  17

Micro-​narrative 3:  Conducting a meta-​analysis of Chinese English At the time when I was thinking about proposing the edited volume Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art (Xu, He, & Deterding, 2017), I was very interested in conducting a comprehensive review of the research literature regarding Chinese English, China English, Chinese variety of English, and Chinglish. I also became aware that there was a database or infrastructure known as China National Knowledge Infrastructure (中国知网 CNKI). This is an integrated knowledge resources system, containing journals, dissertations, theses, proceedings, newspapers, (statistical) yearbooks and e-​books. After working out how to access the CNKI database through our university e-​library, I was like an excited and busy bee, collecting pollen from a garden of flowers. What I did was search for relevant research articles using keywords, including 中国英语 (Chinese English and/​or China English), 中国式英 语 (Chinglish) and 中国英语变体 (Chinese variety of English). Since there were so many seemingly relevant publications, I decided to identify, select and retrieve research articles also by citation rates, which CNKI provided on a dynamic basis. At the time when I retrieved the articles, the citation rate for each of the articles was five or above. After weeks of accessing CNKI, I set up an e-​folder containing 100 research articles on Chinese English published over a period of 33 years between 1980 and 2013. In the following months, I read, reviewed and conducted a meta-​analysis of the 100 articles published in Chinese journals and wrote a book chapter about Chinese scholarship on Chinese English research (Xu, 2017).

Chuangui (1980), Wang Rongpei (1991), Du Zhengming (1998), Jiang Yajun and Du Ruiqing (2003) and Jia Guanjie (2013) have been most frequently cited. The four distinct periods include 1980–​1997, 1998–​2001, 2002–​2012 and from 2013 onwards, with increasing numbers of articles published on Chinese English year by year, and I name them, respectively, Chinese Enlightenment, Great Leap Forward, Chinese Renaissance and the Open Door, alluding to a mix of contemporary and historical developments in China and the world. The Chinese Enlightenment period of developing Chinese English (1980–​ 1997) started with Ge Chuangui’s (1980) article regarding China English and Wang Rongpei’s (1991) article and his definition of China English. These seminal publications set a milestone and sparked the debate on whether China English existed, and what China English was. The Great Leap Forward period of developing Chinese English (1998–​2001) witnessed a marked increase in publications among the 100 selected research articles on China English, with a heated debate on what it was and how to define

18  Revisiting Chinese English it. One of the milestone publications was by Du Zhengming (1998). During this period, there were also meta-​analysis articles, e.g. Du Ruiqing and Jiang Yajun (2001). The Chinese Renaissance period of developing Chinese English (2002–​2012) was when Chinese scholars engaged in a wider range of research topics on Chinese English. One of the characteristics of this period was the continuing momentum on researching Chinese English among scholars and researchers, as well as frontline English language teachers and second-​ generation researchers of Chinese English, alongside cultural movements incorporating Chinese culture teaching into the ELT curriculum in China. The Open Door period of developing Chinese English (from 2013 onwards) has seen a greater awareness of not just Chinese English, but also world Englishes across academia and the Chinese community of English learners and users. During this period, a variety of approaches, e.g. eco-​linguistics, corpus linguistics, cultural linguistics, and philosophical approaches to researching Chinese English have been proposed and adopted, and world Englishes theories have been systematically introduced into China. The Open Door period symbolises Chinese English being increasingly recognised as a member of the world Englishes family. However, the general views on Chinese English vary to a large extent. Chinese academics and professionals whose work involves English, and the general public of English learners and users have vastly different, and oftentimes conflicting views on Chinese English, particularly regarding whether it exists and what it is, if it does exist. The meta-​analysis of the 100 articles on Chinese English reveals a wide range of themes, including: 1) whether Chinese English exists; 2) naming Chinese English; 3) defining Chinese English; 4) distinguishing between Chinese English and Chinglish; 5) the China English debate; 6) awareness of and attitudes towards Chinese English; 7) acceptability of Chinese English; 8) functions and significance of Chinese English; 9) features of Chinese English; 10) applications of Chinese English; 11) implications of Chinese English for ELT; 12) reviewing Chinese English research; 13) stages of researching Chinese English; 14) methods for researching Chinese English (Xu, 2017, pp. 239–​260). In terms of whether Chinese English exists, Chinese scholars vary in their views. Some researchers, e.g., Ge Chuangui (1980), Wang Rongpei (1991) and Li Wenzhong (1993), argue that it exists, whereas others argue that political and social conditions for the emergence of Chinese English do not exist or are not mature enough in China. The major justifications for the existence of Chinese English are as follows: there is an inevitable Chineseness in Chinese English with respect to phonology, lexicon and discourse; China English and Chinglish co-​exist; Chinese English has been developing its own norms and drawing its nutrients from Chinese politics, economy, society, culture and the Chinese language(s). Some major counter arguments include that English is not necessarily used for intranational communication by Chinese; there may not be sufficient socio-​political conditions for institutionalising English in China; there exists an interlanguage of the Chinese learners of English, but

Revisiting Chinese English  19 not Chinese English as a variety. The debate over whether China English as a nativised variety of English exists has lasted for around two decades, particularly around the turn of the 21st century; however, since the first decade of the century, whether Chinese English exists appears to have become less of an issue. Chinese scholars tend to agree that it exists, but how to name it and define it, and whether it benefits or hinders Chinese learners and users of English, have become issues yet to be resolved. Naming Chinese English, assuming it exists, is worth investigating, because there are alternative names proposed for it, depending on whether Chinese English is perceived as a legitimate variety of English or an interlanguage. Notably, the term China English, initiated by Ge Chuangui (1980) and reaffirmed by Wang Rongpei (1991), has been explicitly adopted in the Chinese English research literature. The meta-​analysis of the 100 articles shows that around 60% of the articles referred to Chinese English in the sense of a legitimate variety as China English; 13% as Chinglish associated with the notion of an interlanguage; 11% as Chinese English; 8% as 中国英语 (in Chinese, meaning both China English and Chinese English); and 2% as 中式英语 (in Chinese, meaning Chinese-​style English or Chinglish). Other less frequently used alternative names were Chinish, Sinicised English and Chinese-​coloured English. The main reason behind the proposal of China English is that the term Chinese English has been traditionally associated with Chinglish in the sense of an interlanguage, which has been negatively perceived with pejorative connotations, particularly among Chinese learners and users themselves. Du Zhengming (1998, p. 8) argues that we should go beyond the confusion of naming, be it Chinese English, Chinglish or Chinese variety of English, and that Chinese English, unlike Chinglish, is a “formally learned language” and by no means a new entity from a historical perspective. It can be noted that, as far as the meta-​analysed articles are concerned, researchers generally hold a positive view of the term China English, but some other researchers also suggest that Chinese English may be more appropriate in the long run. For example, Huang Jinqi (1991, p. 88) suggests that “we should be affirmative about China English, and we give it a straightforward name: Chinese English”. More discussions regarding the naming of Chinese English, including the anecdote described in Micro-​narrative 4, are included in Chapter 4. Defining Chinese English has remained an issue since Ge Chuangui (1980) raised the concept of China English. One of the first definitions was proposed by Wang Rongpei (1991, p. 1), who defined it as “the English used by the Chinese people in China, being based on standard English and having Chinese characteristics”. Over the years, the majority of Chinese English definitions tend to see Chinese English as a developing variety based on standard or normative English, and an English variety with Chinese characteristics featuring Chinese thinking and culture. Apart from defining what Chinese English is, researchers, e.g., Du Zhengming (1998, p. 11), also argue that Chinese English is not only “a linguistic entity but also a cultural enterprise”, so it is regarded as a language as well as a cultural phenomenon.

20  Revisiting Chinese English

Micro-​narrative 4:  A dinner conversation on Chinese English Talking about Chinese English names, I was fortunate enough to have managed an engaging dinner conversation with three of the pioneers of Chinese English research in May 2014, when I was teaching an Applied Linguistics course, namely, World Englishes, at our joint Master’s program between Southeast University of China and Monash University. The three researchers included Prof. Wang Rongpei, Prof. Jia Guanjie and Prof. Du Zhengming, who were all working at Suzhou University at the time. These were all renowned professors who belonged to the first-​generation researchers on Chinese English. There were also two students at the dinner, including Mr. Chen Shengli, who was Prof. Wang’s student, and Mr. Xue Junfeng, who was one of my Master’s students for the World Englishes course. If Mr. Chen and I were the second-​generation researchers of Chinese English, then Mr. Xue would be the third generation, and he has indeed been passionate about Chinese English research. One of our topics at the dinner was how to name Chinese English. Prof. Du said that researchers in the 1980s and 1990s were a little afraid of naming the Chinese variety of English “Chinese English”; however, he argued that it was normal to call it Chinese English, as China English would have sounded a little weird. Prof. Wang said that Chinese English, in its current sense, still sounded pejorative, so China English should be fine, as there was indeed a New Zealand English rather than New Zealander’s English. Prof. Jia agreed with Prof. Wang, saying that Chinese English was commonly perceived as Chinglish, and Chinglish was bad English. Towards the end of the conversation, all of us tended to agree that no matter how we were to name this Chinese variety of English, what mattered was how to define it and understand it.

In terms of the distinctions between China English and Chinglish, Li Wenzhong (1993, p. 80) points out that China English, mainly used as an international language in China, with Chinese borrowings, nativized lexicology as well as unique syntax and discourse structures as its major features, contributes much to the international communication. In contrast, Chinglish refers to the Sinicized English usually found in pronunciation, lexicology and syntax, due to the linguistic transfer or the arbitrary translation by the Chinese English learners, thus being regarded as an unaccepted form of English. However, not all scholars agree that China English and Chinglish are distinctively different. For example, Zhang Peicheng (1995, p. 20) argues that “China

Revisiting Chinese English  21 English and Chinglish are two representations of a single entity”. A similar view is that both China English and Chinglish share pragmatic principles that are deep-​rooted in the users of Chinese English. The China English debate started when Ge Chuangui (1980) raised this concept, and it was followed by an explicit definition of the concept by Wang Rongpei (1991) a decade later. Advocates of China English, for example, Li Wenzhong (1993), Jia Guanjie and Xiang Mingyou (1997), and Du Ruiqing and Jiang Yajun (2001), further developed the definitions of China English and argued that it exists and that it facilitates international communication. However, other scholars argued that the conditions for China English to develop into a variety of English do not exist, and that China English may hinder Chinese learners from learning standard English. The debate on China English became less heated when Chinese English research reached its third period, the Chinese Renaissance, of developing Chinese English, elaborated in the Introduction and earlier in this chapter, when researchers moved forward to explore features of Chinese English and the awareness and attitudes regarding Chinese English. Research on awareness and attitudes has always been topical in world Englishes studies. The meta-​analysis (Xu, 2017) shows that the increasing quantity and quality of Chinese English research literature, particularly during the Chinese Renaissance period of Chinese English research, indicate a rising awareness of Chinese English in academia. Regarding attitudes towards Chinese English, there are three major viewpoints, including optimistic and affirmative, cautious or contradictory, and doubtful or negative attitudes. Pan Zhangxian (2002, p. 26) suggests that “we should adopt open, tolerant and active attitudes towards China English research while in the meantime we should also be cautious”. To what extent Chinese English has become acceptable is also one of the themes of researching Chinese English. Researchers point out that acceptability of Chinese English depends on the type of communication, e.g., international or intranational, and the interlocutors. Some researchers argue that it is not a matter of acceptability but of the efficiency in conveying Chinese cultures and the self-​confidence of the users of Chinese English. Du Zhengming (1998, p. 12) argues from a sociolinguistics perspective that “the so-​called Chinese ‘interference’ precisely reflects Chinese linguistic and thought patterns and it is an integral part of Chinese culture. Therefore, it does not have much to do with whether Chinese English can be accepted or acknowledged or not”. In addition, there is also a view that whether Chinese English can be accepted depends on the users of Chinese English themselves, not necessarily speakers of other varieties of English. The majority of Chinese scholars view Chinese English positively and have identified the necessity, functions and significance of Chinese English. These include: Chinese English may complement traditional English when the latter becomes insufficient for the world to know China; Chinese English may also be used as a communicative strategy to express culturally constructed

22  Revisiting Chinese English

Micro-​narrative 5:  My evolving understanding of Chinese English My understanding of Chinese English has been evolving. Back in 2000, when I first left Beijing for Perth, English was either British English or American English, or a mix of both, to me. It was in Perth that I was more exposed to different varieties of English, including Australian English. I didn’t know the term “Englishes” back then. I started reading Kachru’s works, e.g., The Other Tongue (Kachru, 1982b), alongside a number of publications by other world Englishes scholars. I was thoroughly amazed. Influenced by this wide exposure and wide reading, I changed my attitude towards Chinese English and became more and more interested in Chinese English, not as a hybrid Chinglish, but as a “variety” of English with Chinese characteristics. As a result of a number of years of intensive research on world Englishes and Chinese English, I completed my doctoral study with a 300-​page dissertation entitled: Chinese English: What is it and is it to become a regional variety of English?

concepts, emotion, identity, relationships and ideology. In addition, as early as the 1990s, Jia Guanjie and Xiang Mingyou (1997, p. 12) pointed out that “China English has contributed to the English language itself in terms of enriching its lexis and increasing the scope of its influence”. One of the key themes of researching Chinese English up to the early 2010s has been identifying and analysing features of Chinese English. The meta-​ analysis of Chinese English (Xu, 2017) shows that features analysis has been largely focused on linguistic features, e.g., phonological features including segmental and suprasegmental features, with the view that it is the suprasegmental features, including intonation and stress, that reflect more on the phonological features of Chinese English. In addition, there are also lexical features and grammatical features, such as loanwords through transliteration and loan translation, and lexical semantic shift, including broadening or narrowing of meanings. Grammatical features focus on sentence structures, including word order, sentence ending particles, and tag questions. Although features analysis is considered one of the key themes, the meta-​analysis shows that not much research has gone beyond discourse and pragmatic levels of Chinese English. Another theme that emerges in the meta-​analysis (Xu, 2017) concerns the applications of Chinese English. Limited as it has been, the research on Chinese English has explored the various applications of Chinese English in and surrounding Chinese societies. These include the use of English in the media, for cross-​cultural communication, and for constructing Chinese identity. News media websites in English have become more common in China for disseminating Chinese news for both domestic and international consumption.

Revisiting Chinese English  23

Micro-​narrative 6:  Conducting my doctoral research on Chinese English My doctoral research between 2003 and 2006 at Curtin University of Technology in Perth focused primarily on the linguistic features of Chinese English. I collected empirical data, including semi-​structured interviews with Chinese users of English, questionnaire surveys, Chinese English newspaper articles, and short stories written by Chinese in English, and compiled them into a corpus. I then analysed the corpus data qualitatively and quantitatively at the levels of lexis, syntax, discourse and pragmatics. The two thesis examiners commented highly on my doctoral work, e.g., “this work has consolidated the foundations of English as a multicultural language by specifying a selected set of lexical, syntactic, and pragmatic features of Chinese English”, “the thesis has explored important issues involved in Chinese English, thereby making an original and significant contribution to the sociolinguistics of the internationalization and diversification of contemporary English” (by examiner 1); “a thoroughly and rigorously researched piece of work”, “the lexical features, syntactic features, and discourse features of ‘Chinese English’ are empirically-​based”, and by examiner 2: each of the three chapters on the linguistic analysis of Chinese English includes new and innovative research on this variety of English. In particular, the chapter dealing with the syntax of Chinese English … goes far beyond earlier work on this topic in its range and scope. I reworked this thesis in the following years after I completed my doctoral studies and had it published in 2010 as a book entitled Chinese English: Features and Implications (Xu, 2010b).

Regarding the relationship between Chinese English and cultural identity, it has been argued that Chinese cultural identity hidden behind Chinese English shows the inevitability of Chinese English. Potential areas of application of Chinese English include bilingual education, English medium of instruction at schools, business and trade, literary studies and law. One of the most explored areas in Chinese English research is the extent to which Chinese English has implications for English language teaching and learning in China. These include: 1) Chinese English should be brought into the ELT classroom in China; 2) Chinese English should be incorporated into the model(s) for ELT in China; 3) Chinese culture teaching alongside Chinese English teaching is important in the ELT classroom; 4) There are pedagogical implications of researching Chinese English. Chinese scholars have suggested

24  Revisiting Chinese English that ELT should be connected with the social realities so that teachers and learners are able to express in English their immediate needs and wants in the local environment. The meta-​analysis of 100 articles on Chinese English (Xu, 2017) also contains review articles regarding the development and research of Chinese English. One of the earliest comprehensive reviews was by Du Ruiqing and Jiang Yajun (2001), suggesting that since the 1980s, research on Chinese English has moved beyond error analysis and contrastive analysis, which have laid a solid foundation for Chinese English research. Du Ruiqing and Jiang Yajun (2001) have briefly reviewed research of Chinese English at the levels of phonology, lexis and discourse, and they call for further research on different levels of Chinese English. Towards the end of the 2010s, scholars, e.g., Chen Xiaoyan (2009), Han Ling (2007) and Hu Xiaoli (2008), summarised Chinese English research and categorised it into different areas. These areas include Chinese English as an English variety; the nature of Chinese English, e.g., defining and contextualising Chinese English; how China English and Chinese English are distinguished from Chinglish and interlanguage; why Chinese English exists, what it is, and where the norms of Chinese English come from; the linguistic features of Chinese English, including phonological, lexical, syntactic, discourse and stylistic features in terms of forms of expression and Chinese culture; the functions of Chinese English, including Chinese English for intranational and international communication, and Chinese English as a means of getting external information, circulating internal information, serving its social functions, being a carrier for Chinese culture, filling the gaps between Chinese and Western cultures, and serving its pragmatic functions; the status of Chinese English, including whether it is a performance variety or an institutionalised variety, its status among other varieties of English, its acceptability and comprehensibility, and its identification by learners and users; the awareness and attitudes of Chinese towards Chinese English; and the relationships between Chinese English and cross-​cultural communication, Chinese–​English translation and ELT in China. In terms of the stages of Chinese English research over the past decades since the early 1980s, Chinese scholars have slightly different views. Li Wenzhong (2006, pp. 132–​133) proposes that Chinese English research has undertaken three major stages, including: 1) rejection and complete denial, mixing China English with Chinglish and Chinese Pidgin English; 2) defining and categorisation, from early 1990s, emphasising that a. China English exists; b. China English is a variety of English; c. China English research has a theoretical and practical significance for ELT in China; 3) quantitative and case studies on China English. Using data mining technology and meta-​analysis, Han Ling (2007, pp. 29–​ 30) and He Daqian (2009, p. 111) have summarised the stages of China English

Revisiting Chinese English  25 research, and their findings are similar. There were three periods, including the initial research period, 1965–​1991, in which no definitive descriptions of China English were available yet; and a number of different terms, e.g., China English, Chinese-​coloured English, Sinicized English and Chinglish, were used to describe the linguistic phenomenon; and research was focused on the deviations of Chinglish from traditional English. The second period, 1992–​ 2001, constitutes vigorous debates, centring around whether China English exists; definitions of China English; and preliminary research on the phonology, lexis and discourse of China English, and the influence of China English. The third period, from 2002 onwards, features a drastic increase in the number of research articles on Chinese English, with major areas including Chinese English as a variety of English; Chinese English and intercultural communication; Chinese English and translation studies; mother tongue transfer and cognitive research; and implications for ELT research. It can be noted that these stages might have followed different criteria, and they do not necessarily coincide with the periods that my own meta-​analysis (Xu, 2017) has revealed; however, what the stages or periods show is that Chinese English research has been gaining momentum and has raised people’s awareness of how Chinese speakers of English learn and use English in both local and global contexts. One of the last, but certainly not least, themes that emerge from the meta-​ analysis (Xu, 2017) is regarding issues and challenges of Chinese English research, and methods for researching Chinese English. Hu Xiaoli (2008, pp. 29–​30) lists some of the main issues with researching Chinese English, including: 1) concepts lack common grounds, and relevant theories are weak; 2) research methods are not clear, e.g., should Chinese English research be prescriptive or descriptive? What are the criteria for Chinese English? How to address the imbalance between vast macro descriptions and limited micro analyses and in-​depth case studies?; 3) insufficient empirical studies; and 4) imbalance in research areas. In addition, Hu Xiaoli (2008, pp. 29–​30) has also summarised a number of challenges that Chinese English research has been faced with, including 1) theoretical exploration and construction; 2) strengthening China English research and building China English corpora; 3) cross-​disciplinary research and application of China English, including linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, translation studies, cognitive linguistics, corpus linguistics and computational linguistics; 4) cross-​cultural studies of China English, including the Chinese mainland, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, and adopting diachronic and synchronic approaches; 5) attitudinal studies on China English; and 6) strengthening the introduction of world Englishes studies into China. In terms of the methods for researching Chinese English, Pan Zhangxian (2002, p. 25) proposes that Chinese English research should encompass sociolinguistics, cross-​cultural communication, pragmatics, stylistics and translation studies. She proposes two dimensions for researching Chinese English, i.e., “diachronic dimension, looking into the historical development

26  Revisiting Chinese English of China English and the evolution of its features; and synchronic dimension, making informed comparative studies between China English and other varieties of English”. In addition, a number of specific approaches to researching Chinese English have been adopted by Chinese scholars. These include large-​scale survey studies, corpus studies, eco-​linguistics and philosophical approaches. Chinese scholars seem to have been searching for relevant theoretic and analytical frameworks for researching Chinese English. Apart from mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative analyses involving questionnaire surveys, interviews and corpus-​based studies, it is worth noting that some innovative perspectives and approaches have been considered. For example, Liu Guobing (2009, pp. 6–​7) has attempted to “put the research of English varieties especially the research of China English into a new research framework and to find some similarities between the developmental environment of China English and the environment of biological species”. Specifically, this eco-​linguistics or ecology of language approach compares relevant concepts, such as biological community and language community, and explores bio-​mutualism and language contact, as well as language variation and “survival of the fittest”, in relation to language change and varieties. A less developed and adopted approach is the philosophical approach to researching Chinese English. Citing the German philosopher Humboldt in arguing that language variation does not lie in pronunciation, but in the variation of worldviews, Fu Ning (2007) has explored the inevitability and rationality of the existence of Chinese English, and he defines Chinese English as English expressions that are influenced by Chinese thinking. This meta-​ analysis of 100 research articles (Xu, 2017) indicates that although research on Chinese English has undergone different stages and has been extensive in its scope, there may still exist issues and gaps that need addressing and bridging through a series of in-​depth research. What has been sought after in this expanding area of research, and similarly in the broader context of world Englishes research, is the quest for relevant theoretical and analytical frameworks to unpack the complexities of world Englishes in various local and global contexts. These frameworks can be conceptual or even philosophical due to the ontological nature of being and becoming of world Englishes, particularly those varieties that are under scrutiny regarding their existence and legitimacy. In this context, throughout this book, I endeavour to propose a conceptual framework drawing upon applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and cultural linguistics, as well as anthropology, sociology, philosophy and narrative inquiry. I intend to approach Chinese English throughout this book to a lesser extent as a variety per se, but primarily as a translanguaging practice of bilingual or multilingual speakers of Chinese and English in relation to the dynamics of naming practices, linguistic and cultural norm development, and narratives transcending time and space involving Chinese speakers of English.

Revisiting Chinese English  27

Ongoing meta-​analysis of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English I have summarised the meta-​analysis of Chinese English research (Xu, 2017) over a period of more than three decades since 1980 in the preceding section. In this section, I engage in an ongoing meta-​analysis of more recent research regarding Chinese English as well as issues surrounding names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English, particularly those publications in a broader context both in China and worldwide. The first decade of the 21st century has witnessed a “growing number of publications as well as the burgeoning academic interest in studies on English in China” (Bolton, Botha, & Zhang, 2015). There are a number of reasons for this. First,

Micro-​narrative 7:  Revisiting and re-​searching Chinese English research As I did for the meta-​analysis of Chinese English research using the CNKI database a few years ago, I have recently conducted a number of keyword search operations through our extensive Monash University library e-​ databases; the keywords include Chinese English, China English and Chinese speakers of English, with additional keywords such as world Englishes, names, norms and narratives. It is not surprising that I have uncovered a large number of relevant, interesting and up-​to-​date publications regarding Chinese English research in relation to Chinese speakers of English and their English naming practices, norms and narratives associated with their English learning and practice. I have also discovered that the current Chinese English research, in comparison with the meta-​analysis I conducted a few years ago, has become even more subtly layered and multi-​dimensional, with a broader range of issues and topics, e.g., reviews of Chinese English: past and present; the naming of Chinese English, be it China English, Chinglish or Chinese English; survey-​based research on the use of English in China and the Chinese users of English; corpus-​based Chinese English dictionary research; Chinese learners of English for intra-​and intercultural communication; perceptions and attitudes of Chinese speakers of English regarding world Englishes; strategies and pragmatics of Chinese speakers of English; Chinese English media-​sphere and discourse; the use of English among Chinese netizens; and the imaginary function of Chinese English in relation to creative writing in English by Chinese. I have also discovered that there are publications with a special focus on the English naming practices of Chinese speakers of English, and norm considerations and narrative inquiry research regarding Chinese speakers of English.

28  Revisiting Chinese English the number of Chinese speakers of English is increasing both in China and overseas; second, China is gaining more international status in its political, economic and cultural development; and third, world Englishes research has taken roots not only in Chinese academia but also more generally among Chinese speakers of English as they become more exposed to different world Englishes apart from British English and American English. In this section, I first review Chinese English research more generally, followed by a review of research more specifically on issues surrounding names, norms and narratives regarding Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English. As narrated in Micro-​narrative 7, recent literature of Chinese English has become more subtly layered and multi-​dimensional, so I have selected, identified and categorised the relevant research publications into 1) overview of Chinese English research; 2) the naming of Chinese English; 3) survey-​based research on the use of English in China and the Chinese users of English; 4) corpus-​based Chinese English dictionary research; 5) Chinese learners of English for intra-​and intercultural communication; 6) perceptions and attitudes of Chinese speakers of English regarding world Englishes and Chinese English; 7) strategies and pragmatics of Chinese speakers of English; 8) cultural linguistics approach to Chinese English research; 9) Chinese English media-​sphere and discourse; 10) the use of English among Chinese netizens; 11) the playfulness function of new Chinglish; and 12) the imaginary function of Chinese English in relation to creative writing in English by Chinese. In addition, I review a number of publications in relation to the English naming practices of Chinese speakers of English, and the norm and narrative inquiry research regarding Chinese speakers of English. As far as the overview of Chinese English research is concerned, Bolton, Botha, and Zhang (2015) have provided a contemporary bibliography of “English in China”, which focused on major works on English in China research published internationally and in core journals from China during the first one and half decades of the 21st century. Their bibliography contains lists of relevant Chinese English research publications in the following categories: books (33); scholarly theses (11); applied language studies (18); corpus linguistics (9); cultural studies, literary criticism and translation (15); discourse analysis and pragmatics (20); educational issues (34); features and varieties of English (23); sociolinguistic perspectives (40); selected works in English by Chinese writers (including 39 by émigré writers, 26 translated Chinese writers and 1 creative writer in China writing in English), and bibliographies of English in China (3). The numbers in brackets indicate the number of publications in the named categories. There are three observations regarding the contemporary bibliography: 1) there is an increasing interest in Chinese English research both in China and internationally; 2) publications regarding educational issues and sociolinguistic perspectives are on the rise; and 3) there are increasing numbers of Chinese émigré writers and works by Chinese writers translated into English. This contemporary bibliography stands in contrast to the preliminary bibliography published over a

Revisiting Chinese English  29 decade earlier by Adamson, Bolton, Lam, and Tong (2002) in terms of the categories and the numbers of publications by category. In the 2002 preliminary bibliography, the categories and numbers of publications within each category are: books and scholarly theses (13); Chinese Pidgin English (13); educational issues (24); historical perspectives (38); pragmatics and discourse analysis (11); works in English by Chinese writers (44); and cultural studies, literary criticism and translation (33). It is worth noting that the categories in the contemporary bibliography are more multi-​dimensional and layered, e.g., there are applied language studies, corpus linguistics, features and varieties of English, and sociolinguistic perspectives. In the category of works in English by Chinese writers, there are works by émigré writers, works of translated Chinese writers, and works by Chinese creative writers resident in China writing in English. These two bibliographies were published respectively in two milestone special issues of the World Englishes journal on English in China in 2002 and 2015, namely English in China: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and English in Contemporary China. In the preliminary bibliography, Adamson et al. (2002, p. 349) pointed out the “fissiparous nature” of English studies in China, and they acknowledged that “English as an academic enterprise in the China context has a wide range of applications and connotations, cultural, educational, historical, linguistic, and literary”. In the contemporary bibliography, Bolton et al. (2015, pp. 282–​283) have offered “a greater range of topic areas” including applied language studies, sociolinguistic perspectives, and features and varieties of English, and they have included “major book-​length works that provide academic treatment of central (and contemporary) aspects of world Englishes in China”. In the features and varieties of English category, they have listed publications that deal with “the ‘features’ of Chinese Englishes (or ‘China English’), as well as attendant debates regarding the status and functions of Chinese varieties of English”. It is interesting to note the terms they have used for labelling Chinese English, which include Chinese Englishes, China English and Chinese varieties of English. In terms of the overview of contemporary Chinese English research, Bolton and Botha (2015b) have reviewed researching English in contemporary China. They point out that in many respects, China is a classic Expanding Circle society, where English has long had the status of a foreign language, although the effects of globalisation, including increased migration and travel and access to the Internet and international media have also had an impact, and they argue that “[t]‌he role of English in Chinese society today cannot be considered in isolation from the sociolinguistic background, as well as the social and political context of contemporary society” (Bolton & Botha, 2015b, p. 169). Bolton and Botha (2015b, p. 169) suggest that with reference to the spread of English, “a key issue is the relationship between the learning of

30  Revisiting Chinese English English and the actual use of the language”. This implies that there has been a current shift of focus in world Englishes and Chinese English research from varieties per se to the actual users and use of the named varieties of world Englishes. With reference to the contemporary history of English in China, Bolton and Botha (2015b, p. 172) argue that “the spread of English in Chinese society is not simply a matter of commercial and economic utility, but is also an issue of continuing ideological and political concern”. This will be further discussed in Chapter 3 regarding the pentagram framework, where ti (i.e., essence) and yong (i.e., application, function or utility) are incorporated. Bolton and Botha (2015a, p. 190) have also reviewed English in China’s universities from historical and contemporary perspectives, pointing out that “the learning of English has a long and partly forgotten history, not least at the level of higher education” and that “English has an increasing presence in university education, both in the classroom and in the personal lives of Chinese university students”. Their review shows that Chinese university students “considered the English language to be an indispensable part of their lives and education” and that they viewed the importance of English in terms of internationalising their universities and the students themselves (Bolton & Botha 2015a, pp. 205–​206). One of the major motivations for the learning of English by Chinese students is “the desire of many young people to study overseas, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level” (Bolton & Botha 2015a, p. 207), and this has been evidenced in the narratives of the current book participants in Chapter 6. Given that in the digital worlds Chinese university students currently sample “a wide range of media through the Internet, including books, computer games, movies, social media, and Western TV series”, and that “the physical and virtual worlds of these students influence one another in surprising and unpredictable ways”, Bolton and Botha (2015a, pp. 207–​208) call for “more empirical field-​based research on the current impact of English, and a more detailed, finer-​grained body of sociolinguistic research in this area”. Regarding the challenges and future directions for world Englishes and China English of the new 21st century, Gao and Xu (2015) have summarised Chinese English (with CE as an acronym) research into three major phases, i.e., “CE emerged in the 1980s and has undergone three major phases –​conceptual debate (1980s and 1990s), empirical description (2000s), and functional exploration (2010 onwards)” (Gao & Xu, 2015, p. 129). They argue that CE “faces an interestingly difficult situation –​being burdened with the heavy task of Chinese cultural exportation on the one hand, but insufficient in conceptual scrutiny, empirical support, and attitudinal support” (Gao & Xu, 2015, p. 129). They are aware of the naming issues, and point out that international scholars commonly use Chinese English to refer to Chinese variety of English, which is commonly referred to by domestic Chinese scholars as China English. They have also pointed out that the theoretical research on CE has not been relatively active compared with linguistic and cultural research

Revisiting Chinese English  31 studies of Chinese English, and their suggestions for future research regarding China English include: 1) exploring the function of CE for cultural exportation and to avoid overloading of cultural identity with CE; 2) strengthening the features analysis at different levels of CE; 3) exploring implications of CE for ELT in China; and 4) raising awareness of WE among CE users (Gao & Xu, 2015, pp. 125–​126). Chinese English research has been a field of contestation since China English was raised and variously defined from the late 1970s onwards. Proshina (2019, p. 233) points out that while the Inner and Outer Circle varieties of English are recognised more generally by linguists and educationists worldwide, the status of any Expanding Circle English is still a “thorny subject of incessant metalinguistic and sociolinguistic discussions”. This ongoing contestation or “thorny subject” in China has been commonly referred to as the China English debate, as people take different perspectives to view what is known as Chinese English and/​or China English. For example, although C. Li (2008, p. 55) admits that “at the moment, the advocates of China English seem to be winning, as their position caters to Chinese patriotic feelings, e.g., we can do anything, including nativizing a foreign language, and their opponents have failed to present solid proof ”, as an opponent himself, C. Li (2008, p. 55) argues that “China English is totally self-​proclaimed, neither meeting international standards nor acknowledged by native-​speaking experts of English, and that the supporters have ignored the sociolinguistic history of the language”. His various opinions regarding the facts, fantasies and fallacies are indeed mixed with misinterpreted “facts” as well as a number of fantasies and fallacies. C. Li’s (2008) article appears to be a denial of the fact that Chinese English has been a reality not only among millions of Chinese learners and proficient users of English, but also among world Englishes researchers and practitioners worldwide. In C. Li’s (2008, p. 67) article, “Standard English”, by which C. Li means “British or American English”, has been explicitly fantasized, e.g., “when speaking to people from the Inner Circle, Standard English is a more useful means of communication” and “China English, just like any other Englishes in Asia, cannot serve as a regional medium of communication as effectively as Standard English, the alien form”. In addition, “native speakers of English” are idolised, e.g., C. Li (2008, p. 70) suggests that “we shall start by inviting millions of native speakers of English to settle in our cities, so that they can form authentic English centers for and interact with the much larger surrounding Chinese communities”. One of the fallacies that appears in C. Li’s (2008, p. 58) article is that he seems to restrict English for intranational communication to Chinese people “talking in English” to one another, e.g., “English plays little interpersonal role in Chinese society; it is not a means of intranational communication” and “if two Chinese are talking in English, chances are that they are practicing their spoken English”. This is a fallacy, because such a restricted understanding of English for intranational communication tends to overlook the broader

32  Revisiting Chinese English understanding of the vast media and social media consumption of English in creative ways among bilingual Chinese speakers of English in various intranational contexts for a wide range of functions (Xu & Zhang, 2020). This current book is a response to the call for “more empirical field-​based research” (Bolton & Botha, 2015a, p. 208) in that it focuses on authentic Chinese speakers of English and their reflections and narratives on their use of English. In addition, Xu, He, & Deterding (2017) have edited a volume on Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art, where they have involved a number of researchers around the world to contribute to the ongoing discussion of Chinese English in relation to its status, issues and trends. This edited volume covers different aspects of researching Chinese English, from Chinese English phonology to Chinese English lexis, grammar and pragmatics, and from perceptions, attitudes and reactions towards Chinese English to cultural conceptualisations and identities of Chinese speakers of English. In addition, there is a preface on English in China and the Continuing Story of Chinese Englishes by Bolton (2017), in which Bolton (2017, pp. vi–​vii) suggests that apart from the domain of education, there are other domains that deserve empirical research where English has an evident and wide currency in China, including “the business community in China”, “tourism” and “media”. The current book has involved narratives from participants of a wide range of domains, including academia, business and media. Bolton (2017, p. vii) also suggests that there is a “real need for much more research on the sociolinguistics of English in China from both a macro-​and micro-​ perspective” in the sense of case studies in particular sectors such as business in relation to international trade, commerce and tourism, and detailed studies of the impact of English in the lives of Chinese speakers of English who have achieved “rather high levels of language proficiency”. It can be noted that this current book aims to address such a “real need” by involving a number of proficient Chinese users of English across domains and contexts. In the edited volume (Xu, He, & Deterding, 2017), there is a chapter on the Future Directions for Researching Chinese English by Kirkpatrick (2017), where he acknowledges the importance of corpus-​based codification work regarding Chinese English features; however, he offers “a word of caution about over-​emphasising the importance of codification” (p. 277). He points out that codification is, by definition, an exclusive activity and we would not want innovation and multilingual creativity curtailed in the name of codification. On the contrary, one of the delights associated with the study of developing varieties of English is to see the creative and dynamic ways in which the new variety is being reshaped and adapted to suit the needs of its speakers. (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 277) In light of this, this current book takes a step beyond codification-​oriented features of Chinese English research to look at the authentic voice and

Revisiting Chinese English  33 narratives of Chinese speakers of English in various contexts. In addition, Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 278) calls for more research into “who is using Chinese English with whom, when and why” and “further research to investigate the breadth and depth of Chinese English use across China”. Specifically, Kirkpatrick points out that the domains where further research is needed may include the use of Chinese English among the domestic diaspora, the use of Chinese English in professional organisations, in literature and the arts and in computer-​ mediated communication, not only by the creative and critical user of Chinese English but also its use in government-​run microblogs. This combination of the study of the linguistic and cultural features of Chinese English along with further sociolinguistic research into the functions and roles of Chinese English will help us give a greater perspective on the development of Chinese English as a whole. (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 278) “The most important question for Chinese English researchers to investigate in the future”, according to Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 278), is the extent to which Chinese English is, in addition to fulfilling an instrumental function of practical use or yong, is also providing Chinese English speakers with some ti or essence as an integral part of their developing identity as multilinguals. This is precisely what the current book is attempting to explore, i.e., how the practical use or yong (utility) of English interacts with the ti or essence of Chinese speakers of English as an integral part of their developing identity alongside a number of other underlying notions including habitus, field and capital, which will be extensively discussed in Chapter 3. In terms of the naming of Chinese English, a series of names has been put forward by scholars, e.g., China English, Sinicized English and Chinese Englishes. In my article published in 2006, Rectifying “Chinese English” (Xu, 2006), I regarded Chinese English as “an evolving concept” (p. 283), and I critically reviewed relevant names and definitions of Chinese English, proposing my own definition of Chinese English, as follows: Chinese English, in the sense of China English throughout the literature, is a developing variety of English, which is subject to ongoing codification and normalization processes. It is based largely on the two major varieties of English, namely British and American English. It is characterised by the transfer of Chinese linguistic and cultural norms at varying levels of language, and it is used primarily by Chinese for intra and international communication. (Xu, 2006, p. 287)

34  Revisiting Chinese English I shall discuss the naming of Chinese English in more detail in Chapter 4. I notice that while I was rectifying Chinese English, a number of Chinese scholars have also been arguing that China English is a variety of English. One of the scholars is Hu Xiaoqiong, who had two articles published in the journal English Today (Hu, 2004, 2005), arguing why China English should stand alongside British, American and the other world Englishes. Hu (2005, p. 27) makes a case for the English of China as a major new variety of English, and she argues that “China English is on its way to becoming another world variety, which will happen when it has been adequately described, codified and officially recognized” and that “norms have to be established that will ensure communication in respect of pronunciation, grammar, syntax and lexis” (Hu, p. 36). Around four decades after the term China English was initially proposed, Y. Li (2019) has reviewed the China English movement through the Kachruvian lens. He acknowledges that “the demarcation between ‘China’ and ‘Chinese’, it is argued, is necessary if English as used by Chinese speakers is to gain recognition as something other than ‘bad’ English” (p. 3). Li (2019) points out the rationale behind the term China English: the China English movement’s conceptualizations of China English as its endeavor to introduce China English as the replacement (both in label and definition) of Chinese English and other frequently used terminologies are a reaction to long term linguistic stigmatization brought about by the old terms. (Li, 2019, p. 10) However, Li (2019) contends that “arguments in favour of a new term ‘China English’, have more to do with renaming and rebranding and less with providing new insights into the nature of this English” (p. 3) and that “the problematic mindset of viewing institutionalized varieties as more prestigious than performance varieties is implied in the China English movement” (Li, 2019, pp. 10–​11). He therefore suggests that the appropriate term for the Chinese variety of English is “Chinese English” due to the following: its consistency with the sociolinguistic realities as outlined in the Kachruvian approach; its status as a performance variety with restricted functional allocation; its unique features that display the Chineseness that results from the nativization of English in the broader Chinese sociocultural context; and its further decomposition into sub-​varieties determined by the range and depth of nativization for distinct groups of users and uses under the broader umbrella term Chinese English. (Li, 2019, p. 3) One of the section titles of Li’s (2019, p. 7) article is Restoration of Chinese English, which in a way echoes the title of my own 2006 article, i.e., Rectifying “Chinese English”. Li (2019, pp. 7–​8) proposes that

Revisiting Chinese English  35 the conceptualization of a Chinese English variety should return to the trajectory described within the Kachruvian paradigm for better capturing the sociolinguistic realities of English in China. And the appropriate terminology for the Chinese variety of English would be Chinese English. Given the complex contexts and use of English in China, Li (2019, pp. 9–​ 10) views Chinese English as an “array of Chinese Englishes”, where Chinese English constitutes an “educated variety on the cline of bilingualism”, including China English, in the Chinese context. Regarding survey-​based research on the use of English in China and the Chinese users of English, Wei and Su’s (2015) research findings were based on large-​scale surveys, e.g., the Survey of Language Situation in China, involving 475,000 respondents, concerning their use of English; English reading proficiency; English spoken proficiency, and attitudes towards foreign language-​ medium instruction at primary and secondary schools, with special reference to seven major cities, including Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chongqing and Dalian. Wei and Su’s (2015, p. 179) findings show that, regarding the use of English, “[t]‌he frequency of the use of English fell between ‘seldom’ and ‘sometimes’, leaning towards the ‘seldom’ end” and that “a low frequency of English language use can be largely attributed to the fact that English has no official status in mainland China”. Wei and Su (2015, p. 185) also point out that survey-​based research from the “world’s most populous country with over 390 million learners (users) of English contributes to research of China English and other topics in the paradigm of world Englishes”. He Deyuan’s (2017) survey-​based project on the use of English in the professional world in China involved 2505 participants working at different levels in various industries in China. His research findings show that “English plays an important role in about a quarter of the participants’ working lives and that the majority of the participants recognize the high importance of English” (He, 2017, p. 571). He points out that “an increasingly large population in China are using English in their daily lives, with localized linguistic features, hence a new variety of English is on its way” (He, 2017, p. 572). He’s (2017, pp. 582–​583) major research findings regarding Chinese professional users of English include: 1) the commonly perceived importance of English by Chinese people has led to the “continuing booming and promotion of learning and using English in China”; 2) “English is not only being learned but also used in many domains in China, to name a few, business and trade, hotel and tourism, research and development, and media and communication”; and 3) “China has a great shortage of professionals who are proficient in English, especially in the fields like finance, trade, engineering, chemical industry, information technology, international laws, media and communication, and tourism”. He’s (2017, p. 584) findings also suggest that there will be a long way to go before China English develops into a “well-​codified, well-​promoted, and well-​ accepted variety”. He (2017, p. 572) has also noted that “one of the criticisms

36  Revisiting Chinese English (or doubts) associated with China English is that voices from the actual users of English in everyday occasions (as in the professional world) have seldom been reported”. This is true to a large extent, so in this current book I focus on the “voices” from authentic Chinese users of English in everyday occasions in the form of their narratives and opinions on the naming practices and norms associated with Chinese speakers of English. As far as corpus-​based Chinese English dictionary research is concerned, Xia, Xiao, Zhang, and Nesi (2016, p. 416) report that several corpora of China English have been or are being built; these will help us to identify the established linguistic features of this variety, and should greatly facilitate the compilation of an English dictionary for Chinese learners of English who operate in Chinese cultural contexts and need to refer to China-​specific concepts and phenomena. They also point out that “the existing EFL dictionaries for Chinese learners of English are Anglo-​American centered no matter whether they are made in China or abroad” (Xia, Xiao, Zhang & Nesi, 2016, p. 432). Regarding EFL dictionaries for Chinese learners of English, they suggest that it is advisable to include and describe words and use of China English in order to meet users’ needs. It is generally acknowledged that English in China has distinctive linguistic and cultural features. The description of these in the dictionary can help its users adequately express ideas specific to Chinese culture. (Xia et al., 2016, p. 433) Current scholarly literature has shown that researching Chinese learners of English has reached a new level in the last two decades, moving beyond the previous second language acquisition (SLA) approach and the features of interlanguage and fossilisation from the perspectives of error analysis and contrastive analysis. There are many interesting articles regarding Chinese learners of English, including case studies, narrative inquiries and Chinese learners as community research, among which three articles are reviewed here: Gao Xuesong’s case study (Gao, 2012) of a Chinese English teaching celebrity exploring how the study of English in China can be branded as a “patriotic enterprise”; Y.-​h. Gao’s “shift in English learners’ identity prototypes” (Gao, 2014); and Fang and Baker’s “intercultural citizenship and English as a lingua franca” perspectives of English language teaching and study abroad in China (Fang & Baker, 2018). Gao Xuesong (2012, p. 351) reports on “an interpretive inquiry into a mainland Chinese learner’s construction of his success in learning English”. This particular learner’s Chinese name is Li Yang.

Revisiting Chinese English  37 Li Yang will probably be remembered by thousands as the successful English learner who publicly associated the learning of English with love for the country and promoted the learning of English as a patriotic obligation for Chinese citizens. His patriotic rhetoric about learning English falls nicely within the boundaries of the ideological realm endorsed by the political establishment in the nation’s efforts to modernize and revitalize itself through deepening exchanges with the West. (Gao, 2012, p. 361) In this sense, the successful learner capitalises on the social capital in relation to the specific field of learning English in the 1980s and 1990s in China. Li Yang’s construction of himself as a successful language learner reflects his efforts to “traditionalize the modern pursuit of learning English and modernize the traditional aspect of learning the language within an ideological space endorsed by the political establishment on the Chinese mainland” (Gao, 2012, pp. 356–​357). The practice of traditionalising the modern and modernising the traditional is highly related to the concepts of field and capital in a cultural context where, according to Gao (2012, p. 351), governments actively promote English in many contexts, regardless of the ambivalent attitudes they may have towards it because of the crucial role that it plays in sustaining global exchange of ideas, people, capital and commodities. Yet, research has also documented various ways in which individuals in many contexts are empowered by their English competence and see the language as an integral part of their identity. Regarding the habitus of Chinese learners of English and their identity construction, Gao’s (2012, p. 353) case study of Li Yang shows that studies of Chinese learners of English have revealed that the learning of English does not negatively impact their Chinese identities and, on the contrary, their findings suggest that they are likely to get both their Chinese and English speaker identities reinforced in the process. Li Yang’s case study also shows the intricate relationship between utility (yong) and essence (ti) in the form of the “small” self and the “great” self of Chinese English learners in the sense that to modernise the nation against all odds, the Chinese intellectual elite theorized Chinese individuals as having two selves: the small self, centered on personal interest, and the great self, based on the interest of the nation. They commend individuals to sacrifice their ‘small’ selves for the sake of advancing the ‘great’ self and conceptualize the nation’s modernization

38  Revisiting Chinese English as a triple realization of a strong state, a wealthy nation and a prosperous individual. (Gao, 2012, p. 353) Chinese elite speakers of English have traditionally recognised the role that English plays in the process of acquiring advanced Western knowledge and technology, so learning English has become a tool for turning the small ‘self’ into the ‘great’ self in contributing to the global status of China as a nation. Gao Xuesong (2012, p. 363) concludes that “[t]‌he deconstruction reveals that Li Yang’s messages about his success fall within the ideological space endorsed by the political establishment and the successful learner appears to be a desiring and self-​enterprising individual who remains patriotic when pursuing English competence”. Y.-​h. Gao’s (2014, p. 59) article focuses on the shift in Chinese English learners’ identity prototypes, namely, “faithful imitator, legitimate speaker, playful creator and dialogical communicator”. For a long time, the ideal learner was a faithful imitator whose L2 use and cultural conduct were strictly modelled on the native speaker (NS). With postcolonial changes around the world, a legitimate speaker was born, claiming equal language standards and rights with NSs. Growing under the increased influence of globalization and postmodernism is a playful creator, who constructs unconventional hybrid language use for distinct self-​expression. A Bakhtinian dialogical communicator is also emerging, who converses on the basis of respect and reflection. (Gao, 2014, p. 59) Specifically, the faithful imitator “models his or her L2 on the norm of native speakers (NSs) of English, particularly that of the UK or USA, and makes the utmost effort to produce L2 identical to such norms” (Gao, 2014, p. 60); for the legitimate speaker, “language is not exclusively owned by the native culture. English has multiple varieties with respective standards and equal status. … These varieties are equally standard and ‘good’ as native varieties such as British or American English” (Gao, 2014, p. 62); the playful creator “constantly reinvents and reconstructs language or discourse by mixing different linguistic codes. Unconventional hybridization, fragmentation and juxtaposition of linguistic and cultural elements at surface level are conventionally employed, to form distinct ways of self-​expression” (Gao, 2014, p. 65); the dialogical communicator transcends “various dichotomies such as listening vs. speaking, native culture vs. C2, and instrumental vs. integrative motivation. They are free from the superior-​inferior complex” (Gao, 2014, p. 68). According to Gao (2014, p. 73), the dialogical communicator prototype “has particular implication for future English education targeted at intercultural competence and intercultural citizenship”.

Revisiting Chinese English  39 In terms of Chinese learners of English and their use of English in their social network, Botha (2017) has conducted a case study of a particular university student regarding her personal use of English; her practice of code-​ mixing and switching with other members of her social network; and the social information conveyed through her use of English. This research shows that young people in China demonstrate a high level of “fluidity of their language practices, specifically in the ways they cross spaces in the physical sense between places, and also in their online and media communications” (Botha, 2017, pp. 27–​28). Botha (2017, p. 28) suggests that the linguistic behaviours of young Chinese learners of English reflect their creative “translanguaging” practices and “a transformation in the language ideologies of these Chinese students today, which may especially alter their values and beliefs toward languages and language practices as they negotiate new perspectives through their interaction with others in these contexts”. Fang and Baker (2018) have investigated issues of Chinese learners of English from the perspectives of intercultural citizenship and English as a lingua franca. Their research shows that as a country that highly values Confucianism and first language literacy, the popularity of English learning in China has generated identity anxiety among Chinese involved in learning English. Therefore, the notion of zhongxue weiti, xixue weiyong: Chinese learning for essence (ti); Western learning for utility (yong) is applied in English learning. This perspective, on the one hand, allows access to the knowledge and opportunities that learning English provides, while on the other hand it defends the learning of Chinese for culture and identity. (Fang & Baker, 2018, p. 612) Fang and Baker (2018, pp. 612–​613) argue that “learning English in China is not merely a linguistic issue but is embedded in socio-​political and ideological grounds between the English language and Chinese culture and identity”. Current studies reveal the multiple roles and functions of English in China embracing pride in Chinese culture, but also rebellion against authority and increased global connectivity. Crucially, research has shown that English is increasingly viewed less as the language of the other and more as part of the multilingual, or translingual resources of its users that transforms its users and their subjectivities, creating new spaces for social relations, social structures, and social cognition. (Fang & Baker, 2018, pp. 612–​613) Their findings also show that English serves to connect Chinese speakers of English to global communities and to develop a sense of intercultural citizenship, and that English is still associated with the Anglophone world.

40  Revisiting Chinese English “This association was seen by some as a threat to national identity, as well as positioning them negatively compared to the idealized Anglophone native speaker of English” (Fang & Baker, 2018, p. 620). There has been much research on the perceptions and attitudes of Chinese speakers of English regarding world Englishes and Chinese English. Xu, Wang, and Case (2010, p. 249) examined Chinese attitudes towards varieties of English in China, and their statistical analysis showed that “native varieties were preferred to non-​ native varieties and that standard native varieties were favoured over less standard native varieties”. However, their analysis also showed that Chinese college students were “aware of the plurality of Englishes, and some challenged the standards of acceptable English” (Xu et al., 2010, p. 249). In the same year, Evans (2010) explored the Chinese perceptions of Inner Circle varieties of English, including UK English, US English, Australian English and New Zealand English, and her findings showed that Chinese perceptions of these native varieties of English vary significantly, with UK English being associated with tradition, formality, pleasantness and politeness, and US English with casualness, pleasantness, dynamism and modernism. As far as Australian English and New Zealand English were concerned, the Chinese respondents were “apparently so unfamiliar” (Evans, 2010, p. 277) that they didn’t know how or what to respond. Wang (2015) investigated Chinese university teachers’ and students’ attitudes specifically towards China English, and her findings revealed that both the student and teacher participants were reluctant to accept China English as a pedagogical model but their attitudes diverge as specific China English features were involved. The in-​depth exploration of their justifications identified that the widespread native speaker English ideology and Chinglish stigma were more important reasons leading to their negative evaluations of China English than concerns for the communicativeness of China English to the outside world. (Wang, 2015, p. 71) Wang (2015, p. 71) acknowledged that China English is “a developing variety” that has not yet been widely recognised by its speakers, and she suggested that “more work needs to be done to change Chinese learners’ native speaker mindset besides the incorporation of some well-​ accepted China English features in pedagogy”. She also suggested that further research is needed “to monitor the evolving attitudes and perceptions of learners and teachers in contexts like China to see whether and how local varieties are being accepted as desirable pedagogical goals before integrating them into actual learning and teaching practices” (Wang, 2015, p. 71). Yang and Zhang (2015, p. 39) have problematised the “designation of China English (CE) as a developing variety of English”. Using an acceptability

Revisiting Chinese English  41 judgement test (AJT) of a selection of features emblematic of CE among a number of Chinese tertiary English teachers, they argue that “the notion of CE might still remain esoteric, and CE is facing a dilemma between lack of distinctness from SEs (standard Englishes) and stigmatization of its potentially most characteristic features”. It is interesting to note that Yang and Zhang’s conceptualisation of SEs stands for standard Englishes instead of SE (standard English); therefore, they have knowingly or unknowingly taken a pluricentric approach to China English research. Yang and Zhang (2015, p. 40) acknowledge that “the very name of China English in itself appears appealing due to the freshness of the idea, the recognition and respect it grants, and its nationalist connotations”; however, they also argue that “the future of regional English varieties such as CE still remains rather murky. In the case of CE, constant at issue are its legitimacy as a category, its definition, features, status relative to SEs, awareness, intelligibility, acceptability, and application”. It should be noted that our current understanding of Chinese English may not necessarily be an equivalent of China English. Chinese English is apparently more than the CE with a selection of features allegedly “emblematic of CE”, or a number of anecdotal examples. As such, Chinese English should have been approached from a macro-​perspective, including historical, socio-​cultural, cognitive and metaphysical dimensions, and meso-​ and micro-​perspectives, including group and diasporic community as well as individual narratives. When anecdotal evidence battles with narratives, it is always the narratives that are more powerful and eventually win out. Yang and Zhang’s (2015, p. 47) data also shows “a conflict of opinions and a clash of norm orientations between two equally sensible interlocutors”. One of their participants “explicitly challenged the native speaker norm … with her spontaneous rejoinder ‘why should we perform in a way that a foreigner thinks makes sense?’ courageously demanding a norm change”. In addition, Yang and Zhang (2015, p. 48) point out that there exists a “peripheral-​core clash”. Their findings suggest that “despite the indispensability of such a clash in making China English China English, the peripherals concerned are likely to be forsaken where the core works well, considering the permeating English ideology in China that stigmatizes nonstandard English”. They also point out that what are left there for acceptable CE are arguably either SEs expressing Chinese contents, or variations that SEs can possibly accommodate or even welcome, for example, those in phonology and lexis. Some CE advocates, therefore, might not be courageous enough since they have been trying to find a major niche for CE in phonology and lexis while either omitting syntax in their review, or keeping only a cautiously selected modicum that looks like or even better than natively used English, despite the potential that CE syntax could be most characteristic. (Yang & Zhang, 2015, p. 48)

42  Revisiting Chinese English This is an encouraging statement, as far as I understand, calling for Chinese English scholars and practitioners to move beyond the “niche” of phonology and lexis and “acceptable” syntax from the “core” perspective, and to mediate between the peripheral and the core, cultivating the “potential” of the “most characteristic” CE syntax. I take the term “CE syntax” more broadly, covering Chinese English discourse and pragmatics. Yang and Zhang’s (2015, p. 49) study shows that the notion of CE is “struggling in a dilemma between lack of distinctness from SEs and stigmatization of its deviations from SEs”. They suggest that for Chinese English to stand distinctly as a variety and to retain its emancipatory nature, we should delve deeper into Chinese English speakers’ live use of English to see what might come out that would demonstrate their variety being not simply a deficient version of the standard English. Yang and Zhang (2015, p. 49) point out rightly that the future of CE would depend on what characteristic patterns it could claim in tandem with a change in ideological stances. Good news may be that an awareness change has happened in China, as regards the standards applied to Chinese speakers of English, and the new roles of English in an international setting. There has also been research on the strategies and pragmatics of Chinese speakers of English. One particular study (Zhu, 2017) explores how Chinese speakers of English manage rapport in extended concurrent speech in the English-​ Corner community of practice in a southeastern city of China. “English Corners are public places where Chinese speakers of English gather voluntarily to discuss issues of interest to them, share personal experiences, seek information, or make acquaintances, while practising speaking English” (Zhu, 2017, p. 183). The English-​Corner community of practice “is living evidence for foreign language learners’ motivation, investment, strategic efforts, and rapport development in non-​experimental and non-​instructional settings” (Zhu, 2017, p. 199). The goal-​ oriented community members were engaged in exchanging information, making friends, and creating their own enterprise and repertoire through oral English practice and social interaction. With mutual, shared or overlapping goal orientations whether or not their individual approaches to their common goal coincide, the practice and the interaction could satisfy their need for career opportunities and socialization. They met supportive peers and took advantage of self-​assertion opportunities. Despite the complex interplay of their rights, face, and wants, their rapport seemed to be built and developed in the form of extended concurrent speech for floor taking or topic switching. (Zhu, 2017, p. 196) As Chinese English research becomes broader and more in depth, there have also been interdisciplinary approaches, e.g., the cultural linguistics approach,

Revisiting Chinese English  43 to Chinese English research. Xu (2014) has adopted a cultural linguistics analytical framework, consisting of cultural schemas, cultural categories and cultural conceptual metaphors, to unpack intercultural communication among Asian speakers of English, including Chinese English speakers. He suggests that “Asian speakers of English should not only acquire linguistic competence and communicative competence associated with Asian Englishes, but also understand cultural conceptualizations and develop metacultural competence for intercultural communication” (Xu, 2014, p. 173). In addition, drawing on empirical data, including interviews, newspaper articles, textbooks, literary works by authors writing in Chinese English, and online media articles about China, Xu and Sharifian (2017, p. 80) have re-​examined the cultural linguistics approach to Chinese English research and proposed an extension of the analytical framework of cultural conceptualisations to include “a number of other dimensions such as domain-​based schemas, including schemas of politics, economy, education, ideology, religion, science, and technology”. Researching English-​language press and the media-​sphere in China is a new area of Chinese English studies. Alvaro (2013, 2015) has looked into the political discourse embedded in China’s English-​language press and media outreach, e.g., China Digest, People’s Daily, People’s China, China Pictorial, China Today (formerly China Constructs), Beijing Review (formerly Peking Review), Seeking Truth (formerly Red Flag), China Daily and China Today, as well as China’s English-​language online media, such as Xinhuanet. He has noted the salience of zhengming (正名) or “the rectification of names” in Chinese political discourse, which means that “in order for a society to function properly, nomenclature must be correct. If not, it is believed that social chaos would ensue” (Alvaro, 2013, p. 148). He argues that “politicised English as used in China”, labelled as Zhonglish, Xinhua English or New China Newspeak, containing terms constructed by the Chinese government, such as a well-​off society, socialism with Chinese characteristics, cultural soft power and harmonious society, can be distinctive due to its ideological orientation, and it entails “a specific knowledge of the Chinese political context in order for them to make sense, particularly to a non-​mainland China audience” (Alvaro, 2013, p. 163). Alvaro (2015, p. 260) has also looked into China’s English-​language media’s “attempted penetration of the global language community”, arguing that China’s English-​language media has been primarily consumed domestically rather than internationally, using the “source of traffic by nation” of the percentage of China Daily website visitors as an example, and he has concluded by suggesting that China’s soft power does indeed speak English, but evidence indicates that it will come up short unless the ideological divide can be bridged. Until that happens, China’s English media, as the state mouthpiece, will always speak a foreign tongue –​“Zhonglish”, “Xinhua English”, or “New China Newspeak”. (Alvaro, 2015, p. 275)

44  Revisiting Chinese English There has been increasing research on the use of English among Chinese netizens. You (2008) suggests a “context model”, complementing the “inference model”, which resorts to “Chinese discourse features and cultural traditions for reference”, to explore the expanding meaning potential of China English in electronic medium spaces (You, 2008, p. 233). Based on a two-​year observation of a bulletin board forum from the 21st Century Community on the subject of “English writing”, You (2008) has noticed that “forum members have developed distinct sets of rhetorical strategies in different sets of contexts”, so he proposes that “since English is used by numerous Chinese in new contexts and domains, it will undoubtedly develop a rather sophisticated, self-​sustaining linguistic system” (You, 2008, p. 247). Rather than viewing the new variety of English against a native-​speaker norm, it may be better to view it as a new system based on elements, structures, and rules drawn from both English and from one or more languages used in the environment. These elements, structures, and rules will be fused so seamlessly that it might at times be difficult to pinpoint what the Chinese characteristics are in this new variety of English. … Therefore, identifying Chinese characteristics becomes less important than observing and describing the meaning potential of China English –​what Chinese people can mean and can do with English in new contexts and domains. (You, 2008, p. 247) You (2008, p. 248) has also rightly argued that “context and the user determine the rhetorical potential of China English”. In addition, You (2011) has looked at issues of multilingual creativity of Chinese white-​collar workers from the lens of “domestic diaspora” in terms of how they represent themselves as a distinct social form and articulate their diasporic consciousness on an electronic bulletin board in China. His analysis shows that these Chinese white-​collar workers “develop and follow their individualized, variable code” (You, 2011, p. 425). The code consists of Chinese borrowings, reduced or altered English forms, and creative new constructions inspired by a variety of representational systems. This form of English is negotiated by the discursive participants in every particular context when constructing their intended meanings. (You, 2011, p. 425) Zhang (2012) has explored the growing practice of code-​mixing on China’s Internet, which she regards as “one of the most fascinating aspects of Chinese English in the contemporary age” (Zhang, 2012, p. 40). Adopting a digital ethnography approach, Zhang (2012) uses participant observation to explore the mixing practices by Chinese netizens at two core networks in China –​China

Revisiting Chinese English  45 Weibo (similar to Twitter) and Douban (similar to Facebook) –​and presents the dynamics of the mixing practices of Chinese netizens by focusing on their joint online mixing activities in domains of social interaction, government administration and pop culture creativity against the historical backdrop of Chinese English. Zhang’s (2012, p. 51) research offers new insight into our understanding of Chinese English in terms of the realisation that “Chinese English in the present era features the vitality and diversity of ‘mixing’ practices on the Internet” and that “a mixed-​code, pidginized variety of Chinese English is gaining popularity in the domain of social interaction, government administration and pop culture creativity”. Zhang (2012) also suggests that Chinese netizens are mixing with confidence for a variety of purposes in diverse activities across broader intranational functional domains. For the young generation in mainland China, mixing is neither shame nor showing off, it is simply part of their everyday communication practices through which they build their multicultural identities, transform traditional social relationships and practice their social responsibilities (often coated with irony) in an increasingly open China, using new communication technologies as well as their linguistic and cultural repertoires. From a broad perspective, Chinese English has the potential to encompass many varieties of language, and, in this context it may be more useful to refer to “Chinese Englishes” in the plural. (Zhang, 2012, p. 51) The use of English among Chinese netizens is also closely associated with multilingual creativity. Zhang (2015, p. 231) approaches multilingual creativity as the practice of “multilingual language play”, which involves bending, breaking and blending the conventional “rules” of Putonghua, English and local dialect usage on China’s Internet. In China today, what is worth noticing is that many young people who are English-​ literate and technology savvy, are mixing English with Putonghua and varieties of Chinese with ludic effect on various Chinese social websites, including government microblogs, an unexpected site for multilingual language play. (Zhang, 2015, p. 232) In addition, Wang and Fang (2018) have explored the Chinese netizens’ reactions to the use of English as a lingua franca in the media and social media space on the Internet in China. They have found changing attitudes and perceptions in relation to the ideological constructions of English in China. On the one hand, “Chinese netizens are largely subject to the dominant ideology establishing Standard English in the official discourse”, Wang and Fang (2018, p. 8) have observed; on the other hand, “some netizens are also found contesting and transforming the dominant English ideologies and (re)

46  Revisiting Chinese English constructing or (re)negotiating their own identities”. As far as China English is concerned, Wang and Fang (2018, p. 8) suggest that it should be “promoted as an effective means to democratise English and meet the needs of the general public”. They also suggest that “using China English has the potential to reduce the social distance among Chinese speakers, boost their confidence in using English and empower them in international communication” (Wang & Fang, 2018, p. 8). In connection with Chinese netizens’ use of English in the social media space, there has been “new Chinglish” research, e.g., new Chinglish and translanguaging practice in China (Li, 2016) and the playfulness function of the new Chinglish among Chinese speakers of English (Xu & Deterding, 2017). New Chinglish distinguishes itself from Chinglish in the sense that Chinglish has a “colonial legacy”, and it was originally coined to describe Chinese Pidgin English developed in the 17th century in the port cities of China for use as a trade language between the British and the Chinese (Li, 2016, p. 9). New Chinglish, in a contemporary Chinese context, is a “translanguaging variety of English that has been reconstituted, re-​appropriated, re-​semiotized, and re-​inscribed by Chinese speakers of English via new media” (Li, 2016, pp. 11–​12). New Chinglish has its own distinctive varieties, namely: 1) “New Chinglish with Chinese regional accents and flavour that are mainly comprehensible to native Chinese speakers”; 2) “Re-​appropriated English words and phrases that have been assigned Chinese meanings, again mainly comprehensible to native Chinese speakers only”; and 3) “Shitizen Chinglish –​new inventions of English words and expressions with Chinese characters, usually mediated through new social media”. Li (2016, p. 20) argues that such new Chinglish has been reclaimed as a creative and critical expression of multiple meanings, which simultaneously challenges the world dominance of English of the Anglo-​Saxon root and Chinese linguistic purism. It shows the creators’ socio-​political sense and sensitivities. It is full of satirical and subversive potential, as a running commentary on Chinese society. And it has helped to create a Translanguaging Space where new identities, new subjectivities, and new ideologies are being constituted and reconstituted. Xu and Deterding (2017) have adopted a world Englishes perspective to explore the playfulness function of new Chinglish. They refer to new Chinglish as the innovative use of certain Chinese expressions serving a range of different functions, particularly in technology-​mediated interactions among users of Chinese English. They suggest that “the use of ‘new’ Chinglish expressions shows certain degrees of ‘playfulness’ as a common feature, and requires sophisticated linguistic skills in discursive contexts” (Xu & Deterding, 2017, p. 116). They argue that the use of indigenous colloquial codes such as new Chinglish shows the pragmatics of language use in terms of bending and breaking the normative rules to yield pragmatic meanings in

Revisiting Chinese English  47 informal communication. Such varieties, regardless of how negatively they are perceived, have now developed into useful tools to convey identities, particularly among bilingual and multilingual users of English in technology-​ mediated contexts, and they constitute a jokey and playful genre that has been evolving in socio-​media-​based intra-​cultural and intercultural communication (Xu & Deterding, 2017, pp. 125–​126). One of the emerging areas of research regarding Chinese English is its imaginary function enacted by Chinese speakers of English in their creative writing in English. Over the last decade, a number of scholars, including Dai (2010, 2012, 2015); Dai and Zheng (2019); and Sui (2015), have engaged in their teaching, practice and research of creative writing in English in China. Dai (2010, p. 555) has discovered that creative writing allows her students the freedom to explore different aspects of their own lives. “They wrote stories that otherwise would not have been written, and in doing so learned a lot about themselves and those around them. Through writing such stories, students also learned the craft of creative writing”. In addition, Dai’s (2010) research shows that the narrative techniques her students have learned could lay a solid foundation for the mastery of other genres of their writing in English. Dai (2012) regards creative writing in English as a way to understand, reflect and grow. Her students write about their own lives and what has been important for them, and in this process, “they often find that their engagement in writing requires them to confront or evaluate their own difficult or even painful experiences” (Dai, 2012, p. 22). Dai’s (2015, p. 257) creative writing course draws upon the concept of “meaningful literacy” in English as a second/​foreign language. In addition, Dai and Zheng (2019) have explored the process of self-​discovery and self-​translation associated with English-​language creative writing in China, drawing upon their own creative writing and research experiences. They argue that “cosmopolitan English foregrounds English that is fluidly shaped by the people who bring into play their own individual and multi-​varied backgrounds”, and they propose the concept of “Chinese cosmopolitan English”, which can be applied to Chinese creative writers in English expressing themselves in the context of contemporary China (Dai & Zheng, 2019, p. 663). They define Chinese cosmopolitan English as a form of English that can convey the identity of the user at many levels, an English that renders the writer a proud English user who brings new cultural elements into the arena of world literature in English. … cosmopolitan Chinese English of this kind can express Chinese culture through creative writing, especially when the writer or translator takes distinctive cultural expressions from one culture and introduces them to audiences from other cultures. Creative writing in a foreign language involves not only writing creatively and expressively in that language, but also involves subtle processes of transcultural and translingual translation, not least in the often half visible processes of self-​translation. (Dai & Zheng, 2019, p. 668)

48  Revisiting Chinese English Sui (2015) explores creative poetry writing in English at the university level in China from the perspective of world Englishes, bilingual creativity and contact literature. He offers English poetry writing workshops to Chinese university students and discovers that the creative endeavour made by his students doing poetry writing in English “has brought the English language into contact with the Chinese context, and has accordingly promoted poetic creation and intercultural communication” (Sui, 2015, p. 41), involving re-​ contextualisation, re-​creation and re-​integration. Incorporating reading, thinking, feeling, critiquing and writing into a holistic experience, the poetry writing workshops in English give Chinese EFL learners an opportunity to transform their language learning into poetic self-​discovery, to develop their potentialities in the realm of literary creation, and to construct an integrated world view by using expressive images, impressive cadences and recurrent motifs to make fresh points of contact between the individual and the universal, between the native and the foreign, between the present and the absent, between the heterogeneous and the homogeneous. (Sui, 2015, pp. 40–​41) Sui (2015, p. 45) points out that “the life of a language depends on the creativity of all its learners and users”, and regarding the use of English by his students in their English poetry writing class, he has noticed that “English has been incorporated into the new voices of the Chinese EFL learners who take up poetry writing in English, and has become an integral part of the chosen mode of bilingual expression for their personal and poetic identities” (Sui, 2015, p. 45). The “new voices” are important for us to understand what Chinese English means to Chinese speakers of English, as this book is about the voices of Chinese speakers of English regarding their life experiences and perceptions of the names and norms reflected through their own narratives.

Reviewing names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English As this current book has a specific focus on the names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English, I have also reviewed literature in relation to the English naming practices of Chinese speakers of English, and the relevant norm and narrative inquiry research regarding Chinese speakers of English. The issue of names of Chinese English from a world Englishes perspective will be extensively discussed in Chapter 4. The review here deals with a number of recent publications of the ethnic and English personal names of Chinese speakers of English. Wu (2012) raises the confusing nature involved in the English names of Chinese people, and the potential loss of Chinese naming culture in Chinese speakers’ English

Revisiting Chinese English  49 personal names. “The naming practice which reflects essential Chinese culture and values will become a victim of random and irresponsible cross-​cultural rendering. And the result will be that Chinese naming culture will be lost in foreign languages, specifically English” (Wu, 2012, p. 139). In terms of the importance of Chinese naming culture, Wu (2012) argues from a historical perspective that the naming practice has been associated with the ruling of a nation in ancient China. Confucius even put rectifying names among the first things to do in government affairs in a time of name confusion, and he believed that name issues were at the root of all other social and political issues, because “if names are not rectified, then speech will not function properly, and if speech does not function properly, then undertakings will not succeed”. (Wu, 2012, p. 144) Specifically, the naming practice in Chinese culture implies that 1) Chinese personal names reveal Chinese culture, history and traditional values; 2) Chinese people do not tend to change their personal names given by their family heritage and parents because of the common belief that “A true man never changes his given name and surname in whatever circumstances” (大丈夫 行不更名，坐不改姓); and 3) Chinese personal names take both semantic and phonetic aspects of the characters of the names into consideration (Wu, 2012, p. 144). Regarding the order of surnames and given names of Chinese personal names in English, Wu (2012, p. 147) proposes a pragmatic approach, i.e., “the practice of either putting the family name or given name first is acceptable, depending on the perspective one adopts in approaching this issue”. Diao (2014, p. 208) explores issues of name choice for transnational Chinese students in the United States, and he elaborates on the Chinese naming traditions. “Chinese names carry meanings through logographic representation. Parents often choose Chinese characters that represent their wishes –​what characteristics they hope to see and what kind of person the baby should become”. Another important aspect of Chinese naming practice is that historically one individual could have multiple names. An educated person typically had three names –​a given name (ming), a zi, and a hao –​for different identity and pragmatic functions. Of the three only the ming was given by one’s parents. The other two were often assigned by oneself or peers. This practice allowed people to seek alternative names and resist certain identities that the original given name imposed, such as undesirable gender stereotypes for women. The practice of having zi and hao has become obsolete in China. However, the notion of a self-​assigned name is not unfamiliar to the majority of the population. (Diao, 2014, pp. 208–​209)

50  Revisiting Chinese English One of the common issues of using Romanised Chinese names as English names is that “the meanings that the characters represented become lost” (Diao, 2014, p. 209). Therefore, Diao (2014, p. 205) suggests that “name choice can discursively index membership in various communities” and that “name choice becomes a site of identity negotiation for transnational Chinese students who received their English names from ESL classes in China”. Adopting a theoretical framework of “nationalism and authenticity”, Wang and Yao (2017) argue that Chinese perceptions of their English personal names reflect the dynamics and power relations in naming practices in China. In the Greater China region, the practice of naming has taken an interesting turn among non-​native English speakers as they have started to use English names in their professional workplaces, educational contexts, and other social settings. Some of the main reasons why Mainland Chinese students and professionals adopt English names include the name having a likeable sound, the desire to become international, and accommodating the needs of foreigners. (Wang & Yao, 2017, p. 39) According to Wang and Yao (2017), the discourse of Chinese nationalism and authenticity serves as a centripetal force in correcting questionable names in formal settings. Such contention and negotiation of the English naming practice points to the critical aspect of language use in which individuals challenge the normative English naming practice and produce knowledge that breaks the duality of good and bad or right and wrong names. (Wang & Yao, 2017, p. 44) In terms of the “norms” associated with Chinese speakers of English, Orton (2006, p. 289) has probed the “boundaries of appropriate behaviour” in spoken English for advanced Chinese speakers of English in China, and she defines appropriate behaviour as a “threshold of acceptability agreed to by native speakers of English (NSE) and competent Chinese speakers of English (CSE)”. She suggests that many Chinese may be confronted in their exchanges with native English speakers by the dilemma that to express themselves to first language cultural comfort runs a high risk of being found inappropriate, even irritating, by their interlocutors. Establishing a pedagogical norm for social interaction will require negotiation of this dilemma. (Orton, 2006, p. 287) To address this “dilemma”, Orton (2006, pp. 304–​305) suggests that “Chinese learners should not arbitrarily be required to match native speaker behaviour as this may prevent them from expressing what they intend to communicate”.

Revisiting Chinese English  51 Indeed, in the age of International English and World Englishes, it may well be argued that native English speakers who have interactions with Chinese speakers of English should also be made aware of the mismatch in norms, and understand it as generating a joint problem in their interactions which may quite often require negotiation and compromise. (Orton, 2006, pp. 304–​305) He and Zhang (2010, p. 769) have also explored the question of “whether the norms based on native speakers of English should be kept in English teaching in an era when English has become World Englishes”. They have reviewed relevant ELT models, namely, a native speaker model, a nativised model and a lingua franca model, and suggested that teaching of college English in China should still adopt standard Englishes as the teaching model, because a native speaker model “serves as a complete and convenient starting point, particularly with its social-​cultural richness. In addition, China English could also be included as part of the model if it were codified and implemented systematically” (He & Zhang, 2010, p. 785). In addition, a number of scholars have looked into specific norms associated with L1 Chinese speakers of English, e.g., the use of English discourse markers (Liu, 2012), compliment responses (An, 2013) and the acquisition of English “Wh-​on-​earth” questions (Yuan, 2014). Liu (2012, p. 169) notes that most of the studies regarding norms of L2 speakers of English involve “interlanguage pragmatics” with a focus on appropriateness or inappropriateness of certain speech acts used by second or foreign language learners, for example, invitation, request, apology, refusal, greeting and complaint, and they suggest that we should be cautious in making generalisations about L2 speakers’ use of English, as there are many factors involved, e.g., exposure to natural English, stylistic differences and oral proficiency, as well as the L1 influence of the speakers. An (2013, p. 1053) argues that speech acts such as compliments and compliment responses “are decided by linguistic and sociocultural norms, and further reflect cultural values and social norms” of the L1 Chinese English-​knowing bilinguals; for example, her research shows that in terms of compliment responses, “Chinese still value modesty as good virtue, by adopting Rejecting strategies and Deflecting/​Evading strategies” (An, 2013, p. 1061). In terms of features transfer between Chinese speakers who have L1 Chinese and English as their L2, Yuan’s (2014) research shows that “the form of wh-​on-​earth can be learned and stored in a native-​like manner, but without being endowed with fully elaborated features” (Yuan, 2014, p. 515) and that “features transferred from learners’ L1 to their L2 are likely to lose their vigour and vitality in their L2 lexicon and become dormant if there is no evidence in the target language input to confirm or disconfirm them” (Yuan, 2014, p. 544). These can be applicable to the practice of norms across cultures by Chinese speakers of English. In addition, Wang (2012) adopts world Englishes and English as a lingua franca (ELF) perspectives to explore Chinese EFL learners’ responses to native-​speaker norms, arguing that Chinese EFL students “demonstrated

52  Revisiting Chinese English their agency in negotiating and constructing their L2 identities in situ” and that they “used native-​speaker norms as an important reference point but were able to devise their linguistic behaviour in the given situation by drawing on both their L1 and L2 linguistic resources” (Wang, 2012, p. 1). “Such linguistic resources may not be mutually exclusive and, perhaps most importantly, adult L2 speakers are capable of choosing from these resources and negotiating their language use in context” (Wang, 2012, p. 6). He also argues that “it is not entirely fair to benchmark L2 learners against native speakers in terms of linguistic behaviour and to judge the learners as deficient in their ‘native-​ likeness’ ”, and that “Chinese college students can and will make strategic decisions to opt for non-​native-​like linguistic behaviour in some contexts” (Wang, 2012, pp. 5–​6). Wang (2016) also adopts an ELF approach and explores the extent to which Chinese speakers of English respond to native English speakers’ authority. She argues that China will play an important role in shaping the profile of English use in the world, and in that sense, the development of English and its associated ideologies in China has implications for the future world of English use. She notes that “the young generation of Chinese speakers will have the opportunity to develop language awareness” due to the fact that ELF use across China is becoming increasingly prominent. Chinese speakers’ language ideologies are also changing, and “central to the change is the decreasing concern for the role of native English speakers as norm-​providers” (Wang, 2016, p. 39). Wang (2013, p. 262) has also explored issues of non-​conformity to ENL norms from an ELF perspective, and she defines Chinese English users as “those Chinese who use all linguistic resources to achieve real life purposes of using English”. Wang (2013, p. 272) has identified three reasons that drive Chinese English users’ aspiration for ENL, including “their belief that ENL was the essence of English, their desire for fixed forms, and their want for the social advantage that ENL had”. However, Wang (2013, p. 272) points out that “this is not the whole picture”, and that many Chinese English users choose to leave ENL norms aside and make reference to the functions of non-​ conformity to ENL. Such a “rebellious position” is due to the communicative effects that Chinese English users see in their own way of using English and the issue of cultural identity, which they are aware of in relation to English (Wang, 2013, p. 272). According to Wang (2013, p. 276), there exist the “perceptual conflicts underneath the surface level of slightly positive attitudes towards some instances of non-​conformity to ENL norms” and the struggle that Chinese English users are “consciously or unconsciously subject to”. Chinese English users are positive towards non-​conformity to ENL norms, “considering their needs and wants to communicate efficiently and project their Chinese cultural identity properly” (Wang, 2013, p. 276). The desire for perceived social advantage of ENL driving behind the preference for ENL can be understood with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus.

Revisiting Chinese English  53 According to Bourdieu, agents tend to acknowledge, legitimize, and practise social forms of domination. The motivation lies in symbolic capital, which describes the value accorded to certain kind of linguistic products, the control of which allows for the access to socioeconomic benefits. (Wang, 2013, p. 277) Wang’s study (2013, p. 278) shows that there is a “delicate balance between exonormative and endonormative orientations to English”. While Chinese English users acknowledge “functions of non-​conformity in terms of communicative efficiency and cultural identity projection”, they are “very cautious in supporting the use of English that does not conform to ENL norms”. In terms of the “narratives” of Chinese speakers of English, there has also been research going on over the last decades. Xu and Connelly (2009, p. 221) adopt a narrative inquiry approach to investigate teacher education and development, with a focus on English as a foreign language in China. They regard narrative inquiry as a “way of thinking about life” and as a “conception of the phenomenal world in which experience is mediated by story”. They define narrative inquiry as “both phenomenon and method”. Narrative is the phenomenon of inquiry because everything, including teacher development, is a phenomenon narrated through stories. The phenomena of narrative inquiry are, themselves, narrative in nature. (Xu & Connelly, 2009, p. 221) Gao (2010) reports on a longitudinal inquiry into mainland Chinese students’ language learning experience with a focus on their efforts to improve their English competence. He uses individual participants’ narratives to illustrate how contextual complexities mediate their efforts to learn and use English, and his findings show that “successful language learning emerges from an interactive process of the participants’ critical understanding of the context and their efforts in extending social networks, such as investing in social exchanges” (Gao, 2010, p. 274). Gao (2010, p. 291) adopts Bourdieu’s cultural capital and social capital to analyse his participants’ narratives in terms of “social network” building as a product of investment strategies in relation to individual participants’ linguistic competence and acquisition of membership in social networks. His findings suggest that “successful learning of English emerges from an interactive process of these learners’ critical understanding of the context and their efforts in extending social networks, such as investing in social exchanges”. Another research project that utilised narratives as data was by Ye and Edwards (2015). They collected Chinese overseas doctoral student narratives in the UK to explore how these overseas students adjust to a different academic, social and cultural environment. They conducted semi-​ structured interviews with 11 PhD students from a range of disciplines through personal social networks. The unit of their data coding was an extended account, which

54  Revisiting Chinese English consisted of block interview quotes reflecting participants’ comments on a given topic. In a sense, these block interview quotes could be considered as “narratives” because they were drawn from the participants’ life experiences, anecdotal memories and personal reflections. Their analysis of the narratives yielded a number of themes, including self-​reflexivity, creativity, ontological identity, autonomy and authenticity. It can be noted that they made a distinction between categorical and ontological identity in that “categorical identity refers to the social categories we are assigned according to gender, ethnicity, class or nationality”, whereas “ontological identity, in contrast, is the unique self which one wants or chooses to be, allowing the individual a coherent sense of self” (Ye & Edwards, 2015, p. 239). As far as the narrative analysis approach is concerned, Ye and Edwards (2015, p. 239) suggest that “at the centre of the analysis is individuals’ self-​articulation of their perceptions, experiences and themselves in relation to culture, language and identity”. This approach offers the participants a chance to “speak” for themselves and to show the depths and complexities of their experiences. It also emphasises the nuances of identity formation in students, whose experiences cannot be captured in neat typologies. (Ye & Edwards, 2015, p. 239) As far as Chinese speakers of English living overseas are concerned, Ye and Edwards’ (2015, p. 228) findings indicate that Chinese speakers living overseas use various coping strategies proactively in meeting challenges and adapting to new social environments. “Continuity and stability of self-​identity were achieved either culturally or academically through self-​reflexivity, autonomy, creativity, authenticity and reliance on an ontological identity” (Ye & Edwards, 2015, p. 228). It is interesting to note that there are actual narrative accounts published in international academic journals authored by Chinese users of English, documenting and reflecting on their English learning and use experiences: for example, Fang’s (2006) autobiographical narrative inquiry into her English learning experience and professional journey as a university English teacher; Zhang’s (2015) autobiographical essay on writing in English in China; and Ai’s (2016) autoethnography as a Chinese English learner and user regarding his different identity prototypes in learning and teaching English. Fang (2006, p. 117) adopts an autobiographical narrative inquiry approach to unpack her “personal experience in learning language in her childhood and thereafter her professional journey as a university English teacher in China”, focusing on the transition or transformation from the “traditional teacher-​centred grammar-​ translation way” to the “student-​centred, subject-​based teaching pattern of CLT”. In her own words, I had my own way of English learning which had always been double track: classroom English learning for academic or bookish English, and

Revisiting Chinese English  55 independent study that had become almost like my hobby to sustain my interest and to learn practical daily English. … I understand my double track method was a spontaneous mixture of traditional and modern methods. (Fang, 2006, pp. 123–​124) As a young English language teacher, she said, “I belonged to the first generation of teachers required to practise CLT at our university. We had to break our old cocoons to practise a brand-​new teaching approach” (Fang, 2006, p. 126), and she noticed “students’ lack of interest in the textbook” (Fang, 2006, p. 124) and the “mismatch between formal English education and the daily communicative functions of English” (Fang, 2006, p. 128), pointing out that the sentences in the textbooks were a very artificial or academic language, and they seldom had the flavour of a natural language or oral exchange. No matter how well a learner grasped the textbook, she or he might still be at a loss when trying to engage in real communication. (Fang, 2006, pp. 124–​125) As a practitioner of CLT, Fang (2006, p. 127) recalled that at the turn of the 21st century in China, “English learning had become a kind of worship in the whole society and especially among university students”. In this favourable learning atmosphere, it was very easy for me to approach my students and organize various activities in their spare time such as singing English songs, reading English poems, performing a play, holding various English competitions, or just sitting on the lawn chatting. I could really become a starlet with my students as my fans. I found that my students become ready to learn those things they need to know and be able to do in order to cope effectively with their real-​life situations. (Fang, 2006, p. 127) Zhang’s (2015) autobiographical account centres around her decision to write and publish in the English language as a creative writer in China, describing how she first taught herself English, perceiving the language as offering her an escape from working as a factory worker in Nanjing, to how she established herself as a published author writing in the English language. Here’s a brief version of her narratives: I began to teach myself English at 21 when I was still a rocket factory girl in my hometown Nanjing, on the banks of the Yangtze River. … I had a grand plan for myself: excelling academically at school, I had hoped to go to university and become a writer and a journalist. … As an escape route, I decided to teach myself English, in the hope of obtaining a job as an

56  Revisiting Chinese English interpreter with one of the foreign companies that were slowly setting up shop in Nanjing. … I no longer cared what the others thought about me as the concept of individualism took root in me. Looking back, learning English has changed my life. … What I’ve learnt wasn’t just the ABCs but the whole cultural package. And I’ve gained a good “rice bowl” –​ something allows me to make a living. … I chose to write in English because, first of all, it frees me politically. … Interestingly, writing in English frees me literally. It frees me from any inhibition I might have if I write in Chinese. Without the constraints I can experiment with the language: I can be bold and I can take risks. On the other hand, I sometimes fear that my English has become too fluent that it has lost its quaintness. … I have also tried deliberately to borrow Chinese sayings or phrases to give the writing some freshness, quaintness or some Chinese flavour. I have a sense that my struggle in writing English shall continue … It’s just an ongoing battle for any writer to gain greater felicity. Having been bewitched by the language –​again, I am not sure if that’s the right word to use –​I also find the challenge in writing in English rewarding and fun. After all, fighting for something worthwhile keep us alive. (Zhang, 2015, pp. 278–​281) Ai’s autoethnographical account follows Gao Yihong’s four identity prototypes, namely, faithful imitator, legitimate speaker, playful creator and dialogical communicator. “Autoethnography is a formal, structured approach to the study of the self. … As a qualitative method, autoethnography is both process and product” (Ai, 2016, p. 281). Bin Ai described how his middle school and high school early experience of English learning reflected the first identity prototype of faithful imitator, i.e., I, like most learners and teachers of English at that time, had no vision of the authentic English world, which is imagined as a world full of unfamiliar Others and “a community of strangers”. … As a cultural product born and brought up in mainland China, I was a real faithful imitator, a silent learner, a model of the official policy of English learning and teaching. (Ai, 2016, p. 282) Later on, Ai chose to major in English, which gave him a chance to study English linguistics, culture and grammar. In his own words: Gradually, I realised that English had become an international language, with many varieties and rigorous standards in different parts of the world. I heard about “world Englishes” in my English course. As a Chinese learner of English, influenced by my inherent national identity and cultural identity, I agree that these varieties of world Englishes, including Chinese English, are equally standard and as good as native

Revisiting Chinese English  57 varieties such as British or American English. … Gradually, I began to experience the rewards of my investment in English learning. I enjoyed the privilege of speaking English fluently. My identity transformed from a faithful imitator into a legitimate speaker, using English in a Chinese way, since my main concern was to make myself understood. (Ai, 2016, pp. 282–​283) Talking about his experience in English corners, he said, “I was a member of an imagined community with an imagined identity in a ‘real’ English world, in which I was a ‘native English speaker’. I enjoyed talking in English in that imagined English world” (Ai, 2016, p. 283). In the early period of my stay in Australia, without an Other in mind, it was difficult for me to establish a dialogic relationship between my selfhood and the Other who was the address of my writing. On the one hand, I needed to forget my identity as an Other in English culture and become an insider in the world of English; on the other hand, I also needed to keep my particular selfhood and construct my own academic identity through my English writing. (Ai, 2016, pp. 284–​285) This forms his third identity prototype of a “playful creator” of his own “selfhood”. Influenced by the culture and ideology embedded in the English language, I crossed my “lived space”, which was dominated by the Chinese culture, and entered a real English world, which was full of strange Others. My transfer was not cut off from my previous lived space in mainland China; rather, I lived in an in-​between space. … I finally felt that I became a dialogical communicator, respecting the integrity and entirety of each and every culture, and always moving between different spaces. (Ai, 2016, p. 285) To summarise his process of transforming across the four identity prototypes, Ai said himself: as a faithful imitator, I learned English well in the prevailing system in middle and high school; then, becoming a legitimate speaker and a playful creator, I opened my mouth to practise oral English and step out of the confined circle of American English or British English. Finally, becoming a dialogical communicator enabled me to enter a real English world to construct another, different self and set up dialogues with international readers. (Ai, 2016, p. 286)

58  Revisiting Chinese English

Summary of the chapter In this chapter, I have revisited academic research literature on Chinese English over the last four to five decades. It is a meta-​analysis of Chinese English research showing relevant themes and trends of the development of Chinese English. I have summarised the extensive meta-​analysis review work (cf. Xu, 2017) that I conducted previously regarding Chinese English research articles published in Chinese academic journals in China. I have also reviewed more recent publications regarding Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English, with a particular reference to the naming practices, norms and narratives of Chinese speakers of English. Throughout the chapter, I have managed to map the current research of names, norms and narratives onto the extensive Chinese English research in relation to the ongoing research and development of world Englishes.

3 Developing a framework for Chinese English

World Englishes as a discipline has undertaken ongoing developments and witnessed a number of shifts and turns over the last decades, and the current development appears to be moving away from nation-​state-​based “varieties” characterised by distinctive features, particularly among the Kachruvian Expanding Circle countries, to multilingual users’ repertoire-​oriented translanguaging practices. This is what is currently known as a post-​varieties era in the development of world Englishes. The models and paradigms that have been widely recognised and adopted may need critical rethinking (Low & Pakir, 2018). This echoes the pronouncement put forward by the pioneer of the world Englishes paradigm, Kachru (1985, p. 29), that “I do not believe that the traditional notions of codification, models, and methods apply to English any more”. Sridhar and Sridhar (2018, pp. 130–​133) have elaborated on three ongoing “turns” that have had an impact on the course of world Englishes over the last decades: the functional turn, the multilingual turn and the “dynamic (interactive) turn”. The functional turn is characterised by the alleviation of the “obsession with the target language milieu as prototype acquisition environment” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 130) and the realisation that the errors of multilingual English language users can be regarded as “innovative communicative strategies”, and fossilization as “identification with local norms”. The functional turn is also characterised by a “pragmatic redefinition of the acquisitional target in terms of intelligibility, communicability and interpretability” of multi-​competent English users rather than an “arbitrary, native-​like correctness” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, pp. 130–​131). The multilingual turn (c.f., May, 2014b) is characterised by the perception of multilingual speakers of English as “developing a verbal repertoire –​where the two (or more) languages interact with and influence one another, sometimes complementing, sometimes overlapping, to create a composite multilingual competence” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 131), and the realisation that “the target language does not have to perform the entire gamut of functions performed by a language in its monolingual or native setting” and that “the several languages (often more than two) in the community’s and individual’s verbal repertoire together cover the range of functions” (Sridhar & Sridhar, DOI: 10.4324/9781315209463-3

60  Developing a framework for Chinese English 2018, p. 131). This realisation is well aligned with our current understanding of translanguaging practice among multilingual English speakers, including Chinese speakers of English. The “dynamic (interactive) turn” moves away from bilingualism as “double monolingualism” or multilingualism as “parallel monolingualisms” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 131); it views linguistic “borrowing, transfer, convergence, code-​switching, code-​mixing, stylistic stratification, and bilingual creativity” as “value-​added features” and “natural outcrops of the ecology of multilingualism” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 132). In addition, Piller (2016, p. 9) argues that “it is not always easy to know where one language ends and where another language begins” and that “terms such as ‘bilingualism’, ‘trilingualism’, or ‘multilingualism’ can be misleading because they suggest that languages are clearly separate and can be easily counted and compartmentalized”. Piller (2016, p. 12) also explicitly links the way we use language to who we are by pointing out that our language –​meaning not a particular abstract Language X but the way we use the linguistic resources at our disposal to communicate –​ contributes to making us who we are in the same way as our physical appearance, our ideas and beliefs, and our way of life do. Recent research in world Englishes shows that there may have been a paradigm gap and a “bridge only half built” between world Englishes theories and practices, particularly in relation to second language acquisition (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 137). Building the rest of the bridge, according to Sridhar and Sridhar (2018, p. 137), would involve making full use of all that the WE paradigm has brought to light about second language acquisition and use: research on the dimensions of intelligibility, the nature of bilingual creativity, the much broader range of contexts and genres of second language use which serve as sources of data, the tension between local and global allegiances with respect to issues of economics, identity, power, prestige, and authenticity which make English such a rich, resonant, and controversial mode of communication around the world. In light of the latest developments in the fields of applied linguistics, world Englishes, and my lived and living experiences as a Chinese speaker of English, this book moves beyond the conceptualisation of Chinese English as a variety per se to a translanguaging practice involving Chinese speakers of English in China and across the world. Such a translanguaging practice of bilingual Chinese speakers of English is closely associated with the translanguaging competence that I propose and elaborate on here. To understand translanguaging competence, I have reviewed some of the definitive statements of the notions of languaging and translanguaging. Swain (2006, p. 96) defines languaging as

Developing a framework for Chinese English  61 conveying “an action –​a dynamic, never-​ending process of using language to make meaning”. She also suggests that the notion of languaging refers to “the process of making meaning and shaping knowledge and experience through language” and that “it is part of what constitutes learning. Languaging about language is one of the ways we learn language” (Swain, 2006, p. 98). This understanding is well aligned with the daily practices of vast numbers of English learners and users across the world as they go through their English learning and acquisition processes through meaning-​making and knowledge-​ shaping or “knowledging” (Barkhuizen, 2011, p. 391) in their respective multilingual contexts. The notion of languaging resonates with the voice of world Englishes speakers as they do not only make sense of the forms of English but also “manipulate language resources in various inventive and playful ways to co-​construct interaction, establish rapport, and so on” (Widdowson, 2008, p. 261). The notion of languaging is highly relevant to this book regarding names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English because it emphasises the dynamics of language learning and use as an actual practice and foregrounds meaning-​making and the users of language. According to Swain (2006, p. 97), “language cannot be viewed as the end-​product generated by its users but the means through which users can achieve their purposes of communication, such as information exchange and business transaction”. The notion of translanguaging is understood as a repertoire-​based communicative act among bilinguals and multilinguals, and it refers to the flexible use of linguistic resources by bilinguals and multilinguals as they make sense of their worlds (García, 2009). Translanguaging is a process of “making meaning, shaping experiences, gaining understanding and knowledge through the use of two languages” (Baker, 2011, p. 288). Translanguaging can be transformative, and it transcreates “a social space for the multilingual language user by bringing together different dimensions of their personal history, experience and environment” (Li, 2011, p. 1223). Li proposes translanguaging as a practical theory of language in that translanguaging reconceptualizes language as a multilingual, multisemiotic, multisensory, and multimodal resource for sense-​and meaning-​making, and the multilingual as someone who is aware of the existence of the political entities of named languages and has an ability to make use the structural features of some of them that they have acquired. (Li, 2018, p. 22) Li (2018, p. 23) has also proposed the concept of translanguaging space, i.e., a space that is created by and for translanguaging practices, and a space where language users break down the ideologically laden dichotomies between the macro and the micro, the societal and the individual, and the social and the psychological through interaction.

62  Developing a framework for Chinese English A translanguaging space, according to Li (2018, p. 23), allows language users to “integrate social spaces (and thus ‘linguistic codes’) that have been formerly separated through different practices in different places”. In addition, translanguaging “underscores multilinguals’ creativity –​their abilities to push and break boundaries between named languages and between language varieties, and to flout norms of behavior including linguistic behavior, and criticality –​the ability to use evidence to question, problematize, and articulate views” (Li, 2018, p. 23). This notion of translanguaging renders a good explanation for the playfulness function of Chinese English and other nativised practices of English in local and global contexts. Zhu, Li, and Jankowicz-​Pytel (2020, p. 66) argue that the concept of translanguaging “has opened up new ways of understanding human communication and social action” and that “the translanguaging approach to human social interaction as intersection of multiple linguistic and semiotic systems enables us to look more closely at the role of embodied repertoires”. Canagarajah (2018, p. 32) argues that the prefix trans-​indexes “communicative practices as transcending autonomous languages”, with a number of ramifications, including the “need to transcend verbal resources and consider how other semiotic resources and modalities also participate in communication”; “transcending the text/​context distinction and analysing how diverse semiotic features previously relegated to spatiotemporal context actively participate in communication”; and “how semiotic resources transform social structures” in the sense of trans-​ indexing transformation and challenging understandings of language as regulated or determined by existing contexts of power relations. In line with the current understanding of languaging, translanguaging and translanguaging space, one of my colleagues and I have proposed “translanguaging competence” as the ability to deploy “dynamic, embodied and mediated linguistic and cultural repertoires of multilingual users when they make sense of their worlds through languaging as an act and process of sense-​and meaning-​making across cultures” (Hlavac & Xu, 2020, p. 20).

Models and frameworks of world Englishes The field of world Englishes as an ongoing area of inquiry has developed for over half a century, starting from a series of (r-​)evolutionary ideas put forward against the obsolete notion of English being a monolithic entity and the ideological and pedagogical baggage associated with it. Maraceni (2015, p. xi) calls for those very ideas to be updated and revamped in order to “continue to be relevant and equally revolutionary in the twenty-​first century”, and he also proposes that “in order to rekindle its anti-​conventional, rule-​ breaking, paradigm-​shifting ethos, world Englishes needs to catch up with developments that are taking place all around”. Since the inception of world Englishes as an emerging discipline from the middle of the 20th century onwards, there have been various models

Developing a framework for Chinese English  63

Micro-​narrative 8:  My understanding of languaging, translanguaging and narrative knowledging My first encounter of the concept of “languaging” was around 2007 and 2008, when I was working in Hong Kong as an assistant professor in an English department at the then Hong Kong Institute of Education. We had a guest speaker, Prof. Merrill Swain, introducing this concept that she had been developing. It was fascinating. Over the years since I left Hong Kong and migrated to Melbourne, I have come across notions of “translanguaging” and “narrative knowledging”, which resonate with me, given my lived and living translanguaging and narrative knowledging experiences. Therefore, it seems to be natural, at least to me, that my own understandings have evolved, over the years, from perceiving Chinese English as a “developing variety” to a “translanguaging practice” involving “narrative knowledging” of myself as a Chinese speaker of English, and of many other speakers of English, like me, with Chinese as their first language.

and frameworks proposed and developed to account for the global spread of English and the growth of world Englishes. Jenkins (2015, pp. 12–​21) has summarised a number of the major models, including the “world map” model by Strevens (1992, p. 33), the “circle” model by Görlach (1988), the “circle of world English” model by McArthur (1998, p. 97), the “three concentric circles” model by B. Kachru (1982b, 1992), the “cylindrical model” by Yano (2003, pp. 122–​ 124), the “centripetal circles of international English” model by Modiano (1999, p. 25), the “plurilingual competence” model by Canagarajah (2005), the “3D Model” of English use by Pennycook (2009, p. 204), and the “language variation framework” by Mahboob (2015, p. 161). The above-​mentioned models and frameworks have their strengths and considerations for various contexts in relation to English language varieties and their use and users. For example, Strevens’ world map model was based, as its name suggests, on a map of the world, with two major branches of the world Englishes family, namely, British English and American English. This model implies that “since American English became a separate variety from British English, all subsequent Englishes have had affinities with either one or the other” (Jenkins, 2015, p. 12). It is worth noticing that according to the “world map” model, Chinese and Malay are listed under the geographical category of “Far East”, which is under the “British English branch”, alongside the British Isles, Africa, India–​Pakistan and Australasia. The “circles” models, e.g., those by Görlach and McArthur, have “International English” or “World Standard English” at their centres. It can be argued that such entities as international language or world standard English

64  Developing a framework for Chinese English may “not exist in an identifiable form at present, if it ever will do” (Jenkins, 2015, p. 13). The “three Concentric Circles” model proposed by Kachru has been highly influential and controversial, and it has contributed greatly to our critical understanding of the sociolinguistic realities of the spread of English. Kachru’s model addresses the issues of “standardisation, codification and linguistic creativity” regarding the English language, resulting in a “significant variation within such institutionalized varieties” (Bolton, 2006, p. 292). World Englishes scholars and practitioners have identified limitations with the three Concentric Circles model, which can be further summarised as follows, based on Jenkins’ (2015, pp. 15–​16) summary: 1) the model is based on geography and history rather than on the way speakers currently identify with and use English; 2) there is often a grey area between the Inner and Outer Circles: in some Outer Circle countries; English may be the first language learned for many people, and may be spoken in the home rather than used purely for institutional purposes such as education, law and government; 3) there is also an increasingly grey area between the Outer and Expanding Circles; 4) many World Englishes speakers grow up bilingual or multilingual, using different languages to fulfil different functions in their daily lives, making it difficult to describe any language in their repertoire as L1, L2 or L3; 5) there is difficulty in using the model to define speakers in terms of their proficiency in English; 6) the model implies that the situation is uniform for all countries within a particular circle, whereas this is not so; and 7) the term “Inner Circle” implies that speakers from the ENL countries are central to the effort, whereas their worldwide influence is in fact in decline. The sixth point critiques the Kachru’s Circles model in the sense that it implies uniform varieties for countries within a particular circle. Piller (2016, p. 29) points out the downside of seeing world Englishes as constituting homogeneous, codified and features-​based uniform varieties in that the invention of linguistic homogeneity may appear to be of merely historical interest, but the normalization of linguistic homogeneity continues to affect us today and constitutes a form of representational injustice as it has helped to create the linguistic homogeneity of the standard language as the imagined ideal against which the diverse repertoires of individual speakers are judged. Jenkins (2015, pp. 16–​21) has also reviewed a number of other models; e.g., Yano’s “cylindrical model” distinguishes the Inner and Outer Circle varieties of English as “genetic ENL” and “functional ENL”, taking account of the social dialectal concept of acrolect (standard) and basilect (colloquial) use of English. However, Jenkins (2015, p. 17) points out that this model “does not allow for the possibility of basilect use in international communication, whereas such use is becoming increasingly common”. Modiano’s “centripetal circles” model appears to break with historical and geographical concerns, and it is based on “what is mutually comprehensible to the majority

Developing a framework for Chinese English  65 of proficient speakers of English, be they native or non-​native” and “a core of features that is comprehensible to the majority of native and competent non-​native speakers of English”. However, the issue with this model lies in the impracticality of drawing the “line between proficient and not proficient in international English in the absence of such a definition” (Jenkins, 2015, p. 18). Other more recent models, e.g., Canagarajah’s “plurilingual competence” model, Pennycook’s “3D model” and Mahboob’s “language variation framework”, according to Jenkins (2015, p. 20), tend to “move away from a narrower focus on geography, history, nativeness, proficiency, and the like to take greater account of the role of the communication context”. Kirkpatrick (2007, pp. 27–​37) has also summarised and reviewed models of world Englishes. He started by critiquing the ENL/​ESL/​EFL distinction, arguing that although the distinction has been helpful in certain contexts, it has shortcomings. One is that the term native language is “open to misunderstanding”, given the fact that “many different varieties of English are spoken in ENL countries” (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 28). The second is that “the spread of English also means that it is more difficult to find countries that can be accurately classified as EFL countries”. Regarding Kachru’s three Concentric Circles model, Kirkpatrick (2007, p. 28) points out that the great advantages of this model over the ENL/​ESL/​EFL one are, first, that it makes English plural so that one English becomes many Englishes. Second, the model does not suggest that one variety is any better, linguistically speaking, than any other. In addition, Kirkpatrick (2007, pp. 29–​ 30) offers two observations regarding the three Concentric Circles model. The first is about how different types of colonies, drawing upon Mufwene’s (2001, pp. 8–​9) elaboration on the distinction between “trade colonies”, “exploitation colonies” and “settlement colonies”, influence the varieties being developed in the respective countries in the Inner and Outer Circles. Contact in trade colonies between European traders and local people “typically led to the development of pidgins”; “in exploitation colonies such as India and Malaysia, the influence of local languages and cultures was greater in the development of the local English varieties”; “in settlement colonies such as Australia and New Zealand, the same influences were seen in the development of the local variety of English, but to a lesser extent”. The second observation is about the remarkably increasing role that English plays in the Expanding Circle countries, such as China. For example, the number of people learning English in China is now greater than the combined populations of the Inner Circle countries, … and China’s increase in international trade and contact means that English is becoming the lingua franca of business and trade in China itself. (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 30)

66  Developing a framework for Chinese English Apart from the models of world Englishes, Kirkpatrick (2007, pp. 30–​35) has also reviewed a number of “developmental cycles” as applied to varieties of English. These can be categorised as the “developmental cycles” model. This model concerns the “phases or processes through which varieties of English go”. Based on the summary by Kirkpatrick (2007, p. 33), Kachru’s three phases of new varieties of English include 1) non-​ recognition; 2) co-​existence of local and imported varieties; and 3) recognition. Moag (1992, pp. 234–​246) identified five processes as a “life cycle of non-​native Englishes”, including 1) transportation; 2) indigenisation; 3) expansion in use and function; 4) institutionalisation; and 5) restriction of the use and function of English. Schneider’s (2003) five phases in the developmental cycle include 1) foundation; 2) exonormative stabilisation; 3) nativisation; 4) endonormative stabilisation; and 5) differentiation. Kirkpatrick (2007) reviews the “cycles” model critically by pointing out that these cycles are essentially addressing the processes that occur in postcolonial societies. But it is possible that new varieties are also developing in what Kachru termed “expanding circle” countries, where, by definition, there has been no significant settlement of English speakers. It would appear that, in certain circumstances, expanding circle countries can develop their own Englishes without going through the first “transportation” or “foundation” phases. (Kirkpatrick, 2007, p. 32) In addition, Widdowson (1997, 2003) has proposed a slightly different way of looking at the development of Englishes. While agreeing that “the very fact that English is an international language means that no nation can have custody over it” (Widdowson, 2003, p. 43), Widdowson makes an important distinction between the spread of English and the distribution of English. He argues that English is not so much distributed as a set of established encoded forms, unchanged, into different domains of use, but rather, that it is spread as a virtual language. He sees the two processes as being quite different. “Distribution implies adoption and conformity. Spread implies adaptation and non-​conformity” (Widdowson, 1997, p. 140). As far as Chinese English is concerned, there has been an implicit shift from a distribution mentality among learners and users of English in China to a spread of English reality, where learners and users explore different functions of English as an embedded language and Chinese as the matrix language in the multilingual and multicultural Chinese context, including virtual realities of media and social media interface involving Chinese speakers of English. In passing, Butler (1997, p. 106) has proposed five criteria for a variety of English, including: 1) recognisable pronunciation; 2) words and phrases to express the physical and social environment; 3) a history; 4) a literature written without apology in that variety of English; 5) reference works –​dictionaries

Developing a framework for Chinese English  67 and grammar books. This has been well cited and discussed in the world Englishes literature. Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002, p. 270) have applied both Butler’s five criteria and Kachru’s phases for new varieties of English to Chinese English, and they point out that Butler’s criteria 4 and 5 provide strong evidence for an established variety, whereas in the context of China, “it is clear that we are considering a developing variety”. Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002, p. 270) suggest that “recalling Kachru’s ‘phases’ through which non-​ native institutionalised varieties seem to pass is useful”. The first phase was non-​recognition of the local variety. This phase is exemplified by conscious identification with native speakers by local users of English. The second phase sees the development of varieties within a variety when the local model may be widely used but remains socially unacceptable. The third phase occurs when the non-​native variety is accepted as the norm and becomes socially acceptable. In the context of Chinese English, “it is our contention that while officials and many language professionals and educators within China would like to see phase one maintained, China English is slowly moving towards phase two” (Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2002, p. 270). The world of Englishes has recently taken a slight departure from a variety-​ centric stand, and the Kachruvian Three Circles model has also been under critical scrutiny. S. N. Sridhar and Kamal K. Sridhar (2018) have put forward “critical responses to WE and the three circles model”. They point out that in this model, the distinctive features of English are explained in terms of its use as a native language (the Inner Circle), as a second language with a wide range of intra-​national roles (the Outer Circle), and as a foreign or international language (the Expanding Circle). (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 135) The differences in the linguistic and cultural ecology of the Three Circles –​including, for example, what English is used for and with whom, and how it is taught and learned, how it complements or interacts with users’ other languages –​account for the evolution and characteristics of world Englishes, such as their formal differences, varietal range, functional roles, discourse types, acquisitional processes, creative innovations, and pedagogic standards and attitudes. (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 135) Sridhar and Sridhar (2018, p. 133) have argued that “WE as a paradigm has been open to innovations and has accommodated a plurality of perspectives in theory and method … from a substantive and a historiographic point of view”. Sridhar and Sridhar (2018, p. 133) have summarised that “one set of criticisms claims that the WE model has not kept pace with recent developments, such as the sociolinguistics of globalization, superdiversity, and translanguaging. Another set of criticisms concern the validity and

68  Developing a framework for Chinese English relevance of the Three Circles model”. One criticism of the Three Circles model is put forward by Bruthiaux (2003). He acknowledges that the Three Circles model “has helped valorize denigrated varieties by drawing attention to commonalities across old and new varieties and by altering perceptions of their communicative potential and relative prestige” (Bruthiaux, 2003, p. 159). However, he also points out that the model suffers from being based in a political/​historical view of English worldwide and thus fails to capture transplantations of the language in locations not formally recorded by colonial history. Because it promotes specific varieties, the model also ignores variation within locales, especially where the gap between those who know English and those who do not is vast. Overall, the model encourages broad-​brush descriptions of manifestations of English across all three circles that do not stand up to sociolinguistic analysis. (Bruthiaux, 2003, p. 159) Sridhar and Sridhar (2018, p. 135) respond by arguing that the fact that the Three Circles model is “based in a political/​historical view of English worldwide is a strength, rather than a weakness”. According to Sridhar and Sridhar (2018 p. 135), the Three Circles model “explains not only the history of the introduction and expansion of the roles of English, but also aspects, such as its postcolonial status, roles, attitudinal preferences among models, and the linguistic features of the varieties that have developed in these contexts”. They argue further that “a model should be judged on its insights and explanatory power, rather than its alleged shortcomings, and in relation to available alternatives” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 135). They clarify that “the model is not intended to promote any specific variety; it only advocates choice based on pragmatic considerations. The energetic elaboration of Outer Circle varieties is a reaction to their neglect and marginalization in the ELT and SLA literature” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 135). They point out that despite the criticisms, the “Three Circles model continues to be influential for its fundamental insights into challenges posed by the globalization of English for traditional models of sociolinguistics” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 136). In response to the criticisms of the Three Circles model, Seargeant and Tagg (2011) propose a “post-​varieties” approach to language and world Englishes studies. They acknowledge that in the late 1970s and the 1980s, the innovation of referring to “Englishes” instead of “English” did much to break down the myth of a single monolithic English language, and thus better reflect the “sociolinguistic realities” of postcolonial territories where the language now exists as an established part of the linguistic ecology. (Seargeant & Tagg, 2011, p. 498)

Developing a framework for Chinese English  69 However, they point out that “the paradigm which replaced the monocentric view of the language with this pluricentric one has itself been criticised for being too ‘varieties’ based”, and that the model “deals with language primarily at the level of the nation-​state, thus necessarily overlooking much of the variation that occurs within countries or regions” (Seargeant & Tagg, 2011, p. 498). “Furthermore, in actual practice, people often mix English with other languages in an ad hoc manner, adding English-​related words and phrases while nominally speaking other languages in a way which reflects transnational cultural flows” (Seargeant & Tagg, 2011, p. 498). Seargeant and Tagg (2011, p. 498) define the “post-​varieties” approach as “an analysis apparatus that is sensitive to the dynamic communicative practices which use English-​ related forms and connotations as one part of a wider semiotic repertoire”. Having undertaken a critical review of the major existing models, I have observed that the existing models almost all take Englishes as varieties, without much attention to the users and actual uses or practice of English, although such attention is well deserved and anticipated. Proshina (2019, p. 237) points out that a “variety” of English tends to be defined as a “sociolinguistic construct characterized by distinctive linguistic features resulting from the English language adjustment to and reflection of the native culture and mentality”. Referring to the modifier Indian in Indian English, Kachru (1986, p. 121) argues that the modifier is “both linguistically and culturally indicative of the unique role that it plays in the Indian context of situation. As its Indian uses increase, the chances of its getting further away from the British or American varieties are greater.” As far as Chinese English as a translanguaging practice is concerned, the Kachruvian Circles model with its implicit focus on “varieties” in relation to British English and American English may not have sufficiently accounted for it, as a) Chinese English is not homogeneously distributed among Chinese speakers of English; b) Chinese speakers of English use English in all different “Circles”, not necessarily exclusively in the Expanding Circle; and c) Chinese English is an umbrella term, covering a range of practices involving Chinese and English, functioning in a wide variety of local and global contexts. Likewise, Schneider’s model may have not adequately accounted for Chinese English either, as it deals primarily with postcolonial Englishes, which have evolved in a process of competition-​ and-​selection. It also explains how the histories and ecologies determine linguistic features and social identities of different varieties and users of English. It deals with two major parties of agents: settlers and indigenous residents. While Chinese English has gone through a historical development (c.f., Bolton, 2003a), it may not be generally considered as a postcolonial variety of English. Kachru and Nelson (2006, p. 171) point out that Chinese English “represents a case of expansion of English beyond the colonies”. Schneider also acknowledges that his Dynamic Model may not account for expanding varieties of English; e.g., Schneider (2014) has suggested that heavily mixed codes, such as that of colloquial English in China, do not fit very well into his

70  Developing a framework for Chinese English Dynamic Model. Schneider (2014, p. 9) points out that “while the twentieth-​ century expansion of English predominantly transformed Outer Circle countries, in recent years attention has increasingly been directed towards the Expanding Circle, where the demand for and the spread of English have been growing dramatically”. Schneider (2007, p. 50) notes that the widespread use of a name such as China English rather than “English in China” to refer to an indigenous variety marks a key moment in its development as it matures with an independent status and shifts from Phase 3 (Nativisation) to Phase 4 (Endonormative Stabilisation) of his five-​phase Dynamic Model for the evolution of postcolonial Englishes. Apart from the models and frameworks reviewed here, there are also issues in relation to language typology, in particular the naming and defining of world Englishes. Seargeant (2010, p. 111) points out that “given this focus on community identity and function though, the traditional concerns of language typology –​that is to say, the structural features of diverse varieties –​are less stressed, at least in the naming of varieties”. He has proposed six categories of naming the English language: 1. Varieties marked for function: namely, for what purpose is the variety used? 2. Varieties marked according to community: namely, who speaks the variety? 3. Varieties marked in terms of their history: namely, how did the variety evolve? 4. Varieties marked according to their structure: namely, what are the structural features of the variety? 5. Varieties marked according to where they fit within an ecological model (ecology) of other varieties. 6. English as multiplex. (Seargeant, 2010, p. 100) In terms of function, there are ESL, EFL, EAL, EIL, ELF, International English, World standard spoken English (WSSE); in terms of community, there are metropolitan standards, regional dialects, social dialects, immigrant Englishes, Native/​non-​native varieties, Global, Global English; in terms of history, there are language-​ shift Englishes, colonial standards, indigenised Englishes; in terms of structure, there are Pidgin Englishes, creole Englishes, hybrid Englishes; in terms of ecology, there are Inner Circle varieties, Outer Circle varieties, Expanding Circle varieties, world Englishes, and New Englishes. The ecological metaphor thus draws attention to the ways in which the nature or status of a given variety is conceptualised in part by the role it plays in a world system of Englishes, in addition to its discrete characteristics. (Seargeant, 2010, p. 107)

Developing a framework for Chinese English  71 In addition, there is also a category of “multiplex” English, including world English, and English language complex. As far as Chinese English is concerned, given its obscure nature as a variety that fits into any of the listed categories, it is in search of a developing framework to understand how its users utilise their repertoires-​based habitus and cultural capital for effective local and global communication.

Chinese English in search of a developing post-​varieties framework The discipline of world Englishes has been at a crossroads since the beginning of the 21st century, seeking directions for further developments. In this context, it is normal and natural for Chinese English to embark on its Long March (a term alluding to a Chinese historical event in 1934 and 1935 of the

Micro-​narrative 9:  Deconstructing a post-​varieties framework I have always reflected on Chinese English, as a learner, a user and a researcher. Over the years, I have come across relevant theories and models of world Englishes, and to some extent, I have attempted to apply them to my understanding of Chinese English, first as a developing variety of English in world Englishes terms and then as a translanguaging practice, as I currently frame it. However, the more I look into Chinese English and myself as a practitioner of it, the more irrelevance and insufficiency I have found when I apply the existing models and theories. Subconsciously, I have been in search of a framework of some sort to account for my understanding of what Chinese English means to me. Martin (2000, p. 116) points out that “linguistics as social action engages theory with practice in a dialectic whereby theory informs practice which, in turn, rebounds on theory, recursively, as more effective ways of intervening in various processes of semogenesis are designed.” At the stage when I was working on the proposal of this book, I was certain that I was going to explore fundamental issues of names, norms and narratives in relation to Chinese English, and the proposed title was very positively reviewed by the three anonymous reviewers. In my proposal, I also promised that I would propose novel theoretical and analytical frameworks, based on classical Chinese and Western philosophies, e.g., Confucius’s Zhongyong (Doctrine of the Mean), i.e., ti and yong (essence and utility), Gongsun Long’s White Horse Discourse (i.e., the well-​ known “whether a white horse is a horse” debate), Derrida’s philosophy of “deconstruction” and Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, field and capital.

72  Developing a framework for Chinese English This proposal met with mixed reviews. One of the reviewers commented on it as “an ambitious and intriguing promise”. A second reviewer regarded it as a distinctive feature of the book, as this way of dealing with a theoretical framework cannot be found in previous publications related to this research field … key advantages of the proposed book include how the theoretical framework is presented, its thorough review of current literature, and its empirical data. The third reviewer commented that elements that would make this book a unique or essential resource are the novel theoretical framework for researching Chinese English on the basis of Chinese and Western philosophies, the inclusion of first-​hand narratives by speakers of Chinese English, among others. Since I embarked on the journey of writing this book, I have been developing the “novel theoretical and analytical frameworks”, and this chapter is where the frameworks are (de-​)constructed and established.

Red Army retreating to evade the pursuit of the Nationalist Party Army) for rectifying its name(s), gaining the recognition and acknowledgement that it deserves, and playing a significant role in the arena of world Englishes. The Long March needs a blueprint or planning with original and philosophical thinking. In one of the editorials of the Asian Englishes journal, D’Angelo (2018, p. 191) encourages authors to “consider the paradigms which inform their work, and to also attempt the kind of meta-​theoretical modelling which is essential to create constructs that help frame our research, and make it understandable to a wider audience”. In the meantime, Low and Pakir (2018, pp. 1–​2) call for “all scholars working within the field to reflect upon how they can continue to rethink the paradigm and to grow the field within their respective related disciplines in the post-​Kachruvian era”. This book, in particular this chapter, is a response to the calls for rethinking the world Englishes paradigm in terms of meta-​theoretical modelling in the post-​Kachruvian era. Such a shift in perspectives is inevitable, given that world Englishes is at a crossroads and is metaphorically a “bridge half-​built” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, p. 127). Canagarajah (2017, p. 4) has also explicitly elaborated on the paradigm shift, i.e., “in the place of territorialized, bounded, and static ways of talking about language and social practices, we are now adopting constructs that index their mobile, hybrid, and constructed nature”.

Developing a framework for Chinese English  73 Such a shift involves moving from grammar as the primary meaning-​ making system to a consideration of spatial repertoires. They are different from grammars in the sense that they involve diverse semiotic resources. They are spatial in the sense that the resources are defined by and embedded in the space/​time contingencies in which activities occur. … We can understand the notion of spatial repertoires as an alternative to grammatical structure for explaining the competence of language users. … We have to think of spatial repertoires as a heuristic or a template to guide interactions, rather than as fixed rules. They are situated, ecological, negotiated, and emergent. … Spatial repertoires put the focus on practices and strategies rather than on norms, patterns, and structures for communicative success. (Canagarajah, 2017, p. 9) Against this backdrop, I have been reflecting on Chinese English as a translanguaging practice. Based on my previous understanding and definitions of Chinese English as a “developing variety of English”, I have re-​considered the current paradigm shift, and my current understanding is that Chinese English may not have to be a definable named variety of English per se, as previously assumed, and it has always been debatable whether Chinese English is a variety, but it may be sensible to say that Chinese English constitutes a translanguaging practice involving linguistic and cultural repertoires of Chinese and English in local and global contexts where English plays a lingua franca role. “The ‘Chinese English’ concept itself is very much a contested construct. The very existence of Chinese English or the very need to study Chinese English is disputable” (Xu, Deterding, & He, 2017, p. 8). It seems that the nature of Chinese English is obscure. Reflecting on the ancient Chinese philosopher Gongsun Long’s debate on “a white horse is not a horse”, I suggest that Chinese English may be metaphysically regarded not as another English variety per se but as essentially a translanguaging practice. China has a long tradition of naming practices in terms of the relationships between names and their actualities. Ancient Chinese philosopher Gongsun Long (c. 325–​250 BC) was a dialectician in the Six-​States (Warring-​States) period. Gongsun Long was deeply engaged in the thinking and debate surrounding philosophical issues of conceptualisation, judgement, logic and thought, and he raised his own unique views regarding metaphysical relationships between peculiarity and commonality, idiosyncrasies and shared features, homogeneity and heterogeneity, objects and characteristics, actualities and concepts, and signans and designatum (signifier and signified) (Wang, 2018, p. 2). In particular, he was dissatisfied with the divergence and confusion between names and their actualities, so he made use of his unique talent to discuss the alleged inseparability of whiteness. “By exemplifying the separability of whiteness from, say, ‘horseness’, and extending the analogy in other objects, he declared that a white horse is not a horse” (Wang, 2018, p. 139). “The statement that a white horse is not a horse, according to

74  Developing a framework for Chinese English Gongsun Long, shows that whiteness refers to its color, and horseness refers to its form” (Wang, 2018, p. 140). Based on Gongsun Long’s logic, it can be said that Chinese English is primarily about Chineseness in the practice of using English by Chinese speakers for communication. It is not necessarily or exclusively about its Englishness; therefore, Chinese English may not essentially be a “variety” of the English language but a translanguaging practice, embedded in the Chineseness of its use and users of Chinese English. The issue of whether Chinese English exists may be metaphysical, but it is a real issue encountered by many people, including scholars of world Englishes. Seargeant (2010, p. 97) argues that named languages, such as English, are “myths” generated by the discipline of linguistics, and that within the broad field of scholarship that studies the English language, one of the most contested concepts is that denoted by the term “English” itself. Certain scholars go so far as to question whether an entity named English exists at all. Chinese English is indeed something that exists, and it is actively practised as a dynamic and evolving phenomenon in which Chinese speakers of English communicate their daily experiences and worldviews, e.g., the trans-​example in the Epilogue of this book. To account for such daily experiences and worldviews, we may have to go beyond the existing models for world Englishes, as some of them may not be directly relevant, or the relevance of the existing models becomes questionable. One thing that is obviously questionable is whether the models were initially conceptualised with Chinese English taken into adequate consideration. The various “circles” models focus primarily on the Inner and Outer Circles, and the Dynamic Model focuses primarily on colonial varieties of English. As far as Chinese English is concerned, there has been an evolving perception from naming it China English in the late 1970s to early 1980s, in the sense of a variety of English, to a current comeback or reconceptualisation of Chinese English, reverting to its original name, as a performance-​based translanguaging practice. In terms of researching Chinese English, there has also been a shift from the identification and codification of features to exploring pragmatic norm-​oriented bilingual or multilingual practices primarily among Chinese speakers of English. In the sections that follow, I deconstruct a theoretical and analytical framework specifically for researching and understanding Chinese English as a dynamic translanguaging practice in its socio-​pragmatic milieu in relation to five concepts: habitus, field, capital, ti (essence) and yong (utility). This framework draws upon Chinese and Western philosophies, e.g., ti and yong (essence and utility), and Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, field and capital. I name this framework a pentagram or a star pentagon framework, as it consists of five major components, namely habitus, field, capital, ti (essence) and yong (utility). I adopt a deconstructionist approach, drawing upon Algerian-​ born French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s (1967, 1997) deconstructionism.

Developing a framework for Chinese English  75 Derrida is one of the major figures associated with post-​structuralism and postmodern philosophy, and he is best known for his semiotic analysis as deconstruction developed in the context of phenomenology. In particular, I deconstruct the pentagram framework by reviewing the five components, i.e., habitus, field, capital, ti (essence) and yong (utility), in relation to Chinese English as a translanguaging practice. I consider deconstructionism as a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language, as it emphasises the internal workings of language and conceptual systems. To be effectively deconstructive, people need to adopt new terms and systems, not to synthesise the concepts in opposition but to mark their differences and eternal interplay. The deconstructionist approach is not to criticise or reject prior systems or philosophies but to reconstruct and reinterpret existing social and linguistic phenomena. I adopt the deconstructionist approach here in order to set up a framework to analyse current systems surrounding issues of Chinese English, and the framework, i.e., the pentagram framework, is primarily based on the use and users of Chinese English as a translanguaging practice rather than illusions of homogeneity or monolithic nature of Chinese or English language and culture. One of the ways that the concept of translanguaging is currently understood, according to Li Wei (2022, p. 173), is that as an analytical perspective, translanguaging shifts the fixation on language as an abstractable coded system to the language user, rooted in socioculturally specific timespace, and focuses on their capacity for communicative practices and activities that are purposeful and meaningful in particular contexts. My proposal of Chinese English being conceptualised as a translanguaging practice is a development based on our current understanding of China English and Chinese English from a world Englishes perspective. What is of much relevance, in connection with ancient Chinese philosophers such as Gongsun Long, in the current context is the “metaphysical relationships between peculiarity and commonality, idiosyncrasies and shared features, homogeneity and heterogeneity, objects and characteristics, actualities and concepts, signans and designatum (signifier and signified)” (Wang, 2018, p. 2) between Chinese English and other world Englishes. The proposed pentagram framework in the following section is specifically designed for exploring Chinese English and its associated translanguaging practice among speakers of Chinese and English in the context of world Englishes.

The pentagram framework for exploring Chinese English In this section, I deconstruct a pentagram framework for exploring Chinese English. This framework consists of five major components, namely, habitus, field, capital, ti (essence) and yong (utility). It is conceptualised under

76  Developing a framework for Chinese English the influence of ancient and contemporary Chinese and Western philosophies; e.g., the Chinese conceptualisations of ti (essence) and yong (utility) may give us a perspective on what, fundamentally, we use language(s) for, and Bourdieu’s unique theory of practice helps us understand what drives the practice of different agents within their respective social milieus. Due to the obscure nature of Chinese English, as discussed in Chapter 2, it makes sense to go deeper into what underlies Chinese speakers of English and their authentic use of English from a metaphysical perspective. Such an approach may help us explore how Chinese English operates among the Chinese learners and users of English in their natural habitat or sociolinguistic field, in terms of who the learners and users are, i.e., their habitus, and how and why they learn and use English, i.e., considerations of various forms of capital. The Chinese philosophical concepts of ti (essence) and yong (utility) are also highly relevant, as they originate in the roots of Chinese thoughts and traditions, and they have been applied to various fields and aspects of the lives of Chinese people. In this case, ti represents the essence of Chineseness in Chinese people’s use and practice of English, and yong serves to illustrate how Chinese people utilise and apply English in their lives or function as bilingual or multilingual speakers of English for intra-​and international communication. In world Englishes, there has been a shift from identifying and codifying structural features of varieties of English to a more holistic socio-​pragmatic approach to analysing the translanguaging practice of English users in relation to the functions, ideologies and ecologies of English in specific contexts. Seargeant (2010, p. 100) points out that “the classification of varieties in world Englishes studies is not solely, or even primarily, concerned with structural features –​it is also to do with function, with ideology, and with ecology”. Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 277) also cautions against over-​emphasising the importance of codification by suggesting that “codification is, by definition, an exclusive activity and we would not want innovation and multilingual creativity curtailed in the name of codification”. This applies to researching Chinese English, in the sense that the conceptualisation of Chinese English may not be exclusively based on identifiable features but on the functions, ideologies and ecology associated with the users and use of English in relevant Chinese contexts. The chapters on names, norms and narratives, i.e., Chapters 4, 5 and 6, will focus on how the pentagram framework can be applied to unpack the use and users of Chinese English. Essentially, the use of English by Chinese speakers involves language contact scenarios and the multilingual repertoires of the speakers for making and negotiating meaning. Canagarajah (2017, pp. 4–​7) points out that “languages have always been in contact, generating synergies of new meaning and grammar”, and therefore, “we shouldn’t treat labelled languages as the starting point for the analysis of social and communicative practices”. Instead, “we should consider how diverse verbal resources (unrestricted by their labels) are taken up by people to establish meanings and negotiate relationships”.

Developing a framework for Chinese English  77

Field (context, social structure, social milieu)

Ti (essence, body, embodiment)

Yong (utility, function, application)

Chinese Speakers of English

Habitus (schemas, repertoires, dispositions)

Capital (assets, resources, relationships)

Figure 3.1 A pentagram or star pentagon framework for Chinese English

The pentagram framework proposed in this chapter (Figure 3.1), in the same way as Bourdieu’s theory of practice, attempts to offer a practical perspective to deconstruct, rather than obscure, the social phenomenon of relevant translanguaging practice of Chinese speakers of English. What basically sets this pentagram framework apart from the existing models and frameworks of world Englishes may be its primary focus on the users and use of Chinese English, as well as the contextual, ecological, ideological and philosophical dimensions of Chinese English as a translanguaging practice. The work of Bourdieu enables people to focus on, or become interested in, “speakers rather than speech” and “discourses rather than linguistic systems” (Kramsch, 2015, p. 455). Language learners and users in this sense are not “docile executors of linguistic rules” but “acting agents” of their own learning and their capacity for invention and improvisation (Kramsch, 2015, p. 455). The pentagram framework, as its name suggests, has the shape of a five-​ pointed star, or a star pentagon. The word pentagram originates from the Greek word πεντάγραμμον (pentagrammon), i.e., πέντε (pente) or five, and γραμμή (grammē) or line. The underlying principles of a pentagram are associated with its formal properties, including star, cyclic, equilateral, isogonal and

78  Developing a framework for Chinese English isotoxal dimensions. A pentagram represents a Western symbol of five senses and the microcosm. The pentagram has also played a fundamental role in Chinese philosophy, e.g., the East Asian symbolism of wu xing (五行), which came to maturity in the Han dynasty (206 BC –​220 AD), known as the golden age in Chinese history, spanning over four centuries. The symbolism of wu xing has multiple interpretations in Chinese thought systems and traditions of geomancy, e.g., feng shui, tai chi, qigong, kungfu, Chinese medicine, acupuncture, Chinese music, military strategy, martial arts and Taoism. The most common translation of wu xing is “five elements”, but the term literally means five movements, which implies the dynamic interaction and relationships among the five elements. Other translations of the term include five phases, five agents, five processes, five steps, five stages and five planets, i.e., Venus (metal), Jupiter (wood), Mercury (water), Mars (fire) and Saturn (earth). It is traditionally and also commonly understood by Chinese that the five elements include metal (金), wood (木), water (水), fire (火) and earth (土). In addition, the Chinese wu xing focuses on the cyclic transformation or relationships among the five elements or movements. The Chinese wu xing of five elements constitutes conceptual schemas deep-​rooted in many traditional Chinese fields for explaining a wide range of phenomena in a holistic manner, from internal organs of the human body to cosmic cycles of the universe. The Chinese wu xing or five movements represents energies and transitions, with each of the five elements either generating or overcoming the other elements, formulating an encircled pentagram. For example, in terms of generating relationships, wood feeds fire; fire creates earth (ash); earth bears metal; metal collects water; and water nourishes wood. In terms of overcoming relationships, wood parts earth; earth absorbs water; water quenches fire; fire melts metal; and metal chops wood. The pentagram framework of habitus, field, capital, ti and yong draws upon inspirations from the concept of wu xing not only for its form of a five-​pointed star, but also for its dynamic interaction and relationships among the five elements or movements. As the current paradigm in world Englishes focuses on the shift from features and varieties to users and translanguaging practices of English in various contexts, it makes sense to explore different aspects of Chinese English from a metaphysical perspective. Drawing inspirations from both Chinese and Western philosophies from a practice, functional and utility perspective, I have extensively referenced Bourdieu’s theoretical construct of practice, primarily consisting of habitus, capital and field (Bourdieu, 1977), and the Chinese ti–​yong metaphysical relationship (Cheng, 2002; Cua, 2002). The five elements, namely, habitus, capital, field, ti (essence) and yong (utility), are interconnected, resembling the dynamic interaction and relationships among different aspects of the translanguaging practice of Chinese speakers of English. In the following sections, I deconstruct the five elements of the proposed pentagram framework for unpacking Chinese English as a translanguaging practice.

Developing a framework for Chinese English  79 Habitus One of the first elements of the pentagram framework is habitus. Habitus is one of the key concepts developed and applied by French sociologist and philosopher, Pierre Felix Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s work emphasises the role of practice and embodiment in relation to the dynamic nature of societies. Bourdieu’s philosophical orientation was “functional and instrumentalist” (Robbins, 2005, p. 15). Bourdieu’s thinking was always characterized by a duality between what one might call natural, familial, domestic, or traditional culture on the one hand and artificial, acquired, constructed or public culture on the other. … It was a duality between regional, provincial, or indigenous culture and metropolitan, central-​stage, or colonialist culture, or, more generally and philosophically, between the “life-​world” and the “system-​world”. (Robbins, 2005, p. 14) The duality between “life-​world” and “system-​world” may be applicable to our understanding of the shift of focus in this book from identifying systematic features of Chinese English to exploring the “life-​world” of Chinese English users. One of the major concerns of Bourdieu is to address the question of how social systems reproduce hierarchy and domination, and the answer to this question can be found in his view that “at the heart of culture lie vested interests and struggles to attain symbolic and material advantage over others” (Houston, 2002, p. 155). This is relatable to the practice of English in Chinese societies, where there can be “vested interests and struggles to attain symbolic and material advantage over others” among proficient Chinese speakers of English through access to advanced knowledge and education, and well-​ paid employment. Bourdieu’s work can be applied to the use of English in China also because such use or utility and application (i.e., yong) of English by Chinese speakers concerns manifestations of culture, power, hierarchy and domination in terms of how English is localised and reproduced in relation to English-​speaking cultures, global power dynamics in the realm of world Englishes, and the divide, hierarchy and resultant domination involving other global learners and users of English. Throughout his public lectures and publications, Bourdieu pioneered social theory methods and frameworks, and developed a set of concepts, such as habitus, field and capital. Although Bourdieu’s research focuses primarily on the theory of sociology and the sociology of education, it has been applied to a number of fields, e.g., anthropology, media and cultural studies, arts and education. In this book, Bourdieu’s work is applied to applied linguistics in the analysis of the translanguaging practice of Chinese speakers of English in a broader field of world Englishes. In the context of China, as analysed by Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002, p. 270), Chinese English has been developing and

80  Developing a framework for Chinese English slowly moving from Kachru’s phase one of “non-​recognition” of the local usage, where there is conscious identification with native speakers by Chinese users of English, to phase two of “development of varieties within a variety”, where Chinese English is widely used but remains socially unacceptable. The social unacceptability in this liminal phase is to some extent due to the dominance of British English and American English, generally taken for granted by the majority of Chinese teachers and learners from the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the mid-​1960s onwards. Such dominance may have resulted in an extended experience of subconscious inferiority that the Chinese users of English may not even be aware of, because often the dominance is so complete that it has become the common sense of the society, i.e., when it comes to learning English, it should be exclusively British English or American English, and no other English varieties can be pedagogically considered as options. That is also why this book adopts a deconstructionist approach so as to critique and denaturalise such common-​sense logic and practice of British English and American English as the only standard English options in the context of China. Theoretical as Bourdieu’s research is, it has a practical dimension. Bourdieu points out in his Outline of a Theory of Practice that it is significant that “culture” is sometimes described as a map; it is the analogy which occurs to an outsider who has to find his way around in a foreign landscape and who compensates for his lack of practical mastery, the prerogative of the native, by the use of a model of all possible routes. (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 2) In terms of the translanguaging practice of Chinese speakers of English, it can be argued that Chinese culture may also serve as a map, or a guide, which helps direct Chinese speakers of English in a global English language landscape for intercultural and international communication. Bourdieu routinely sought to connect his theoretical ideas with empirical research, and his work can be seen as sociology of culture or, as he described it himself, a “Theory of Practice”. Bourdieu intended his theoretical concepts, such as capital, habitus and field, to be tools used to aid such empirical research, not as constituent parts of a “grand theory”. Bourdieu’s frame of analysis is meant as “a useful tool to account for empirical findings” (Peillon, 1998, p. 214). Bourdieu offers “a distinctive theory of the relationship between agency and structure within the context of a concern for the dialectical relationship between habitus and field. His theory is also distinguished by its focus on practice” (Ritzer, 1996, p. 545). Bourdieu’s theory primarily focuses on the nexus between individuals as agents and the society that is constituted by various fields, which in turn form a structure. For Bourdieu, individual agents in a society occupy positions in a multi-​dimensional social space; they are not defined by their social class memberships exclusively, but by every single kind of capital these

Developing a framework for Chinese English  81 individual agents can articulate through their social relations. Ultimately, the interlocking fields of a modern society, such as politics, economy, culture, arts, education, and science and technology, engender a specific complex of social relations where individual agents engage in their everyday practice. Through this practice, these agents develop a certain disposition for social action that is conditioned by their relative positions in the field, e.g., the dominant versus the dominated, or the social norm provider versus norm followers. This disposition, combined with every other disposition the agents have developed through their engagement with other fields operating within the society, will eventually come to constitute a system of dispositions, known in Bourdieu’s term as a habitus. The habitus developed by individual agents may typify their positions in a social space. According to Piller (2016, p. 4), “the way we speak is an integral part of who we are”, and “language is an important aspect of our social position and the way we use language –​be it in speech, in writing, or in new media –​can open or close doors”. In terms of translanguaging practice, Chinese speakers of English mediate in a multi-​ dimensional social space, where they develop dispositions based on their past learning experiences, their perceptions of the English language, and the fields they engage themselves with in relation to other speakers of English, drawing upon linguistic and cultural resources, e.g., repertoires, resources and various forms of capital, such as economic capital, social capital and Chinese cultural capital. Habitus can be understood as culturally and socially acquired ways of thinking and moving, which are reflected, in Bourdieu’s terms, in one’s accent, dress, attitude, taste, gesture, mannerism, disposition, posture and stance. Habitus can be internalised and self-​evident, and it reflects one’s background and social history. One may feel out of place or in place in a social space because of one’s habitus. As far as Chinese speakers of English are concerned, they can be sometimes in their comfort zones or other times out of their comfort zones, where they feel in place or out of place when interacting with other speakers of English, e.g., Americans, British, Australians, Indians, Singaporeans, Russians, French, Germans, South Africans, or more geographically closely, Japanese, Koreans, and their fellow Chinese. In this sense, habitus can be a socially orchestrated “structuring structure” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53), and this “structuring structure” organises practices and the perceptions of practices among speakers of English in the field of world Englishes. The conditionings associated with a particular class of conditions of existence produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them. Objectively “regulated” and “regular” without being in any way the product of obedience to rules,

82  Developing a framework for Chinese English they can be collectively orchestrated without being the product of the organizing action of a conductor. (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 53) The concept of habitus is particularly relevant to speakers of English in a world Englishes context, as it helps unpack the English speakers’ linguistically, culturally and socially acquired and structured ways of thinking and moving mediated through the English language as they learn, acquire and use different world Englishes in various social contexts. They may feel out of place or in place in some social contexts or others depending on where they are, with whom they interact, and the purposes of their using certain forms and functions of world Englishes for communication. Habitus can also be defined, in Bourdieu’s terms, as a system of dispositions involving lasting, acquired schemas of perception, thought and action. Individual speakers may develop these dispositions in response to the objective conditions they encounter. Bourdieu was particularly interested in “the encounters between the cultures of persons rather than in cultures for themselves” (Robbins, 2005, p. 15). This particular interest of Bourdieu echoes the current shift in the field of world Englishes from varieties of English per se to the actual users and use of English in multilingual and multicultural contexts. Dispositions that constitute habitus are public and hence observable; e.g., a disposition is a public declaration of people’s preferences and what their allegiances are. This is of relevance to an English user’s preferences for certain varieties of English, which, in the context of China, would translate into either British English or American English. Other varieties of English also exist in the linguistic landscape of China, including various forms of Chinese English; however, they are not considered as viable options in the preferences of Chinese speakers of English for reasons that are associated with their inherent habitus, to be explored throughout the book. A central aspect of habitus is its embodiment. This aspect of the habitus can be linked to the Chinese concept of ti (essence), which is another component of the pentagram framework, to be explored later in this chapter. For Bourdieu, “habitus is literally embodied within physical presentation, movement and gesture” (Houston, 2002, p. 162). Habitus does not only, or even primarily, function at the level of explicit, discursive consciousness. The internal structures become embodied and work in a deeper, practical and often pre-​reflexive way. In this sense, the concept of habitus has something in common with Giddens’ (1984, pp. 373–​377) concept of “practical consciousness”, or in my own words, embodied practice. For Giddens, people interact with one another via their resources inherited from the past in the form of patterns of practices. They reflexively monitor their own conduct and that of others at the level of discursive and practical consciousness. “Discursive consciousness” denotes the agents’ capacity to rationalise their conduct, whereas “practical consciousness” refers to the “stocks of unarticulated knowledge” of the agents to orient themselves to situations and to interpret the acts of

Developing a framework for Chinese English  83 others. Practical consciousness derives itself from taken-​for-​granted knowledge about how to act, which in turn is based around rules about the right and wrong ways of doing things associated with norms in a society. Bourdieu sees habitus as an important factor contributing to social reproduction because it is central to generating and regulating the practices that make up social life. The practice of English in the Chinese context, in this sense, is closely related to the habitus of Chinese speakers of English both individually and collectively. These speakers of English are subject to norm generation and regulation in their embodied practice of English, to use my own terms, for various purposes in different contexts, which can be further linked to yong, or utility, a concept to be explored later in this chapter. According to Bourdieu (1977, p. 79), habitus is universalizing mediation which causes an individual agent’s practices, without either explicit reason or signifying intent, to be nonetheless “sensible” and “reasonable”. That part of practices which remains obscure in the eyes of their own producers is the aspect by which they are objectively adjusted to other practices and to the structures of which the principle of their production is itself the product. The obscure nature of Chinese English, and its use and operation in Chinese contexts, requires such a sophisticated concept as habitus for making sensible explanations. Habitus, in this aspect, offers a practical tool or an adjustable lens for nuanced explanations focusing on the users as well as the English they use, because it can be adopted as part of a framework for explaining individual and social behaviours and norms associated with their utilisation of English. In this sense, habitus allows us to mediate between agency of the individual and the structure of a society, situating the individual within extant linguistic, social and cultural power relations. In addition, as mentioned earlier, habitus can be conceptualised as a structuring structure, which organises practices and the perceptions of practices of individual agents. Habitus, to a certain extent, reflects the social, cultural and educational backgrounds of people, i.e., the values and worldviews people may develop while growing up and engaging in social and intercultural acts, and these values and worldviews may influence how they act, i.e., think and move. Habitus may also be perceived as the social alignment of the body. This aspect of habitus is related to the Chinese concept of ti, i.e., body, essence or embodiment. It is interesting to notice that habitus can be a rather playful or even deceptive concept, because it may look or sound familiar, e.g., habit and habitat, but as its Latin origin implies, it is an in-​built mechanism for transformation from individual passivity to creative activity. In that sense, habitus is also about internalisation and externalisation of the world around one’s body, i.e., the Chinese ti, and self. What we externalise from our ti, i.e., body, can be more than what we have internalised; e.g., we may, on the surface, learn British English or American English, but we externalise an English that may

84  Developing a framework for Chinese English comprise Britishness, Americanness and above all, Chineseness. The concept of habitus entails “an active and creative relation to the world” (Peillon, 1998, p. 221). The habitus can be seen as the embodiment of what Bourdieu calls a “cultural arbitrary”; this refers to the classificatory schemes, the mode of interpretation of the social world which the dominant groups uphold and impose. As a generative matrix of practices, the habitus is already shaped by symbolic power for it involves the inculcated representations that social agents have of the social world. (Peillon, 1998, p. 221) Such a conceptualisation of habitus as a “generative matrix of practices” has direct implications for our understanding of the use of English by Chinese speakers in relevant contexts, in the sense that habitus engenders an active (rather than passive) agency of the users of English for effective communication. The use of English by Chinese speakers appears to be a continuing process of constructing and reconstructing Chineseness in English due to the inherit “structuring structure” of their habitus. As habitus is an in-​built mechanism of transformation, it may have a generative power. The way in which habitus works may flow from biological, to social, and then to an imaginal space. This can be evidenced in the shifting dispositions in relation to the identity prototypes of Chinese learners and users of English, i.e., “faithful imitator, legitimate speaker, playful creator and dialogical communicator” (Gao, 2014, p. 59). These identity prototypes have been defined and reviewed in Chapter 2. Given the glocalised nature of English and users of English, it can be noted that “people from diverse national and ethnic groups that settle in an urban space are able to form new communities with mixed features from their languages becoming a new shared repertoire to conduct their social life in the new habitation” (Canagarajah, 2017, p. 2). In this connection, the collective habitus of the community of speakers contributes to the formulation of “new habitation”, or “field” in Bourdieu’s terms. For Chinese speakers of English, there can be conflicted habitus, or a divided self, if they follow a mixture of endonormative and exonormative conceptual systems or norms, which can be conflicting but also complementary. Given the innate and shifting habitus of Chinese speakers of English, their use of English may not be a matter of whether they speak Chinese English or not, but of how much, or how little, Chineseness can be embedded in the English they speak, i.e., the idea of the accumulation of their being in relation to Chineseness, through how they invest themselves in life, how they seek recognition, and how they are practically efficient in their use of English. As far as Chinese speakers of English are concerned, when they learn and use English, it may not be about their accumulating English as a language per se, once they have achieved a certain level of proficiency or competency in English, but about cultivating

Developing a framework for Chinese English  85 their Chineseness as a resource or cultural capital so that they can embody or function as Chinese speakers of English in a broader field of all world Englishes speakers. With Chinese habitus and ti (essence), it can be expected that Chinese speakers will essentially legitimise and valorise Chineseness in their use of English. Bourdieu (1989, p. 18) also explains habitus as “internalised ‘embodied’ social structures”. Elsewhere, he defines habitus as our “cultural unconscious”, “mental habits” or “internalised master dispositions”, which lead to particular perceptions and actions that are durable in character (Houston, 2002, p. 157). In this sense, habitus may act as “a very loose set of guidelines permitting us to strategize, adapt, improvise or innovate in response to situations as they arise” (Houston, 2002, p. 157). This understanding of habitus seems to justify my current conceptualisation of Chinese English as an embodied translanguaging practice of Chinese speakers of English, because habitus, as an in-​built mechanism of transformation, may represent “a sort of deep-​structuring cultural matrix that generates self-​fulfilling prophecies” (Swartz, 1997, p. 104) according to shifting social dynamics and intercultural opportunities arising in the field of world Englishes. The concept of habitus, as can be understood from the elaboration in this section so far, is closely associated with individual agency in language use. In this respect, Chinese speakers of English can be considered as legitimate participatory agents of English due to the inevitable Chineseness in their English yong (utility), to be explored later in this chapter, as linguistic and cultural resources. Agents are able to act in the field only because they possess the necessary resources to produce effects within it. They hold a position in the structure of the field, as determined by the type and volume of resources they possess, and this position governs the way they play within it, but not mechanically or automatically. External conditions shape the activity of agents through a habitus. (Peillon, 1998, p. 220) The use of English by Chinese speakers of English as agents operates in the Chinese contexts through individual and collective habitus of the real, virtual and imagined communities of practice. It is through the embodiment or the Chinese ti or habitus that Chinese speakers of English act as agents in the field to respond meaningfully to how a situation develops and evolves so that they improvise a course of action accordingly. “Agents have, in this context, recourse to strategies as the situation develops and they steer a course between alternatives” (Peillon, 1998, p. 220). In relation to Chinese speakers of English, this means that they make strategic in situ decisions to communicate effectively through English as one of the resources in their linguistic and cultural repertoires in line with the shifting needs or demands of a “translanguaging space” (Li, 2011, p. 1222).

86  Developing a framework for Chinese English Habitus may also reflect people’s linguistic preference or attitude, particularly in multilingual societies. Piller (2016, pp. 31–​32) contends that “linguistically diverse societies are oftentimes characterized by a ‘monolingual habitus’, or a ‘monolingual mindset’ ”. In English, the term “monolingual mindset” is used more widely than “monolingual habitus”. It was introduced by the linguist Michael Clyne to describe the mismatch between the fact of widespread multilingualism in Australia and the idealized representation of Australia as a monolingual English-​speaking nation. A monolingual habitus or mindset does, of course, not appear out of nowhere. It is maintained through a wide range of practices and discourses in an ongoing process of discursive creation and recreation. (Piller, 2016, pp. 31–​32) The concept of monolingual habitus is a useful concept that helps us unpack the names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English, which will be discussed in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. Capital Another element of the pentagram framework draws upon Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of capital. For Bourdieu, the notion of capital can be perceived as sums of assets put to productive use. These assets may take different forms, e.g., “social capital”, i.e., the mobilisation of people through connections, social networks and group memberships; “cultural capital”, i.e., educational credentials and cultural goods; “economic capital”, i.e., material wealth; and “symbolic capital”, i.e., other forms of capital whose possession is perceived as legitimate (Peillon, 1998, p. 216). The concept of capital is closely relevant to English learning and use by a vast number of multilingual speakers on a global scale, and it is particularly relevant to Chinese speakers of English, considering the increasingly salient roles China plays on an English-​speaking world stage, economically, socially, culturally and symbolically. In addition, the first languages of the Chinese speakers, Chinese and its various variants, i.e., dialects and varieties, are also gaining popularity across cultures and societies (Hlavac & Xu, 2020; Xu, 2009, 2010a, 2010b). In this section, I unpack two major forms of Bourdieu’s capital, social capital and cultural capital, with reference to Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English. By social capital, Bourdieu refers to the network of “useful relationships that can secure material or symbolic profits” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 249), and the amount of social capital that an individual can draw upon is thus the sum of the number of people in their network and the amount of capital so possessed. For Bourdieu, “social capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships

Developing a framework for Chinese English  87 of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 119). In order for individuals to gain such capital, they must work for it constantly, and this takes time. This relates to Chinese speakers of English, as they invest tremendous time and effort in learning English in an environment where it is most likely that English is not routinely used as a default language. However, given the integration of Chinese into the world economic and social systems, Chinese speakers of English are keenly aware of the social capital that is associated with both their first languages and English, including Chinese English. Cultural capital refers to tangible or intangible assets, e.g., cultural awareness, cultural knowledge and qualifications, as well as relevant cultural and intercultural skills and competencies, which enable holders of such capital to mobilise cultural power and authority. Bourdieu divides cultural capital into three forms: “embodied”, “objectified” and “institutionalised” cultural capital. Embodied capital is imbued during socialisation and is ultimately tied to the social location and position of the individual. Embodied capital represents “external wealth converted into an integral part of the person” (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 244–​245). Objectified capital refers to goods or artefacts, which “are defined only in the relationship with cultural capital in its embodied form” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 246); in other words, the goods themselves and the ability to consume them. Institutionalised capital refers to those academic qualifications that enable an individual to directly convert between cultural and economic capital, e.g., “a certificate of cultural competence which confers on its holder a conventional, constant, legally guaranteed value with respect to culture” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248). It is sensible to distinguish these forms of cultural capital as they can be applied to the interpretation of the learning and use of English by Chinese speakers. The embodied capital relates to the use of English by Chinese speakers in their immediate contexts; the objectified capital may be the learning resources and environments that are accessible to the users, such as materials and apps for learning and using English; institutionalised capital may be certificate or degree courses on English use or proficiency that the users undertake. Given the intricate values of the cultural capital, Chinese speakers of English may focus on their cultural capital awareness and development when using English for intercultural communication. For some families, cultural capital is accumulated across generations as they adopt cultural investment strategies and pass them on to their children, grandchildren and subsequent generations. This gives them an opportunity to realise their potential through education, and they pass on those same values to their future generations. Over time, individuals in such families gain cultural currency, which gives them an inherent advantage over other groups of people. This aspect of cultural capital applies to English language learning and education for Chinese speakers of English. English, as one of the most popular foreign languages in China, has become objectified and commodified in order to satiate the demands of Chinese for their desire to become, culturally speaking, global citizens.

88  Developing a framework for Chinese English Culture does not map neatly onto geography; it works through cultural traffic and therefore emerges not from place but as the negotiation of the entangled relations between places, peoples and cultures. At the same time as looking outwards to ever more complex forms of such global entanglement, the analysis of cultural fields needs to recognise the greater complexity and differentiation within the nation-​state, and how this plays out in cultural production and consumption, or in the very struggle over what a national culture might be. (Bennett, Frow, Hage, & Noble, 2013, pp. 133–​134) This elaboration on culture and national culture helps us understand the dynamic nature of cultural capital in relation to another notion of Bourdieu, which is field, to be explained later in this chapter. Houston (2002, p. 158) summarises the major forms of capital, including economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital, as follows: Economic capital refers to wealth defined in monetary terms; cultural capital involves a person’s or institution’s possession of recognized knowledge; social capital is constituted by social ties; and symbolic capital refers to one’s status, honour or prestige. My interpretation of these forms of capital in relation to Chinese speakers of English is that social capital is relational or can be captured in the Chinese notion of guanxi, which refers to social networks or relationships that can be utilised for interpersonal reciprocal dealings involving benefits or other forms of capital; cultural capital is the know-​how of Chinese cultural inner-​workings; economic capital is the foundation of Chinese social relationships, and symbolic capital is hierarchically structured cultural consciousness. “Regardless of how capital is configured, though, it will be utilized to attain strategic ground” (Houston, 2002, p. 158). The current book perceives Chinese English as an embodied translanguaging practice of Chinese speakers of English, and it takes a practice-​based and repertoire-​oriented perspective in relation to the use of English in the Chinese context. According to Canagarajah (2017, p. 3), “language repertoires have become an important form of human capital in neoliberal forms of mobility” (Canagarajah, 2017, p. 3). So far, we have unpacked the concept of capital in relation to the learning and use of English by Chinese speakers. We now move on to the third element of the pentagram framework, i.e., field. Field The concept of field, in Bourdieu’s terms, refers to the arena, or social context, in which a specific habitus may be realised. Field can be regarded as an intellectual construct for understanding the social structure. A society as a whole can be conceptualised as constituting a field, and it is comprised of a

Developing a framework for Chinese English  89 range of distinct fields. In other words, field is the social milieu, or subculture, and a society can be perceived as a combination of fields. For example, academia can be conceptualised as a field, and it is embedded in and reflects social relations. For Bourdieu, field refers to the different arenas or social spaces in which capital is deployed or the habitus enacted. Habitus is both determined and generative, as it is able to constitute the field from which it emerges. It is the “feel for the game” (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 52). The field yields an understanding of society as a differentiated and open structure. Bourdieu’s concept of field enables us to consider the way that power in the field of world Englishes is not a monolithic concept but is experienced differentially by all speakers of different Englishes in their varying embodied translanguaging practices, with field as a denominator. According to Bourdieu, an individual enters a society, which is a multi-​ dimensional space consisting of subspaces or fields, e.g., institutions, workplaces and social groups, with some forms of habitus, which are a combination of capital, i.e., economic, social, cultural, and symbolic capital. A field refers to a configuration of relations between positions. Society as a whole forms a field, which is structured according to relations of domination. But society also contains a range of fields; it should be seen as the paramount field, from which other fields are never fully separated. … An autonomous field is characterised by a high level of specificity: it possesses its own history; a particular configuration of agents operate within it and struggle for a distinctive stake; it induces its own habitus and upholds a distinctive set of beliefs. (Peillon, 1998, p. 215) Each field has its own rules, and the individual seeks a legitimate position in the field. “Each field involves a set of players, or agents who are engaged in practices and strategies on the basis of a habitus” (Peillon, 1998, p. 213). A field is a setting in which agents and their social positions are located. The position of each particular agent in the field is a result of interaction between the specific rules of the field and the habitus and capital of the agent. Field is, according to Bourdieu, an agency–​structure bridging concept: any historical, non-​homogeneous social-​spatial arena in which people manoeuvre and struggle in pursuit of desirable resources. In relation to the use of English in China, there are domains or fields where English is more explicitly used than in others, such as international events, higher education, news media, and business and commerce, which involve international collaborations and transactions. “English has appeared in various forms of Chinese media and popular culture with increasing frequency” (Zhou & Moody, 2017, p. 554). In China, English is in a high-​culture domain or field, and it serves to differentiate people, to situate them in specific social groupings. “English, as a high-​end cultural symbol, is similar to other factors, … that can be used to assess a person’s social class” (Zhou & Moody, 2017, p. 567). In Chinese

90  Developing a framework for Chinese English cultural milieu as a field, English may serve as a marker of elite distinction. From a world Englishes perspective, the concept of field may help us challenge the assumed “homogeneity and boundedness” of the concentric circles. This is in line with Canagarajah’s (2017, p. 6) notion of “transnational social fields”, or in his own interpretation, “spaces that transcend nation-​states”. More importantly, people’s social ties extend beyond local communities and physical boundaries to occupy transnational social fields (i.e., spaces that transcend nation-​states). As the locus of social ties beyond national borders or physical places, these spaces might be imagined, socially constructed, and semiotically mediated. (Canagarajah, 2017, p. 6) In this sense, field corresponds more to the dynamic trajectories of English users in terms of where they come from and where they are going, rather than where they are, i.e., their physical locations, which can be geographical and hence static. Field represents “a network, or configuration, of objective relations between positions” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97). These positions are objectively defined, in their existence and in the determinations they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present and potential situation in the structure of the distribution of species of power (or capital) whose possession commands access to the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as well as by their objective relation to other positions (domination, subordination, homology, etc.). (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97) A key facet of this field is its “normalizing tendencies”; for example, the main normalising agents in the welfare field may be doctors, teachers and social workers with “a wide range of highly personalised features of supervision and control” set in the field (Peillon, 1998, p. 218). In terms of English in China as a field, the normalising agents have been, historically speaking, British and American speakers as norm authorities, as well as stakeholders of English language teaching (ELT), i.e., English language teachers, curriculum developers and policy makers. Houston (2002, p. 157) suggests that we think of “fields as arenas of social relationship that are characterized by power differentials among the actors who make them up”. Bourdieu presents the field as a battleground where interests, power and prestige all operate. Thus, domination and subordination lie at the heart of cultural experience. So, instead of being socialized into consensual arrangements, actors are thrust into a zero-​sum game where the curators

Developing a framework for Chinese English  91 of culture (those with established power) and the creators of culture (those seeking power) struggle for strategic advantage. (Houston, 2002, p. 158) Field tends to be characterised by struggle. For Bourdieu, “the outcome of the struggle will be determined by the amount of capital (or resources) possessed by competing actors in a given field” (Houston, 2002, p. 158). Only those who can mobilise the relevant resources are able to take part in the struggles which define a field. These resources are conceptualised by Bourdieu as capital, which is of course unequally distributed. The position of an agent in the field is characterised by the volume and the type of capital it has access to. (Peillon, 1998, p. 216) From a world Englishes perspective, we may conceptualise world Englishes (WE) as both an academic field and a social, global field comprising speakers of world Englishes, instead of circles; and we may also conceptualise English as a lingua franca (ELF) as a field. Circles can be boundary building, but fields are permeating and expansive, with necessary overlaps among themselves. “Against a dominant tradition of methodological nationalism, but without necessarily abandoning the influence of the nation-​state, … we should address the increasing need for global ethnographies” (Bennett et al., 2013, p. 133). The changing patterns of geographic and social mobility and the altered relations within the global system have been accelerated and transformed not only by growing forces of globalisation in more recent decades, but also by more complex relations of transnationalism and regionalism. These processes require us to ask whether cultural fields are still –​if they ever were –​nationally specific. One way in which we come to see monolingual standard languages as the norm and deviations from that imagined monolingual standard language –​and remember each individual repertoire is a deviation but repertoires characterized by multilingualism and language contact tend to be characterized by greater deviation –​as problematic is through the close association between language and place. (Piller, 2016, p. 33) The use of field can be highly relevant to world Englishes studies, and it may help challenge the nation-​state as the natural border of cultural fields; for example, there may be a metropolitan culture in multilingual and multicultural contexts, involving speakers of world Englishes in the overlapping field of English as a lingua franca. Therefore, it makes sense to include field as an integral component of the pentagram framework for unpacking Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English.

92  Developing a framework for Chinese English Relationships among habitus, capital and field Different forms of capital combine, and are embodied, to produce an individual’s habitus, or set of predispositions, while the field refers to the arena in which a specific habitus is realised or deployed. For Bourdieu, the concepts of capital, field and habitus are ultimately embedded in relations of power, and they help explain the way that social inequality is reproduced. The individual in a society is constrained by the amount and quality of cultural, economic and social capital that they possess; in other words, the habitus is a possession of the individual. According to Bourdieu (1991), language is a key terrain where all social struggles play out. Bourdieu takes language to be not merely a method of communication but also a mechanism of power. In terms of the inequalities between English and other languages, Phillipson (1992, p. 47) points out the permeating “linguistic imperialism” in multilingual societies; i.e., “the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages”. In the same vein, Piller (2016, p. 12) observes that “some languages are more equal than others and that linguistic difference is rarely neutral but more often hierarchically structured”. As far as English varieties are concerned, Piller (2016, p. 166) views the Kachruvian Circles critically by arguing that the lines between the various Circles are “far from clear cut” and that “the circles model can be seen as a metaphor for the linguistic hierarchies implicit in global English, with ‘center English’ dominating ‘outer’ and ‘expanding’ varieties of English”. She further suggests that it is mostly not multilingualism per se that is socially relevant but diversity within English, distinguishing not only “native” ways of speaking English from those ways of speaking English that bear obvious traces of language contact (e.g., in the form of a foreign accent) but also ordering different contact varieties hierarchically. (Piller, 2016, p. 11) Bourdieu’s habitus, capital and field operate in a world where power relations and social hierarchies are ubiquitous, particularly in the paradoxical field of world Englishes, where diversity discourses of inclusivity and exclusivity co-​exist. Contemporary diversity discourses are part of social processes that reify difference, create boundaries and hierarchies, and undergird social inequality. Diversity discourses thus contribute to injustice precisely by concealing inequality at the same time that they create inequality by marking one group as “normal”/​ “default” and the other as “diverse”. (Piller, 2016, pp. 19–​20)

Developing a framework for Chinese English  93 The language one uses is designated by one’s relational position in a field or social space. Different uses of language tend to reiterate the respective positions of each individual in a society. For Bourdieu, habitus and field can only exist in relation to each other. The relationship between habitus and field is two-​way: the field exists only insofar as individuals possess the dispositions and set of perceptual schemas that constitute that field and imbue it with meaning. Concomitantly, by participating in the field, individuals incorporate into their habitus the proper know-​how that will allow them to constitute the field. Habitus manifests the structures of the field, and the field mediates between habitus and practice. The use of English by Chinese speakers in the field of world Englishes constitutes a social practice perspective, with users constantly seeking legitimate positions in the field. Individuals, along with their habitus and a combination of economic, social and cultural capital, constitute sub-​fields, such as institutions, workplaces and social groups. In this sense, “the interrelationship between habitus, field and capital helps explain how culture affects people, and how they reproduce their taken for granted worlds” (Houston, 2002, pp. 158–​159). In terms of the intricate relationship among habitus, field and capital, Grenfell (1996, p. 291) suggests that it is a “relation of conditioning” as well as a “relation of knowledge or cognitive construction”. It is a relation of conditioning because “the field structures the habitus, which is product of the embodiment of immanent necessity of a field (or of a hierarchically intersecting set of fields)”. It is a relation of knowledge or cognitive construction because “habitus contributes to constituting the field as a meaningful world, a world endowed with sense and with value, in which it is worth investing one’s practice”. “The field and habitus interact in a dialectical relationship with one another to define and (re)define the ways in which capital is endowed” (Park, Rinke, & Mawhinney, 2016, p. 650). Park et al. (2016) have applied Bourdieu’s concepts in exploring the intrinsic relationship among capital, field and habitus in the domain of teacher training, and they propose a “marginalization and privilege continuum”, arguing that “the heart of the matter is that teachers from all walks of life navigate in the midst of the marginalization and privilege continuum, which is an important understanding for all teacher candidates to appreciate” (Park et al., 2016, pp. 663–​664). This can also be applied to Chinese speakers of English. Depending on what fields they are in, Chinese speakers of English may fit in the continuum of “marginalization and privilege” based on their habitus, and the various forms of capital they develop and accumulate, when they communicate in English as a lingua franca with their fellow Chinese English speakers and other speakers of world Englishes. Bourdieu’s outline of practice has been increasingly applied to various studies. By adopting his concepts of habitus, capital and field as key elements of the pentagram framework for this book, I intend to apply Bourdieu’s framework in its empirical sense along the dimension of methodological

94  Developing a framework for Chinese English innovations in relation to my journey of understanding the narratives and practices of myself, as a Chinese speaker of English, and many millions of Chinese speakers of English like me. Bennett et al. (2013) have reviewed Bourdieu’s framework critically from an Australian perspective. A key aspect of the critical engagement with Bourdieu’s work in Australia has been the extent to which his key categories and empirical procedures stand in need of revision if they are to engage adequately with the socio-​ cultural dynamics of societies with significant multicultural populations. (Bennett et al., 2013, p. 144) This Australian perspective can be projected globally when we explore world Englishes. In order to account for the sophisticated translanguaging practices of the Chinese speakers of English and to engage adequately with the socio-​ cultural dynamics of Chinese English communities and diasporas, I argue that we develop a critical engagement with Bourdieu’s work to incorporate other factors or concepts that are directly and traditionally relevant to the field, habitus and capital regarding translanguaging users of Chinese English. I am aware that academics in various domains have integrated, and in certain cases, stretched, Bourdieu’s concepts, and I intend to integrate Bourdieu’s concepts and innovate on them to explain Chinese English as an embodied translanguaging practice. In the following sections, I elaborate on the final two key elements of the pentagram framework, namely, ti and yong. Ti and yong China has been developing an ambivalent and shifting relationship with English for centuries. The establishment of the Tong Wen Guan in 1862 was of linguistic significance, as it was a school for interpreters where English and other foreign languages were taught. Many of the Tong Wen Guan’s teachers were Western missionaries and so introduced Western methods of learning, textbooks and styles of writing to the classroom. The Tong Wen Guan not only taught languages. It later introduced science subjects for which Western, primarily American, textbooks were also used. (Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2012, p. 145) At times in the history of English in China, the English language has been perceived and adopted as an essential tool for modernisation and access to technology. At others, it has been critiqued as the language of the imperialist enemies. These ambivalent and ambiguous attitudes towards English were expressed by Zhang Zhidong at the beginning of the 20th century in the well-​known proposal of zhongxue wei ti, xixue wei yong (中学为体，西 学为用), which can be interpreted as studying from China for the essence,

Developing a framework for Chinese English  95 and studying from the West for practical knowledge, or Chinese learning for the essence and Western learning for utility. Zhang Zhidong was an advocate for the introduction of railroads and heavy industry. He took terminology from the ancient historians and philosophers Wang Bi and Zhu Xi, and put forward this philosophy about Chinese essence and Western utility and practice. Zhang Zhidong was, at that time, developing the curriculum for the newly established Imperial Peking University, and he was attempting to integrate holistic Confucian knowledge with Western disciplinary specialisations. “Ti, the essence of Chinese culture, is not the same as yong, what is useful. China might take from Western learning what is useful (tools) while holding fast to what is essential (the ancient ideals)” (Sun & Johnson, 1990, p. 211). “This dichotomy between Chinese essence and Western practice became known as the ti-​yong debate” (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 275; Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2012, p. 145). The original expression is now commonly reduced to the two-​word phrase ti–​yong (体用), aka essence–​ utility, essence–​ function or essence–​application. Given the recent developments in Chinese English and its increasing use across different domains and functions, future research into the extent to which English is taking on more of a ti or essence role is of great interest and importance. In other words, in addition to the yong or utilisation of English as an instrumental tool to access Western knowledge, the extent to which Chinese English is now becoming an integral part of the identity and embodiment of Chinese bilinguals warrants an ongoing inquiry. The notions of substance or essence, i.e., ti, and application, utility or function, i.e., yong, were first raised in the history of Chinese thought as a pair by an ancient Chinese neo-​Daoism philosopher, Wang Bi (226–​249), who was then serving as a minor bureaucrat in the state of Gao Wei during the Three Kingdoms period (220–​280 AD). Wang Bi’s most important works were commentaries on Laozi’s Tao Te Ching, aka Daode Jing (The Book of the Way and of Virtue), and the I Ching (The Book of Changes). The ti–​yong distinction was raised when Wang Bi wrote the commentary on ­chapter 38 of the Daode Jing. “The first philosophical exegetic application of the term is traditionally attributed to the Confucian scholar Wang Bi (王弼 226–​249) in his commentary to the Daode Jing, entitled Laozi zhu” (Muller, 2016, p. 120). According to Muller (2016, p. 114), “Ti-​yong is a distinctive Sinitic archetypical concept that serves as the basic philosophical organizing framework for all three major East Asian religious traditions of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism”. The ti–​yong dichotomy could also be traced back to Zhu Xi (1130–​1200), an ancient Chinese philosopher from the Southern Song Dynasty (1127–​ 1279), who proposed: let us suppose that the ear is ti, its yong is hearing. Likewise, if the eye is considered as ti, its yong is seeing. … Consider our body as ti, seeing and hearing, as well as the movements of our hands and legs are its yong. (Cua, 2002, p. 164)

96  Developing a framework for Chinese English “Ti literally means ‘body,’ and yong, ‘function,’ and in some contexts, yong means ‘application, utility, instrument, operation, statement, or manifestation’ ” (Cua, 2002, p. 163). “Ti is a metaphorical extension of its literary meaning (i.e., body)” (Cua, 2002, p. 164). The word ti (literally “body”) has a wide range of meanings, but it resembles the English word “substance” in being used both for a solid body and also, as in this pair of terms, for what is assumed to underlie the changing surface of a thing … The yong of a thing is its activity, its response when stimulated. (Graham, 1958, p. 39) The ti–​yong distinction or dichotomy has played a significant role in exploring fundamental issues in Chinese ontology. The variability of uses of this distinction “shows that it is a relative, context-​dependent distinction” (Cua, 2002, p. 164). The ti–​yong dichotomy serves to add a metaphysical dimension to the pentagram framework that I have been deconstructing throughout this chapter, adding to the physical and metaphysical dimensions represented in habitus, capital and field. Ti–​yong means substance and function, or essence and utility. Essence is absolute reality, origin or the fundamental cause, while function is concrete reality, or the concrete manifestation of essence. Ti and yong cannot be separated, as they are two essential aspects of a single entity. When exploring what being Chinese means in the 21st century, Fong (2017, p. 219) adopts this ti–​yong dichotomy, pointing out that there is, and has always been, the distinction between “Chinese” and “the world” which is reflected in the principle of “Chinese learning for essence (ti), Western learning for utility (yong)”. … English does not seem to threaten the sense of “being Chinese”, but rather, it is another dimension of Chinese identity. In a pragmatic sense, Cua (2002, p. 165) suggests that ti means “to realize something personally or to experience something intimately”. According to Cua (2002, p. 167), “the distinction of ti and yong may also be rendered as a distinction between the inner or inward and outer or outward –​in the familiar Confucian language, the distinction between nei and wai”. In addition to rendering ti-​yong as “substance and function”, there are other possibilities. In each case, the use of the ti-​yong distinction depends on its rationale in a particular context of discourse. First, consider ti-​yong as the distinction between a thing’s intrinsic nature and its manifestation, or realization. In this sense, the ti of a thing pertains to its essential nature. (Cua, 2002, p. 165)

Developing a framework for Chinese English  97 This is relevant to Chinese speakers of English in the sense that ti represents the intrinsic nature of the speakers, and yong is the manifestation or realization of the English variant(s) they produce. Cheng (1992, p. 163) examined “English in China” from a historical perspective, and he argues that “peculiarities of English in China reflect the sociopolitical situation there”, and that “when China is inward-​searching, the English there acquires more Chinese elements, and when China is outward-​looking, the English is more Western”. This argument shows the explicit nei and wai, i.e., inner and outer nature, and the implicit ti and yong distinction of Chinese English. Ti–​yong was a key pair of terms in late Qing discourse on modernity as a response to Western science and technology, namely, the idea of zhongti xiyong (中体西用), i.e., Chinese learning as ti and Western learning as yong. In more recent discourse on modernity, ti–​yong again assumes cultural significance. Cua (2002, p. 167) points out that the use of the ti–​yong distinction suggests “its association with the Confucian distinction between the ‘manifest’ (显 xian) and the ‘hidden’ (微 wei) in the Doctrine of the Mean, or Zhongyong in Chinese, which is a doctrine regarding self-​watchfulness, leniency and sincerity, and one of the Four Books of Confucian philosophy”. This can be evidenced in Xu’s (2004, p. 287) research regarding dominant (显性, or manifest) and recessive (隐性 or hidden) norms of Chinese English. My experience in adjusting to the use of English in a new environment brought to mind an analogy with the concepts of “recessive” and “dominant” genes, where the coded information of a recessive gene is prevented from being read, while the code of a dominant gene is translated into structures present and operating in the cell. When I was teaching and using English in a familiar cultural milieu such as Beijing, the linguistic and cultural norms were “recessive”, however, when I use English in Perth I am aware that I am in a constant search for appropriate norms, both linguistic and cultural, thus making them active or “dominant”. This searching process often makes me feel unsettled, as if I am moving out of a comfort zone into some degree of anomie, or feeling a temporary loss of orientation. (Xu, 2004, p. 278) When predicting the future of English in China, Kirkpatrick (2017) has also adopted this ti–​yong distinction, proposing that the most important question for Chinese English researchers to investigate in the future is “the extent to which Chinese English is, in addition to fulfilling an instrumental function of practical use or yong, is also providing speakers with some ti or essence as an integral part of their developing identity as multilinguals” (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 278). In this sense, ti is more of a representation of the identity of the Chinese speakers of English, and yong manifests in the domain of instrumental function of practical use. Despite the changes in the roles of English in China, the ti–​yong dichotomy or principle has been applied to English

98  Developing a framework for Chinese English education and use for over a century. Fong (2017, p 220) argues that the ti–​yong dichotomy “prescribes the roles of English as purely a tool separate from Chinese as a cultural essence and identity marker”. However, it has also made us aware that “learning English has also made Chinese people more exposed to Western cultural values and beliefs, which can potentially confront their sense of identity”. The principle of “Chinese learning for essence (ti), Western learning for utility (yong)” prescribes the distinction between Chinese as cultural essence and English as a tool. However, … the boundary between the “local” (i.e. Chinese) and “global”/​ “international” life appears to have become less clear-​cut, as the use of English is so widespread that almost all aspects of life involve it. … English seems to have become a part of the “local life” of Chinese that provides convenience as well as “global life” which involves interactions between China and the world. (Fong, 2017, p. 227) Ti as essence or embodiment Having introduced the historical origin and current application of the ti–​yong dichotomy, I unpack what ti and yong mean to Chinese people, in particular Chinese speakers of English, in relation to learning and using English and the pentagram framework in this section and the next. Ti is one of the most basic, earliest, and most essential concepts in Chinese philosophy, which derives its meaning from intimate understanding of reality, self, and practice. On its most elementary level, ti is the concrete corporeal body that a person possesses, the entity in which human life is maintained and developed. But ti is not simply a matter of organization of physical elements. Instead, it is a structure and system of organic functions and vital spirit in the vehicle of the physical body. It may be said that by virtue of the form of the physical body, ti realises its living spirit and vitality, and by virtue of the living spirit and vitality, the physical body maintains its organic unity and organization. (Cheng, 2002, p. 145) There are many English translations of the term ti. Ti can be “body, substance, organic system, embodiment” (Cheng, 2002, p. 145). Interestingly, the etymology of the word ti (體, added by author) clearly shows the structure of ti in its double aspects in the domains of the physical and the living, and the spiritual: The bone radical on the left side of the word suggests the physical structure of ti, whereas the combined radicals on the right side in the form of the script suggest the presence of

Developing a framework for Chinese English  99 spirit of reverence as symbolized by a vessel of food presented to spirits in the performance of a ritual. In common use, ti extends its meaning of organic system to refer to groups of people organized for special purposes, and even to concrete things in the world. By abstraction, the word also applies to anything that has a definite form and style of organization, such as types of writing styles. (Cheng, 2002, p. 145) Ti is both a noun and a verb in Chinese. As a noun, it means body, entity, substance and essence, and as a verb, it means to experience, represent and embody. The meaning of ti, according to Cheng (2002, p. 146), capitalises on the implication of organic system in the notion of the ti. “To embody something is to form a system with the thing, so that the thing can be said to be a part of the whole reality resulting from the embodiment, or a person’s self becomes part of the resulting system” (Cheng, 2002, p. 146). This may serve to show that Chinese speakers of English embody their variant of English to form a system with the English they produce. The relationship between Chinese speakers of English and their embodied translanguaging practice of Chinese English hence becomes a dynamic ti and yong relationship. “When we speak of the ecological system in nature today, we have reached the meaning of embodiment of the system of interdependence as conveyed by the notion of ti as embodiment” (Cheng, 2002, p. 146). Ti as a verb also means to practice and implement. “Ti is to embody one’s action or one’s practice, or to make something happen in action and practice” (Cheng, 2002, p. 147). In essence, ti is the source of metaphysical and epistemological insights in Chinese philosophy. This unique significance consists in that ti is recognized or experienced as holistic, changing –​and yet full of life and possibilities of value. It is thus regarded as a paradigm for understanding both human self and cosmic reality; it is to be trusted, cultivated, treasured, valued. (Cheng, 2002, p. 147) Ti can be understood in three aspects: zhuti (subjective body or substance), keti (objective body or substance) and benti (source of reality or fundamental substance). We can speak of the subject existence of a person as zhuti, or the host substance or ruling substance, which suggests activity, autonomy, and a position in which to relate to the world of objects that are referred to as keti. Keti is guest or objective existence, which becomes a guest substance relative to the subject substance; it is therefore something receptive, but also autonomous in some sense. (Cheng, 2002, p. 147)

100  Developing a framework for Chinese English The dual nature of ti being subjective and objective at the same time can be applied to Chinese speakers of English in the sense that their learning and use of English relates to their changing identities and habitus, while it also correlates with their cognition of the capital associated with English in Chinese society. Apart from zhuti (subjective body) and keti (objective body), there is also benti. “Benti is the source of reality that gives rise to cosmos, life, and all things in the world, forming and transforming them, ceaselessly sustaining them and completing them –​hence presenting itself as the ultimate reality of all things” (Cheng, 2002, p. 148). Benti, according to Cheng (2002, p. 148), is an open process of creative formation and transformation of things. Yet in doing the formation and transformation there is no domination or absolute control on behalf of benti. Benti in this sense is like the dao as described in Laozi in the Daodejing: “create without dominating, grow without possessing and do things without asserting itself ”. This understanding of benti can be applied to the Chinese speakers of English and their embodied translanguaging practice of Chinese English in that they re-​produce or re-​create English without dominating in the field of world Englishes, they grow into mature speakers of Chinese English without claiming ownership of English, and they embody Chinese cultural capital in their use of English in relation to the concept of yong or utility without asserting themselves. Based on Chinese cultural and philosophical beliefs, benti is related to another important Chinese metaphysical notion of taiji (太极), or the Great Ultimate, which refers to the ultimate origin and source of all things in the universe. The notion of taiji gives rise to the two norms of yin and yang; the two norms give rise to four forms; and four forms give rise to eight trigrams. Based on the eight trigrams, all things are derived. This traditional Chinese wisdom manifests itself in the minds of Chinese speakers of English in terms of competing but also complementary norms in relation to their use of English, varying forms of English they take and make, and the many functions they fulfil through their embodied translanguaging practice involving English. The idea of benti is not confined to things or the universe at large, but rather includes the ideas of the ultimate identity, unity and reality, or actuality of the human person. … It is from this notion of ultimate reality that one can see the unlimited function and activity of the benti, which is reflected in the Chinese philosophical thesis of the unity of substance and function (ti-​yong he yi). (Cheng, 2002, p. 152) The review of ti and its various related notions, such as zhuti, keti and benti, shows that the concept of ti is an ongoing and dynamic process and much

Developing a framework for Chinese English  101 broader than the physical body, or the action of experience or practice. Therefore, ti can be “contingently changeable socially, geographically and historically” (Robbins, 2005, p. 20), and ti is more about what we do as speakers of Chinese English in the course of negotiating a place in the field of world Englishes. And in that sense, it is important to unpack the related concept of yong as an overall and holistic process and function. Yong as application or function Among the five elements in the pentagram framework, namely, habitus, field, capital, ti and yong, last but not least is yong. It is more explicitly associated with acts or behavioural dispositions of people in terms of applying or utilising linguistic repertoires, and functioning in a society consisting of multi-​layered fields and various forms of capital in relation to habitus and ti among Chinese learners and users of English. Yong is more action oriented, in contrast with people’s ti or their essence, habitus they embody, field they find themselves in, and capital that they cultivate and possess. Yong and its associated action can be “a dialectical process whereby we internalize the external world but also externalize the internal world” (Houston, 2002, p. 157). This suggests that action-​oriented yong implies a dynamic relationship between the dual interactive process of the internalisation of the external world and the externalisation of the internal world. This dynamic process can be reflected in the intrinsic relationships among the five elements of the pentagram framework. It is also evident in the use of English among Chinese speakers, who internalise English and its associated cultural conceptualisations as well as externalising their own ti, habitus and capital in relation to field through action-​oriented yong. Yong can be literally translated as function, activity, use, utility and application. It is dovetailed with ti in the sense that both ti and yong are two aspects of a single unified social agent or entity. Yong is “to act or to apply oneself to a situation to reach a goal. But yong as activity (wei) must be based on a ground that is the ti of the yong” (Cheng, 2002, p. 153). Which course of action (or nonaction) one would take depends on free choice based on understanding or insight into the ti-​situation. It is in understanding the ti that one sees the possibilities of development and causation. But a yong, or function, is a function not just because it is rooted in the ti, but because it is conducive to our desirable purpose. (Cheng, 2002, p. 153) Yong points to the “ongoing creation of reality in a manner that is continuous with ti” (Garrison, 2012, p. 473). The relationship between ti and yong can be metaphorically depicted as the root versus the branch of a tree. Substance (ti) is always the root, the starting point, the source, and the ground, whereas the function (yong) is always the branch, the

102  Developing a framework for Chinese English development, and the end-​result flowing from the root, the starting point and the source. (Cheng, 2002, p. 156) Feng (1998, p. 429) has interpreted Wang Bi’s arguments regarding the relationship between commonality and particularity with reference to three types of relationship, namely, parent–​child relationship, root–​branch relationship and ti–​yong relationship, arguing that “the relationship between ti and yong is different from the other two”. The parent-​child relationship implies two separate bodies; and the root-​ branch relationship implies two parts of a body. However, ti and yong are not necessarily two parts of a body, but two aspects of an entity. Ti determines yong, and yong reflects ti. (Feng, 1998, p. 429) This subtle understanding of the ti–​yong relationship can be applied to the use of English by Chinese speakers in the sense that who they are as Chinese determines how they use English, and how they use English reflects who they are as Chinese speakers of English. The ti–​yong relationship, or the substance–​function relationship, as far as ourselves as social beings are concerned, is “mediated by our understanding or knowledge and our freedom to make decisions relative to our knowledge of our situations and our goals in life” (Cheng, 2002, p. 154). In the very beginning of Chinese philosophy, there is the recognition of a notion of substance (ti), which also entails yong because it is not separated from its function and use. It is equally recognized that any use or application of any idea, talent, or knowledge implies an understanding of a situation or the substance in a situation, as well as presupposes such an understanding. Hence, we can say that the unity and inseparability between substance and function is implicit in the Chinese notion of reality as the source-​substance of such a reality. (Cheng, 2002, p. 155) The unity, or he yi in Chinese, between ti and yong forms one of the unities (i.e., he yi) in the Chinese philosophical thought system, including the unity of Heaven and humanity (tian-​ren he yi), the unity of substance and function (ti-​yong he yi), and the unity of knowledge and action (zhi-​xing he yi). Both the unity of knowledge and action (zhi-​xing) and the unity of Heaven and humanity (tian-​ren) are the “realization of the unity of substance and function”, i.e., the unity of ti and yong (Cheng, 2002, pp. 155–​156). As far as Chinese culture and Western knowledge are concerned, as discussed earlier, the Chinese have been following the principle of “Chinese culture as substance and Western learning as function” for over a century, primarily for

Developing a framework for Chinese English  103 the purpose of modernising China and opening up Chinese culture as a result of Chinese intellectuals introducing Western learning and science through yong to Chinese people and various aspects of Chinese societies, including the learning and use of English in China. Over the years, the yong of English by Chinese speakers has gone beyond the one-​directional introduction of Western learning and science to China, to the extension or expansion of the yong as an embodied translanguaging medium or practice to express their own ti and convey their habitus through relevant utilisation of capital in domestic and international contexts or fields. English has been shifting from a foreign language to an international language and a lingua franca in China in a wide range of domains for various functions. McKay (2002, p. 12) points out that when English is utilised as an international language, there can be a number of assumptions, including English being used in its global and local sense; the use of English is not necessarily connected to the native English cultures; English becomes embedded in the cultures of the country in which it is used; and English enables speakers to share with others their ideas and culture. McKay (2018, p. 11) also points out a number of principles for English as an international language: for example, local language needs and social factors of the speakers of English should be considered for the use of English; multilingual speakers’ first languages and their strategic intercultural competence are essential in developing their language proficiency. These assumptions and principles imply that the yong of English by Chinese speakers can be more aligned with local needs and social factors, so that English can be more appropriately utilised to develop strategic intercultural translanguaging competence among Chinese speakers of English. The relationship between ti and yong can be adopted in particular to untangle the relationship between Chinese English, as an embodied translanguaging practice in the field of world Englishes, including British English and American English varieties, which have historically played a significant role in the make-​up or composition of Chinese English. Chinese English, in this sense, may not be perceived as being in a parent–​child relationship with British English and American English, as they are separate bodies, or a root–​ branch relationship, as these are two parts of a body, but a relationship between ti and yong, in the sense that the ti of Chinese English determines how it can be functional or applied in relation to world Englishes, and the application and function (yong) of Chinese English may imply what ti or essence it embodies when it is actually utilised by Chinese speakers of English. Specifically, in the field of world Englishes, Chinese speakers of English become an integral part of the global “metrolingualism” of English, defined by Otsuji and Pennycook (2010, p. 246) as “the way in which people of different and mixed backgrounds use, play with and negotiate identities through language”. Metrolingualism, according to Otsuji and Pennycook (2010, p. 246), does not assume connections between language, culture, ethnicity, nationality or geography, but rather seeks to explore how such relations

104  Developing a framework for Chinese English are produced, resisted, defied or rearranged; its focus is not on language systems but on languages as emergent from contexts of interaction. It is for the understanding of such connections and relations involving Chinese English and Chinese speakers of English that the pentagram framework has been conceptualised and deconstructed. In the next chapters, i.e., Chapters 4, 5 and 6, the pentagram framework will be applied to decode, unpack and reconstruct Chinese English names and norms, and the narratives of Chinese speakers of English.

Summary of the chapter In this chapter, I have reviewed the major models and frameworks of world Englishes and approached Chinese English as an evolving embodied translanguaging practice in search of a developing post-​varieties framework. In this context, I have put forward a pentagram framework, which consists of five major elements: habitus, capital, field, ti (essence) and yong (utility). I have deconstructed the five elements in relation to Chinese English as an embodied translanguaging practice and Chinese speakers of English vis-​à-​ vis speakers of world Englishes. The pentagram framework acknowledges the seminal work and ground-​breaking models of world Englishes previously put forward, and it is also constructed and deconstructed in a way that departs consciously from any idealistic description of a named and presumably homogeneous variety of English, be it China English or Chinese English. Instead, the pentagram framework stresses the central role of practice in terms of habitus, field and capital, as well as embodiment in relation to ti and yong among multilingual Chinese speakers of English. In that sense, the pentagram framework is not only physical and operational but also conceptual and metaphysical, and it is essentially about the social positioning of Chinese speakers of English and their embodied practice of language rather than their nationalities and geographical locations. It is also about the external social structures in connection with capital and field, and the Chinese philosophical concept of yong, as well as the idiosyncratic inter-​subjective experience involving the habitus and ti of each and every individual Chinese speaker of English.

4 Decoding Chinese English names

In this chapter, I elaborate on the naming discourse of Chinese English and the naming practice of Chinese speakers of English. In particular, I draw upon interview and survey data regarding the naming discourse and the debate regarding the various names of Chinese English, e.g., China English, Chinglish and Chinese English, and the naming practice of Chinese speakers of English, i.e., whether they have or should have English names for intra-​and intercultural communication in English. There are two major sections in this chapter: the naming discourse of Chinese English, and the naming practice of Chinese speakers of English. The data I draw upon include a dinner conversation (see Micro-​narrative 4) in which three pioneers of Chinese English research, two emerging researchers and myself had an interesting conversation about naming Chinese English. Other conventional data include a number of semi-​structured interviews with Chinese speakers of English, and a survey on the naming discourse of Chinese English and the naming practice of Chinese speakers of English.

The naming discourse of Chinese English I start the section by analysing a dinner conversation among five academic friends and myself, taking place in 2014 in a restaurant outside Suzhou University. I then analyse the semi-​structured interview data in relation to the participants’ views on the naming discourse of Chinese English with an integration of relevant literature in both Chinese English and world Englishes with a focus on names and naming discourse and practice. As narrated in Micro-​narrative 4 in Chapter 2, the dinner conversation took place in May 2014, in a restaurant outside Suzhou University. As well as myself, the six participants included Prof. Wang Rongpei, Prof. Jia Guanjie, Prof. Du Zhengming, Dr. Chen Shengli, who was Prof. Wang’s doctoral student and was about to graduate at the time of the dinner, and Mr. Xue Junfeng, my then course student in Double Master’s in Applied Linguistics, studying on our Suzhou campus in China. I asked all the participants for their permission to record the dinner conversation with the transcript for research and publication purposes, and they all gave me their verbal consent. In this DOI: 10.4324/9781315209463-4

106  Decoding Chinese English names

Micro-​narrative 10:  A “dinner conversation” in Suzhou with Chinese English scholars I went to Suzhou for two weeks, assigned by Monash University to teach a unit for a joint course of Applied Linguistics run by Monash University and Southeast University of China. The unit I taught was World Englishes. Before I went there, I contacted a number of well-​ known scholars who had done seminal research on China English, including Prof. Wang Rongpei, Prof. Jia Guanjie and Prof. Du Zhengming, who were at the time working at Suzhou University. We agreed to catch up, and upon my invitation, we decided to have dinner and talk about China English and Chinese English. Also present were Prof. Wang’s doctoral student, Mr. Chen Shengli, who was at the time about to graduate, and my Master’s student, Mr. Xue Junfeng. Our dinner conversation covered a wide range of topics, from our respective research interests and Prof. Wang’s academic achievements to the development of China English and Chinese English. The dinner conversation was in Putonghua, with some mixing and switching of English.

case, I use their surnames, i.e., Wang, Jia, Du, Chen, Xue and Xu (me), for the conversation analysis in relation to the issue of naming Chinese English. The dinner conversation lasted around three hours, with about 30 minutes during the dinner focusing explicitly on the issue of naming Chinese English. In the dinner conversation analysis that follows, I include excerpts directly taken from that part of the conversation. The conversation was in Chinese Putonghua, but I translated the relevant excerpts into English. The six participants are coded by their surnames, i.e., Prof. Wang Rongpei as Wang, Prof. Jia Guanjie as Jia, Prof. Du Zhengming as Du, Dr. Chen Shengli as Chen, Mr. Xue Junfeng as Xue, and me as Xu. As explained in Micro-​ narrative 4 in Chapter 2, we come from three generations of researchers of Chinese English, with Wang, Jia and Du as part of the first generation, not necessarily in terms of age or seniority but because of the time they started engaging in Chinese English research, from the 1970s to the 1980s. Chen and I are part of the second generation of Chinese English researchers, as we started showing interest in Chinese English research from the 1990s to the 2000s. Xue represents a newer generation of Chinese English researchers, who have joined in the discussions of Chinese English from the 2010s onwards. To some extent, the six of us were connected because of our common interest in the field of Chinese English research, and due to our different perspectives and experiences with the learning and use of English and research areas, we have different habitus, and the conversation shows that we perceive Chinese English differently, starting from our differing views on the names of Chinese English, be it China English or Chinese English.

Decoding Chinese English names  107 At one point during the dinner conversation, I showed Wang, Jia, Du, Chen and Xue the very first few articles by Chinese scholars on China English, including those by Wang and Wang’s supervisor, Ge Chuangui, who was the very first Chinese scholar proposing the name of “China English”, Jia, Du and other Chinese scholars, such as Li Wenzhong, Du Ruiqing and Jiang Yajun. These were all first-​generation Chinese English researchers, and because of their pioneering publications in the 1980s, there has been an ongoing exploration of China English. Dinner conversation excerpt 1 XU: I

have kept many articles on the Chinese English and China English research for over ten years. Here are some of them, including those by Wang Laoshi, Du Laoshi, Jia Laoshi (Laoshi is an address term in Chinese, meaning teacher), as well as one by Li Wenzhong, and another one by Du Ruiqing and Jiang Yajun. DU: Impressive. I know that in Wenzhong’s article, he said he was afraid of using Chinese English, so he would use China English, following Ge Chuangui. In fact, that shows that he’s not open-​minded enough. Naming Chinese English as China English would be a bit weird, although such a name has been gradually accepted. XU:  Yes, I’d call it Chinese English. DU:  This is interesting, because at that time, it was about defending Chinese English, but they didn’t even dare to use the name Chinese English. Excerpt 1 shows that the publications on China English by the first-​generation Chinese English researchers had an impact, and the name China English has been “gradually accepted”, in Du’s own words, although Du himself prefers the name of Chinese English rather than China English. His view is that those who prefer to use China English follow Ge Chuangui’s initial call for such a name, and that they name it China English because they are not open-​minded or bold enough to use the name Chinese English, even though these first-​ generation Chinese English researchers have been defending their Chinese variety of English, which is, from Du’s perspective, precisely what Chinese English should be. Dinner conversation excerpt 2 WANG:  We

understand that even now, the name of Chinese English has its negative or derogatory connotations. JIA:  My point of view is that it should be named China English, not Chinese English. DU:  Then I have a different point of view. I’d name it Chinese English. I think it’s quite normal to call it Chinese English, just like how it’s named in many international journal articles about Chinese English.

108  Decoding Chinese English names JIA: There’s a book published in China, which you might have seen, and it was

written by a Laowai (meaning a foreigner), who worked for the Central Translation Bureau. It was about Chinglish or Chinese English. XU:  Yes, I know that book. It’s The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish by Joan Pinkham, a book in English published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. JIA:  Yes, what the author in that book named was Chinese English. XU:  It was Chinglish, as far as I could recall. XUE:  Yes, my understanding is that when we say there are negative or derogatory connotations, we mean Chinglish, not necessarily Chinese English. For example, good good study day day up is a Chinglish expression, and it’s not proper Chinese English. Excerpt 2 shows that even among the first-​ generation Chinese English researchers, there have been different views on naming Chinese English. As pointed out by Wang here in this excerpt, “Chinese English has its negative or derogatory connotations”. This points to a deep-​rooted assumption among Chinese people that Chinese English is Chinglish, and it has its negative or derogatory connotations. This also explains what Du said in Excerpt 1, that early researchers of Chinese English were “afraid”, and they “didn’t even dare to use the name Chinese English”. This deep-​rooted association of Chinese English with Chinglish becomes evident when Jia recalls a book with Chinglish in its title as a book about Chinese English. This association is also evident outside China; e.g., Piller (2016, p. 52) regards Chinglish as a “contact variety”, arguing that “this kind of ‘Chinglish’ is characterized by simple English vocabulary and sentence structures, repetition of key words, the mixing of Mandarin expressions, and the influence of Chinese syntax”. However, the new generation of Chinese English researchers seem to separate Chinglish from both China English and Chinese English. For Xue in the preceding excerpt, Chinglish is not necessarily Chinese English, certainly not “proper Chinese English”, and Chinglish is a restricted use of English in specific circumstances, e.g., the use of good good study day day up in this particular dinner conversation when we chatted about the distinction between Chinglish and Chinese English. It is also apparent that Jia prefers the name of China English, whereas Du has a different point of view, arguing that “it’s quite normal to call it Chinese English”, following an international practice in naming world Englishes. As far as the international practice in naming world Englishes is concerned, Proshina (2019, pp. 239–​240) points out that Terminological disputes focus on the name forms of Englishes in the Expanding Circle. The attributive clusters are easily admitted for the Inner and Outer Circle Englishes (Australian English, Canadian English, South African English, Indian English, and others), while in the Expanding Circle scholars are infrequently embarrassed to use the same pattern, substituting the attributive collocation by a descriptive name “English

Decoding Chinese English names  109 in…” emphasizing the geographical locality and spread of English rather than characterizing an ethnic culture underpinning the variety. Another restriction is found in the hybrid name of a variety: Ruslish, Chinglish –​ terms reflecting basilectal type of a variety, functionally restricted, typical of uneducated speakers; however, sometimes this hybrid term is applied to a variety as such, including its mesolect and acrolect. This explains why Chinglish as a “hybrid term” has a deep-​rooted association with Chinese English, as it does not only exclusively reflect the “basilectal type of a variety” but can be applied to “a variety as such, including its mesolect and acrolect” in the Chinese context. Dinner conversation excerpt 3 DU:  What

I can say for sure is that the trend is to name it Chinese English. There is no doubt about it. For example, we have American English, Indian English, British English, Australian English, and Nigerian English. Why are we so afraid to name our own English, when it comes to Chinese English? WANG:  I know, but there are also names with nouns as modifiers. JIA:  I have a student who’s currently researching on Singapore English. I’ve suggested that he do some thorough literature review as to whether to use Singapore or Singaporean, that is, a noun or an adjective to modify English. It’s indeed like China, so they have Singapore English, but also Singaporean English, and Singlish. XU:  Indeed. All of these are actually in use. JIA:  The student has done some literature review so far. It is not uncommon to use a noun, that is Singapore, to modify it, so it’s Singapore English. XU:  Hahaha, there wouldn’t be any other options for Hong Kong. It has to be Hong Kong English. JIA: Yes. WANG:  And New Zealand English. XU:  Yes, we seldom call it New Zealander English. DU:  For New Zealand, yes, but for Malaysia, it’s Malaysian English. XUE: Throughout my English learning, from primary to postgraduate, we believed that we’ve learned standard English, either British English or American English. I know that standard English and Chinglish are different. As for China English or Chinese English, I’d prefer Chinese English, because we have American English, British English, and Australian English. I also know Indian English, but I don’t know much about Singapore English. Excerpt 3 shows that Du argues for the use of Chinese English to refer to Chinese variety of English, because most varieties of English follow the trend of the pattern of using adjectives to modify English. However, both

110  Decoding Chinese English names Wang and Jia come up with examples of varieties of English with nouns as modifiers for English, e.g., Singapore English and New Zealand English. Xu has also provided an example of Hong Kong English. So, technically, both Chinese English and China English make grammatical sense. However, people clearly have their preferences; e.g., Xue prefers Chinese English, drawing upon his knowledge of standard English throughout his English learning about American English and British English, as pointed out by Proshina (2019, p. 237): “most often users of the Expanding Circle are certain that what they speak or write is either British or American English”. In addition, Proshina (2019, p. 240) points out regarding Russian English that by using the attributive term Russian English we first and foremost emphasize the cultural and linguistic identity of its users. Thus, to speak of a variety as a social entity characteristic of its users, the attributive term is quite appropriate not only for the Inner and Outer Circles but also for the Expanding Circle. The discussion on whether English should be modified by an adjective, e.g., American English, Indian English and Singaporean English, or by a noun, e.g., Hong Kong English, New Zealand English and Singapore English, reminds me of a similar discussion in a different context between myself and David Deterding when we were editing Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art (Xu, He, & Deterding, 2017). When I asked him whether it should be named Singapore English or Singaporean English, he responded by saying that “small places tend to use the bare name of the country, while larger countries use the derived adjective”, for example, Singapore English, Hong Kong English, Brunei English, but American English, German English, Malaysian English. He also said that “Brunei English seems well-​established, and nobody seems to refer to Bruneian English”. So he thinks that “the big place vs. small place is the usual desideratum”, e.g., we have Canadian English but Bahamas English. He said that on this basis, we might favour Chinese English over China English, because China is big. However, there is a competing trend to favour the bare name of a country. Increasingly, in football commentaries, I hear “the France team” and the “Spain team” rather than the expected “the French team” and “the Spanish team”. So maybe “China English” is following the modern trend. I then shared with David my understanding of the name of Chinese English by saying that “I tend to take ‘Chinese English’ more or less as an umbrella term, while China English as its ‘academic’ name, and Chinglish its nickname” and my observation that “younger researchers do not seem to have that historical baggage, and they don’t even think that Chinglish has a very

Decoding Chinese English names  111 negative connotation, so they use the term Chinese English more commonly and naturally” (Xu, Deterding, & He, 2017, p. 5). The conversations analysed here focus on the naming practices of world Englishes, in particular, whether adjectives or nouns should be used to name localised English varieties; there seems to be no universal consensus on how a variety of English should be named, and the naming of English can be variety-​specific. As I reflect on this naming issue at the time of editing and proofreading this book manuscript, I would argue that the term China English has indeed served its purpose and achieved its mission of raising awareness of Chinese “variety” of English from a world Englishes perspective. However, it is now evident that it has an implicit focus on Chinese English as a “variety”. Since the book shifts its focus from Chinese English as a “variety” to the use and users of Chinese English as an embodied translanguaging practice, it makes good sense to refer it back to its original name, i.e., Chinese English, with Chinese here referring to Chinese people, Chinese language or Chinese culture, and more metaphysically, the Chineseness of English. Dinner conversation excerpt 4 JIA:  In

my articles, I’d make a distinction among the three names, that is, China English, Chinese English, and Chinglish. I’d insist using China English, not Chinglish, because Chinglish is bad English. We really need to redefine Chinese English, because even foreigners or Laowai would also think that there are issues with Chinese English. DU:  If you insist, then we really need to discuss or deliberate (“商榷” is the actual word Du used in the conversation, which can be understood as deliberate, discuss, debate or dispute). JIA:  Yes, we do. There is by no means a fixed term for it. DU:  Indeed, this is also a significant issue. I think what’s behind this is that it involves our mental or socio-​psychological issues. XU:  Yes, this issue was first raised by Mr. Ge, when he raised the distinctions between Chinese English and China English. DU:  Hahaha, yes, many scholars, like Li Wenzhong, have been following Lao Ge (Old Ge), but I’d like to dispute with Lao Ge. JIA: I would still think that Chinese English has a negative or derogatory connotation. DU:  Yes, you’re right. Whether it has a negative or derogatory connotation or not is a psychological issue. If you think it is negative, then it may well be negative. XUE:  I know that some Chinese students still don’t accept Chinese English. Yes, it could be socio-​psychological, and it could also be the result of our traditional English language education in China. JIA:  Yes, this is our reality. In my opinion, how we term it may not matter too much. What matters is how we see it or how we define it.

112  Decoding Chinese English names Excerpt 4 shows that there may not be a fixed term for Chinese English, and that what matters is how people see it and define it. Jia insists on using China English partly because of the negative and derogatory association of the name Chinese English with Chinglish. However, Du points out that this is a significant socio-​psychological issue, because whether Chinese English has negative and derogatory associations depends on people’s perceptions and attitudes. It seems clear that whether people prefer to use China English or Chinese English depends on how they perceive Chinese English and the extent to which they associate Chinese English with Chinglish. Chinese people tend to rectify names in accordance with what they actually are, and they have a long tradition of proper naming practice, or a discourse on name and actuality. Wang (2018, p. 117) describes this discourse as follows: Heaven and earth, together with what they produce, are things. Each thing is actualized in its substantial being without exceeding its limits; this is known as actuality. Actuality is localized in its being there without falling short; this is known as location. Once a translocation occurs, actuality falls out of its regular place. And only when it remains in its regular place, is it properly located. Anything subject to rectification of location must be relocated according to its proper position. Never should it be so fixed in its improper location that it remains where it does not belong. Thus to rectify its location means to rectify that which designates its actuality, and to rectify that which designates its actuality means to rectify its name. According to Wang (2018, p. 118), name and actuality “are to be related in such a way that everything is properly called according to what it really is”. Therefore, for Chinese English, what matters is how we perceive it and define it in terms of what it really is, i.e., the ti or its essence, and how it is used, or its yong, i.e., its utility, function and application, in relation to its actual users, i.e., the habitus of Chinese speakers of English, as well as capital and field associated with the name and actuality, as discussed in Chapter 3. The discourse on name and actuality also reflects Bourdieu’s “functional and instrumentalist” philosophical orientation (Robbins, 2005, p. 15), in which there is a duality between the “life-​world” and the “system-​world”. China English, since its first inception, has reflected the “system-​world” of features identification and codification, whereas Chinese English has a much longer history of language contact between Chinese and English speakers in their respective “life-​worlds”; therefore, Chinese English captures more appropriately what this current book is about: names, norms and narratives of Chinese English, and Chinese speakers of English. Dinner conversation excerpt 5 is all very interesting. As for whether we should use “China” or “Chinese” to modify our English, I’ve also done some research. My

CHEN: This

Decoding Chinese English names  113 conclusion is that, wherever we can use “China”, we can definitely use “Chinese”. That is to say, the word Chinese covers China in its scope. In my dissertation, I’ve done some statistical analysis about Chinese borrowings in English. For example, we say China Red, and China Blue, and we can also say Chinese Red, and Chinese Blue. However, where “Chinese” is used, it cannot be substituted by “China”. So, “Chinese” is a superordinate term, and it covers subordinate terms. My second point is about Du Laoshi’s point that it’s a socio-​psychological issue. I think, whether it is China English, Chinese English or Chinglish, all of these could be imprinted with colonialism. If one doesn’t speak good English, then whatever it is named, it’s “broken” English. Colonial English or pidgin English has been historically laughed or mocked at. However, there’s a current trend that we need to re-​evaluate pidgin English from its historical perspective. From a sociolinguistic perspective, the existence of pidgin English was very significant. In the history, around 95% of the foreign trade activities and transactions were conducted via some sorts of pidgin English. Without pidgin English, it simply wouldn’t work. XU:  Indeed, we should reaffirm the historical significance of pidgin English, and Chinese or China English as well. I agree that China and Chinese have different denotations, and Chinese can be used as a superordinate term when it collocates with English, and that is aligned with my thinking that Chinese English is an umbrella term encompassing China English and Chinglish, and many other forms of Chinese English in our everyday life and the increasing ubiquitous social media world. DU:  Yes, on the condition that we affirm it, we can explore its historical significance from the sociolinguistic perspective. It is actually a natural development based on language contact. CHEN:  So, we can move out of the paradox of Chinese or China English. DU:  From what Chen has just said, we can argue why we should use Chinese English. Firstly, China English is embedded in Chinese English. When we hear “Chinese” in the Chinese English, we have already changed our mindset a bit. In the past, people would associate Chinese English with Chinglish, which is wrong or incorrect or bad English. Our current understanding is that Chinese is somewhat related to Chinese language, or the English that we Chinese speak. The issue here is whether we refer to Chinese as the Chinese language or Chinese people. If we mean Chinese people, then Chinese English is very natural indeed. However, if we mean it’s the English with a Chinese language influence, then it would be somewhat different. Excerpt 5 shows the interaction or dialogue between first-​and second-​ generation researchers of Chinese English. It is interesting to note that the debate between China English and Chinese English is a paradox, and whatever Chinese English is named, it has its historical significance. As modifiers, both “Chinese” and “China” can be used for English, but “Chinese” is more of a

114  Decoding Chinese English names superordinate term. The understanding of “Chinese” is also associated with its ambiguous denotations as to whether it refers to Chinese people or Chinese language. As pointed out by Du, people have already changed our mindset when we hear “Chinese” in Chinese English. If Chinese English is about Chinese people’s English, then it can be “very natural indeed”. Adopting the pentagram framework, we can see that the modifier of English is more or less associated with Chineseness, or the ti or essence of Chinese, and the habitus of Chinese people in the field of world Englishes where Chinese speakers of English engage in embodied translanguaging practice, drawing upon their Chinese social and cultural capital in the actual use or yong, i.e., application and utility, of English. This is where Chinese English comes into being or existence. In contrast, the term China English may imply a territorialised variety of English within a specific field of Chinese academia, as the term has been commonly used and debated in the academic context. As for Chinese English, the ti–​yong dichotomy may play a significant role in how we perceive and define it. Chinese people have a deep-​rooted belief in ti and yong, and we have been applying the ti–​yong dichotomy to our understanding of the relationship between name and actuality. Ti-​yong is one of the primary conceptual models in traditional Chinese thought and has been invested with a variety of meanings. … including (1) the relationship between substance and its application, function or properties; (2) the relationship between essence and phenomenon, or between that which is fundamental to something and its expression. (Makeham, 1994, p. 16) Since “Chinese” is a superordinate term when used to modify Chinese things or actualities, and Chinese English is about the Chineseness and Chinese people, the ti or essence of Chinese determines the yong, in this case, the naming of Chinese English. It can be reconceptualised that the name of Chinese English embodies the translanguaging practice of Chinese speakers of English. “When names and actualities are in accord, however, their relationship is a ti-​yong relationship: ‘internally’, actualities sustain names by making them meaningful, and ‘externally’, names realise, give expression to, those actualities” (Makeham, 1994, p. 22). Dinner conversation excerpt 6 WANG: I

browsed a Singapore website yesterday, and there were issues of Chinese identities there. China has Chinese, and Malaysia also has Chinese. So, when we say China, it should be China. DU:  Then that has become an issue of nation-​state and nationality. JIA:  However, both Wang Laoshi and I prefer to name it “China English”. We understand that people have different interpretations, and there’s by no means a specific definition of it.

Decoding Chinese English names  115 XU: 

I have downloaded over a hundred academic research articles on Chinese English from Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) network, as all of them were written in Chinese, so, it was all “Zhongguo Yingyu”, and it’s not clear whether it would be corresponding to China English or Chinese English. DU:  What I can say for sure is that it will be more and more Chinese English rather than China English. There’s no doubt about it. China English will be used less and less. This is our own Chinese people’s English, and it’s surely significant. Excerpt 6 shows that China English and Chinese English may have different territorial implications, in that China English refers to the English that is more explicitly associated with China as a nation-​state, and it is more associated with English in China as an emerging variety of English from the lens of an Expanding Circle of world Englishes, whereas Chinese English can be of a broader sense, involving the embodied translanguaging practice of bilingual speakers of Chinese and English within and beyond China, including Chinese diasporas. If we look at English in China, it is more of a territorial China English, but if we look at English used by speakers of Chinese and English more broadly or globally, then it is more of a Chinese English. Regardless of the differing names, China English or Chinese English, what we have been exploring here is not a prescriptively codified Chinese variety of English but a dynamic embodied translanguaging practice, and the Chineseness may vary with the habitus, capital and field as well as the ti and yong of Chinese English and its speakers. The changing and dynamic nature of Chinese English has also been observed by Cheng (1992, p. 163), in that “when China is inward-​searching, the English there acquires more Chinese elements, and when China is outward-​looking, the English is more Western”. Therefore, it can be suggested that the name of China English is more of a product of inward-​searching, whereas the name of Chinese English is more outward-​looking, with Chinese being the essence in the English that is more globally used, i.e., yong, among Chinese and other speakers of world Englishes. Dinner conversation excerpt 7 XU:  Yes,

I’d also like to add that the proposal of the term China English has its own historical significance too. It was raised in the 1980s, so that people started realising the distinctions between China English and Chinglish. It’s indeed significant in that sense. CHEN:  Yes, that makes good sense. Another way of looking at it is that, from a global perspective, we have world Englishes. It’ll be of reference how other countries name their English varieties, e.g., Canadian English, American English, and British English. We can see whether there are more adjective or noun modifiers of their English varieties.

116  Decoding Chinese English names DU: I’m very sure that there are more adjective modifiers. XU:  Yes, there are also nouns as well, like what Wang Laoshi mentioned, New

Zealand English, as well as Hong Kong English, and Singapore English. By the way, I would like to ask Wang Laoshi, when you reiterated the concept of China English back in 1991, you developed three key points in terms of its definition: it is used by Chinese; it is based on standard English, and it has Chinese characteristics. What was the background to this? WANG:  I was very much influenced by a book I read at that time, and it was about world Englishes. Such a definition of China English wasn’t really my invention. It seemed every national variety was like that. It has its own characteristics, used by its people with its own standard. JIA: Our current understanding is that it’s not necessarily exclusively used by Chinese people, but by people whose first language is Chinese, or by Chinese native speakers. The other key points remain the same, that is, it’s based on standard English, with Chinese characteristics. XUE:  I think Chinese English is Chinese people’s English, and it can be region or nation-​state based, and it’s influenced by Chinese language as well, for example, “reform and opening up”, and “spring festival”. I also think Chinese English is the English that is used to express Chinese things. Chinese English users are not exclusively Chinese from China. They can be overseas Chinese living in other countries or English-​speaking countries. DU:  There can be issues with “standard English”. CHEN:  Yes, what’s “standard English”? DU:  I wouldn’t think it makes too much sense to say that Chinese English is based on standard English. I would say that Chinese English takes references from those English as a first language varieties. Excerpt 7 shows that when naming Chinese English, there is an exonormative tendency to look for how other international varieties of English are named, in terms of using adjectives or nouns to modify English. Apart from naming Chinese English, what also matters is how to define it. When China English was first defined in the 1980s, there were three key points, as summarised by Xu during the dinner conversation. This excerpt shows that the initial definition proposed by Wang was based on his awareness and understanding of world Englishes at that time. Over the years, it is to be expected that such a definition will be modified and amended; for example, Chinese English may not have to be spoken by Chinese people in China, as Jia pointed out that it can be used by “people whose first language is Chinese”. Regarding whether Chinese English is based on standard English, Du suggests that we should view Chinese English as a variety of English that “takes references from those English as a first language varieties”.

Decoding Chinese English names  117 Dinner conversation excerpt 8 feel like this “standard English” is like Chinese Putonghua, or common language. DU: This “common language” in English may not be as clear as Chinese Putonghua. I notice that there’s currently a term, which is international English. I like this name. Even though you do not speak a particular national variety, for example, British, American, Canadian or Australian English, what you speak can be international English. JIA:  Then China English is also international English. DU:  This is very much a theoretical perspective and it’s a bit abstract, so it may not be that significant. What matters is that we need to research on specific issues, and explore the features of Chinese English. JIA:  I agree with Du Laoshi here, however we name it, what matters is that we research on it. DU:  Precisely. We need to research on it. For example, I’m currently reading some Chinese government official documents in relation to the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, and it’s very interesting to notice that the documents were also translated into standard English, however, if we read them more closely, there’re indeed very salient Chinese characteristics. XU:  I

Excerpt 8 shows some general consensus among us that we need to research on specific issues and explore the features of Chinese English in order to move out of the paradox of naming Chinese English. Regarding the three key components of the initial definition of Chinese English, what is left pretty much undebated is that Chinese English has its own “salient Chinese characteristics”, even though it may be the “standard English” translations of Chinese documents. What is interesting here is that the notion of “international English” is raised and that China English and Chinese English can be regarded as part of the “international English”. This implies that Chinese English embodies some degree of unity between the Chinese ti in terms of its “salient Chinese characteristics” and the Western yong or utility as an “international” language in the field of world Englishes. This conversation analysis also implies that Chinese researchers of Chinese English are not simply concerned with Chinese English as a “variety” but also with Chinese speakers and the discourses surrounding the issues of Chinese English as a linguistic system. They are indeed “active agents” of their own learning and their capacity for invention and improvisation of English rather than “docile executors of linguistic rules” (Kramsch, 2015, p. 455) of exonormative standard English. I see the excerpts of the “dinner conversation” as an opportune and timely dialogue among the three generations of Chinese English researchers and practitioners. There are apparent disputes and debates, or 商榷, in Du’s

118  Decoding Chinese English names

Micro-​narrative 11:  My two meetings with Prof. Wang Rongpei I have had two meetings with Prof. Wang Rongpei, including the meeting at the dinner in Suzhou in 2014. Prior to this meeting, I had visited Prof. Wang in his office in Dalian Foreign Studies University around 2001. I was, at that time, a visiting fellow at Curtin University of Technology of Western Australia. I was very interested in China English research due to the influence of my supervisor, Prof. Andy Kirkpatrick. I read about China English research articles suggested by Andy, and one of them was written by Prof. Wang on the topic of “China English is an objective existence”. I then contacted Prof. Wang and made an appointment to visit him while I was travelling back to China from Western Australia for my research fieldwork. The meeting with Prof. Wang was warm, friendly and constructive. I introduced my research interests and my intentions for the visit, and Prof. Wang shared with me his research on China English, Chinese borrowings in English and translation studies of Chinese classics. He also gave me a book, which is a collection of his research articles, and one of them was the journal article on the objective existence of China English, with his autograph. We also took a photo in his office. So, during the dinner in Suzhou more than a decade later, I showed the photo as well as the book with his own autograph to him and the people at the dinner. Everyone was surprised about my first meeting with Prof. Wang. To me, the two meetings were both serendipitous, thanks to China English and Chinese English.

words, but there are also shared assumptions and beliefs, e.g., Chinese English embodies Chinese characteristics and there should be ongoing research on Chinese English. Chinese English is a natural product of language contact, and its naming issue is naturally unavoidable. If we see Chinese English against a broader backdrop in its contemporary history, we understand that the field of world Englishes has also been undergoing naming issues, e.g., whether we have world English, international English, global English(es), English as a lingua franca, and/​or world Englishes. “The act of naming itself can be so theoretically and politically controversial” (Seargeant, 2010, p. 99). World Englishes studies represents a horizontal knowledge structure, characterised by multiple competing parallel discourses rather than one single, consensually determined approach in which new knowledge builds, progressively, upon previous knowledge. As such, the discipline of world Englishes is composed of groups of scholars drawing on different traditions and applying different methodologies, and therefore, different scholars “focus upon different aspects of the nature and status of English, and require a suitable name to refer to this aspect” (Seargeant, 2010, p. 111). Mufwene (1997,

Decoding Chinese English names  119 p. 182) argues that the way in which new Englishes are named “has to do more with who have appropriated and speak them than with how they developed and how different they are structurally from each other”. This is relatable to Chinese English from the perspective of the pentagram framework, in which “who have appropriated and speak them” has much to do with the habitus, ti and yong, that is, the embodiment and application of English by speakers of Chinese English in China and around the world. In the context of Chinese English, based on the excerpts of the dinner conversation analysed earlier, the naming of Chinese English has more to do with Chinese speakers of English and how they appropriate and speak their English, and more importantly, how they perceive it, name it and define it. Chinese people have a traditional obsession with names. Our dinner conversation about naming Chinese English reminds me of the dialogues between Confucius and one of his disciplines, Tsze-​Loo, regarding names around 2500 years ago. According to Confucius Analects (Legge, 1861, pp. 127–​128): If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music will not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires, is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

Chinese English as an evolving concept Chinese English has always been an “evolving concept” (Xu, 2006, p. 283). The evolving nature of Chinese English has resulted in the paradox of its naming discourse. Traditionally, Chinese English had been associated with Chinglish, which was defined as “that misshapen, hybrid language that is neither English nor Chinese” (Pinkham & Jiang, 2000, p. 1). It can be noted that Chinglish is categorised by Seargeant (2010, p. 107) as an example of “hybrid Englishes”, which are defined as “bilingual mixed languages which occur most often in urban centres as a result of the contact between English and a local language”. Seargeant (2010, p. 107) points out that names of this sort are occasionally used as derogatory markers for what is perceived as an amusingly flawed attempt to master a standard variety of English. Names used in derogatory contexts, however, do not usually originate in academic discourse but in popular media, most noticeably on the internet.

120  Decoding Chinese English names The 1970s was a time when Chinese scholars started to make distinctions between Chinglish and what they termed “China English”. One of the first Chinese scholars who exemplified such a distinction was Ge Chuangui (Ge, 1980, p. 2). Each country has its own special circumstances. As far as our country is concerned, regardless of old China or new China, there are things unique to our country that need to be expressed when English is spoken or written. In the Ming and Qing dynasties, as far as only “intellectual” vocabulary is concerned, such words as sishu, wujing, keju, baguwen, xiucai, juren, jinshi, hanlinyuan come to mind. These terms are generally translated as Four Book, Five Classics, Imperial Competitive Examination, Eight-​legged Essay, Xiucai, Juren, Jinshi, Hanlinyuan or Imperial Academy. After the Xinghai Revolution, there appeared some new terms, such as wusi yundong (May Fourth Movement); sai xiansheng (Mr. Science); de xiansheng (Mr. Democracy); baihua wen (baihua wen or baihua). Expressions that appeared after the Liberation included sixiang gaizao (ideological remoulding), shuangbai fangzhen (Two Hundreds Policy), renmin gongshe (people’s commune), sige xiandaihua (four modernizations) are terms of a similar kind. In my opinion, none of these English translations are Chinese English or Chinglish, but China English. (Author’s translation, except for the English expressions in brackets by Ge Chuangui) The proposal of the name of China English has its own historical significance, as it takes into consideration the under-​recognised and less researched process of localisation of English in China, even though China has always had its own special circumstances, and there are always things unique to China that need to be expressed in English. Seargeant (2010, p. 98) points out that acts of naming are not simply a matter of applying a label to an object which exists independently out there in the world, but are a key aspect of the process of discursively calling into being the concept to which they refer; to provide a name for a concept is a first step in positing the existence of that concept. In the case of Chinese English, providing the name of China English as a novel concept is the first step in positing the existence of that entity. This act of providing a name by Chinese scholars was of significance, especially in the 1980s and 1990s, showing that Chinese scholars were indeed active agents who developed a disposition for social action that was at the time conditioned by their relative positions in the field of emerging world Englishes studies, addressing the issues of the dominant and the dominated, and the social norm providers and norm followers, in the expanding domain of global English

Decoding Chinese English names  121 language teaching and learning. As discussed in the dinner conversation, the labelling of China English and its associated discussions and debates regarding the distinction between China English and Chinglish has its historical significance, as it posits the existence of the concept of a Chinese variety of English, and it has laid a solid foundation for the rectification of the naming discourse of Chinese English due to the gradual disassociation between Chinese English and Chinglish. Although Ge Chuangui did not define what he meant by China English, his pioneering distinction has been of significance not only because it was, a decade later, picked up by other Chinese scholars and thereafter started a debate over the issue of China English versus Chinglish, but also because it “has laid the groundwork for theories of world Englishes developed elsewhere to be introduced into China” (Xu, 2006, p. 284). Seargeant (2010, p. 99) points out that “the significance of the act of naming is to provide a term which can be used to reify the concept within discourse about language practices”. The discourse regarding Chinese English in the 1970s and 1980s was that Chinese English was directly associated with Chinglish, which was regarded derogatorily as a hybrid of Chinese and English. Therefore, Chinese English had a negative connotation, and the negative connotation was widespread, given the deep-​rooted belief among Chinese that English is a foreign language used only for international communication. At that time, British English was considered to be the only standard English in China, with American English later gradually joining in to form a bi-​standard, particularly in the field of English language teaching. In such a historical context, the proposal of China English was a significant step towards the long overdue awareness and the change of perceptions and attitudes towards Chinese English. “While the act of naming specifies a concept, it also relates that concept –​ by means of the lexical items from which the name is constructed –​to a pre-​ existing discourse about language practices and language varieties” (Seargeant, 2010, p. 99). Over the last half century since the mid-​1970s, there have been changes in people’s attitudes towards English in general and Chinese English in particular. Edwards’ (2017, p. 43) survey among Chinese mainland students in Hong Kong shows that attitudes towards Chinese English (CE) in China have become more positive across time and that Chinese English represents the English spoken in China and the identity of its speakers. However, Edwards’ research also shows that there appears to be a “division between positive attitudes towards the status of the variety vs. negative attitudes towards the linguistic features of CE”. This division, according to Edwards (2017), indicates that some speakers of English in China are experiencing “linguistic schizophrenia”. Regarding Chinese speakers of English, on the one hand, they accept CE’s existence and believe it represents the English in China, but on the other hand, they view the linguistic features of CE negatively, most likely due to a continued comparison of CE’s features to those of “native” varieties of English. (Edwards, 2017, p. 43)

122  Decoding Chinese English names During the 1980s and 1990s, theories of world Englishes were developed and introduced into China. In the light of world Englishes research and the overview of Chinese English research, Xu (2006, p. 287) rectifies Chinese English and defines it as a developing variety of English, which is subject to ongoing codification and normalization processes. It is based largely on the two major varieties of English, namely British and American English. It is characterized by the transfer of Chinese linguistic and cultural norms at varying levels of language, and it is used primarily by Chinese for intra-​and international communication. The current issues with this definition lie in the fact that it regards Chinese English as a variety from a world Englishes perspective, and its recognition and acceptance rely heavily on its codification and normalisation. Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 277) cautions against over-​emphasising the codification of an English variety by arguing that “codification is, by definition, an exclusive activity and we would not want innovation and multilingual creativity curtailed in the name of codification”. Therefore, we now suggest that Chinese English be approached from a ti–​yong or essence–​functional perspective as an embodied translanguaging practice involving Chinese cultural underpinnings among speakers of Chinese and English. In that sense, Chinese English is more of an overarching concept signifying a broader community of Chinese diasporic translanguaging practice mediated in English. In the meantime, the term China English, which has been proposed and adopted primarily in academia, represents a contested academic discourse in the field of academia. Yang and Zhang (2015, p. 40) make the point that “the very name of China English in itself appears appealing due to the freshness of the idea, the recognition and respect it grants, and its nationalist connotations”. Chinglish, in contrast, has taken a slightly different route in its new developments across the social media space, e.g., new Chinglish (Li, 2016; Xu & Deterding, 2017). Although China English has dominated the literature on Chinese English research in the past few decades, there has been an increasing awareness and a change of attitude towards Chinese English. “The current literature points to the direction that Chinese English should be used as a term to refer to the Chinese variety of English on a par with other members of world Englishes” (Xu, 2017, p. 241). As pointed out by Seargeant (2010, p. 99), a name will therefore have a genealogy, and the meaning of the name will be informed both by the concept as it is most recently or prominently understood within the discourse, and by access to the history of its usage. This applies to the names Chinese English, China English and Chinglish in the genealogy of Chinese English naming discourse.

Decoding Chinese English names  123 According to Seargeant (2010, p. 110), the purposes for the act of naming a variety of English range from the use of the name as a theoretical tool for the analysis of language behaviour, to attempts to “achieve political recognition for the language practices of a community, i.e., to confer legitimacy on their variety”. In the context of naming Chinese English, the proposal of naming the variety of Chinese English as China English was in a sense a theoretical endeavour for the analysis of the practice of proficient Chinese users of English, and it was also a remarkable attempt to achieve political and scholarly recognition of the language practices of a Chinese community of proficient speakers of English. In addition, “the act of naming transforms the language practice into an ideological construct (a particular concept of the language), which in turn feeds back into the way the language is institutionally-​ regulated (via policy, education, the media and so on)” (Seargeant, 2010, p. 111). In the case of China English, and the subsequent naming discourse and debate surrounding Chinese English, China English and Chinglish, it is evident that it may not be simply a matter of defining what Chinese English is, but an ongoing exploration of the ideological construct and institutional implications for the legitimate use of English in Chinese contexts, and this legitimate use is largely concerned with Chinese cultural underpinnings or Chinese ti and yong, i.e., essence and utility. The act of naming (a variety of English) also makes it possible to identify what issues are of current interest for the field of study: to see what is highlighted by the act of naming, what is overlooked by it, and how any new act of naming responds to and refines the concerns of the immediate past. (Seargeant, 2010, p. 110)

Chinese English naming data analysis Apart from the analysis of the dinner conversation and the review of ongoing scholarly discussions of the naming discourse of Chinese English, I have also conducted semi-​structured interviews on the names, norms and narratives for this book project among proficient Chinese speakers of English as participants. In this section, I analyse data from the names section of the respective interviews and tease out the common views among the participants on the naming of Chinese English. The data were coded with each participant having a two-​letter code followed by F or M, standing for female or male participants, and a number indicating the age range of the participants, e.g., YJ-​F-​3 means that YJ is a female participant in her thirties. R refers to me as the researcher. Names data excerpt 1 R: And

what is Chinese English then? How do you understand Chinese English?

124  Decoding Chinese English names YJ-​F-​3: It’s about how Chinese people use English. R: That’s a very good definition. Do you think Americans or Australians may

also use Chinese English? like … like “long time no see”. In this globalised world, different versions or different varieties of English, they tend to influence one another. R: Yes, when you first defined Chinese English, you said it’s about how Chinese use English. So, it means that you have excluded foreigners. Does that mean, in most of the cases, only Chinese would use Chinese English? And foreigners use their own varieties. But in some circumstances … YJ-​F-​3:  Yes, some foreigners may use English in the way that Chinese do. R:  Yes, there’s the mutual influence, right? YJ-​F-​3: Yes. YJ-​F-​3:  Yes,

YJ-​F-​3 is a female English language teacher working in a university in China. She is in her late thirties. At the time of the interview, which was in July 2018, she was a visiting scholar at Monash University. The interview was conducted in my office one day before she departed from Melbourne to her home city in China. In the analysis of the dinner conversation in the first section in this chapter, I explored whether the “Chinese” in Chinese English refers to Chinese people or the Chinese language. YJ-​F-​3’s response in the preceding data excerpt makes it clear that Chinese English is about “how Chinese people use English”. In this sense, the adjective use of Chinese in Chinese English is a more appropriate option to modify English to refer to the English used by Chinese rather than “China” people. In addition, YJ-​F-​ 3 uses the verb “use”, implying that Chinese English has its salient yong or utility nature, i.e., practice or functional aspect of English. As YJ-​F-​3 and I explored further during the interview, we agreed that in this “globalised world”, different versions of English, or different people’s English, may influence one another; therefore, Chinese English, albeit its implicit Chinese ti or essence, may not be exclusive to Chinese speakers of English, but open to all speakers of English. Names data excerpt 2 R:  My

first question is about the names of Chinese English. Do you call it China English, or Chinese English, or Chinglish? EL-​F-​3:  I think, Chinglish is not an appropriate name, as historically it was something to be laughed at. It’s something like pidgin English, so it was critiqued in China. Chinglish may not be a bad term, like Singlish, or English in Singapore, but since it was laughed at by Chinese people, it’s not as good as Chinese English. R:  Yes indeed. The term Chinglish does exist, but if we mention Chinglish, we’d tend to associate it with expressions such as good good study, day day up, and people mountain people sea.

Decoding Chinese English names  125 EL-​F-​3:  Another

understanding of Chinglish is the use of English in Chinese, or English embedded in Chinese. R:  Such as code-​mixing? EL-​F-​3: Yeah. R:  Or impure English? EL-​F-​3: That’s right. All impure English in Chinese context is Chinglish. EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 were interviewed as a focus group. EL-​F-​3 was a lecturer teaching English in a university in China, and YX-​F-​2 was an exchange student from China at the time of the interview. EL-​F-​3 was a visiting scholar at the Monash University, and both EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 knew each other when they audited our classes in the English as an international language program. The interview was conducted in my office in 2015. It is interesting to notice that EL-​F-​3 defines Chinglish as “all impure English in Chinese context”, and that it is something to be laughed at. EL-​F-​3 also makes the interesting observation that Chinglish can be interpreted as the code-​mixed use of English in Chinese, or in her own words, “English embedded in Chinese”. Considering that EL-​F-​3 was a lecturer teaching English in a university in China at the time of the interview, it makes sense to suggest that her views regarding Chinglish reflect her habitus or dispositions involving her perceptions and acquired schemas of the hybrid use of English in the Chinese context, especially in teaching and learning English. The following excerpt from the same focus group interview goes deeper into the naming issues of Chinese English and China English. While EL-​F-​3 prefers to name it Chinese English, YX-​F-​2 prefers the name of China English. Names data excerpt 3 R: 

Many people are a bit confused about Chinese English and Chinglish. They tend to mix up Chinese English and Chinglish. So, some scholars propose whether we can term it as China English. EL-​F-​3:  China English? In my opinion, Chinese is an adjective. For China, some people may associate it with chinaware. So, the term China English may not be an appropriate term. And China English can be a bit satirical to China, because chinaware can be fragile. So, in my opinion, Chinese English is better. YX-​F-​2:  I haven’t heard about China English before. I thought Chinese English was Chinglish. Since I started learning English from primary school, the teachers would discourage us from speaking Chinglish. So, the name Chinglish has a derogatory meaning to most of us. Whatever its names are, there won’t be much change to it. Whether you’d call it Chinese English, or China English, there’s something derogatory attached to it, simply because it’s not native English. However, American English, or even Singlish doesn’t have this derogatory meaning. This sort of mentality that we should speak native English has been passed on to us by

126  Decoding Chinese English names our teachers. I think Chinese English and China English are the same, if we do not have much emotional attachment to them. I would still think that we shouldn’t call it Chinese English, nor Chinglish. We may call it China English. For YX-​F-​2, Chinese English and Chinglish are closely associated with each other, so even though she had not heard about China English prior to the focus group interview, she thought it could be a good idea to name it China English to alleviate the native English mentality or discourse among Chinese speakers of English. This can be interpreted as meaning that native English may have more capital among Chinese speakers of English than Chinese English, whatever names it acquires. To YX-​F-​2, the term China English may add capital to the English that is spoken by Chinese people, and it may also help “alleviate the native English mentality or discourse among Chinese speakers of English”. This reflects YX-​F-​2’s habitus, i.e., “internalised embodied social structures” (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 18) and “cultural unconscious” or “mental habits”, which lead to YX-​F-​2’s perceptions of the various names of Chinese English. Names data excerpt 4 R: We’ve

been talking about British English and American English, Indian English, you know, and Singapore and Malaysian English. Are you aware that there are different Englishes, or different varieties of English? TC-​M-​2:  Yes, but the culture I come from can be quite judgemental [laugh] R:  [laugh] Yes, we go for the standard, and we’re obsessed by the standard, aren’t we? TC-​M-​2: Yes, so, I was always asked, what English do you speak? And the expectation is British English or American English. And later, when I study cultural studies, they ask, what cultures do you study? So those were the questions that were very difficult to answer. Even nowadays, I think, Chinese English is still associated with very negative implications. R:  Yes indeed. TC-​M-​2:  For example, wrong pronunciation. But there are Englishes that have moved away from that, like Indian English is just socially acceptable. It’s acceptable to speak Indian English, Malaysian English, and Singaporean English. So, I think it takes some confidence, probably. R:  Okay. I’m more interested in the names. People take it for granted that there is British English, instead of saying Britain English. We say American English, rather than America English, and Indian English, rather than India English. However, in terms of Chinese English, we have issues, because we always associate Chinese English with Chinglish. You know, people have negative impressions of these varieties of English like Chinglish. So, in academia, when we talk about Chinese English, some scholars refer to this variety as China English. So, then, we have three

Decoding Chinese English names  127 names, Chinese English, China English and Chinglish. Which name do you think is more appropriate to capture what English that we are talking about, you know, the English that is used in China? TC-​M-​2:  Chinese English, China English and Chinglish? R:  Have you heard about these names? TC-​M-​2:  Chinglish, yeah. China English, no. It just feels wrong grammatically, sorry I can’t help it. I’m an English teacher. [laugh] So, not China English. I would prefer to, in academic discipline, I would prefer to go with Chinese English, because it sounds more … R: Appropriate? TC-​M-​2: Yeah. R:  And grammatical? TC-​M-​2:  Grammatical, yes. But Chinglish is always associated with many negative impressions. Why don’t we fight against those prejudices? So, we start with Chinese English, I think. It sounds fresh and acceptable. R:  And justified. Yes, very good. TC-​M-​2 is a Chinese PhD student in anthropology based in Cape Town, South Africa. He was in his mid-​to late twenties, and his interview was conducted at Monash Matheson library when he was doing his fieldwork in Melbourne in September 2018. TC-​M-​2 is well aware of Chinese people being judgemental about non-​standard Englishes, and he is also aware of the acceptance of certain Englishes, such as Indian English, Malaysian English and Singaporean English, that have moved beyond the common Chinese perception of “wrong pronunciation” associated with them. Having not heard about the term China English prior to the interview, he reacted to it as feeling “wrong grammatically”. Although he is aware of the negative impressions associated with Chinese English and Chinglish, he thinks the name of Chinese English is still fresh and acceptable, and he regards those “negative impressions” as “prejudices” that are worth fighting against. TC-​M-​2’s habitus here, based on his interview responses, can be seen as being aligned with his ti or his Chinese essence. It is also about the internalisation and externalisation of the world that TC-​M-​2 has experienced both in China and overseas. TC-​M-​2’s interview data also shows that we should adopt a dynamic framework to look at the naming discourse surrounding Chinese English. Notions such as habitus, capital, field, as well as ti (essence) and yong (utility) are not static and fixed concepts but changing and dynamic, and they can be adopted to unpack the naming discourse from the perspective of Chinese speakers of English. Names data excerpt 5 R: For

names, do you think we should call our own English Chinglish or Chinese English? GH-​M-​2:  I think it’s better to call it Chinese English. This is how we call it, as long as we speak English clearly, like my English teachers say, it’s

128  Decoding Chinese English names normal to have accents, as long as we express clearly, and others can understand us, it should be fine. Understanding rather than how we name it matters. R:  So, Chinese English is not that bad, full of errors, like the impression that other people have of it. GH-​M-​2: It’s normal to have errors, like when we speak Chinese, we’d also have grammar mistakes, it’s understandable. R:  Communication is important, isn’t it? I notice that on the Internet, there are different expressions, using “Chinese way” as a modifier, like Chinese way of crossing roads having nothing to do with traffic lights, Chinese way of picking up children from school having nothing to do with the only-​child policy, and perhaps Chinese way of speaking English having nothing to do with English. GH-​M-​2:  Hahaha, those Chinese ways are louxi (陋习 陋习), or rather “bad habits”. For English, if it’s called Chinese way of speaking English, we would be reluctant to learn it, and we would become less confident. R: So, you think Chinese should speak Chinese English, not Chinglish or Chinese style English, because Chinglish is derogatory, like people mountain people sea, and long time no see? GH-​M-​2:  Long time no see may not be one of those Chinglish expressions, as foreigners also use it. R: What about people mountain people sea, and give someone some colour see see? GH-​M-​2:  These expressions are used among Chinese playfully, and we don’t use them to interact with foreigners. R:  So, this is not Chinese English? You don’t think it’s Chinese English? GH-​M-​2: This is a playful use of language, like that I can speak a few Shanghainese slang expressions, just for fun, or for some playful purposes. R: For the names of Chinese English, would you prefer to call it Chinese English or China English? GH-​M-​2:  This is a good question! I prefer Chinese English, because it’s our Chinese after all. R:  Like American English, and British English? GH-​M-​2:  Yes, it’s good to conform to the norm. R: That’s right. We can’t even call it Chinese style English or English with Chinese characteristics? GH-​M-​2:  That would sound a bit complicated. R:  Yes, Chinese English sounds more straightforward. Do you think foreigners may also speak Chinese English? GH-​M-​2: Not really. We speak English with our Chinese thought patterns, but foreigners may not have such thought patterns. However, nowadays even foreigners would say kungfu and mianzi, because China is gaining its international status, and foreigners know more about China, and they’d use some words with Chinese characteristics.

Decoding Chinese English names  129 GH-​M-​2 was a Master’s student at the time of the interview, i.e., May 2016. He was in his mid-​twenties, majoring in media and communication at Monash University. He is currently working in the sports section of one of the largest media companies in Beijing. His interview was conducted in a café on Monash campus. GH-​M-​2 prefers Chinese English over China English for the simple reason that “it’s our Chinese after all”. This shows that GH-​M-​2 acknowledges the Chinese ti or essence associated with Chinese people speaking English. He is also aware of the distinctive use of Chinglish expressions associated with their intra-​cultural, fun and playful nature. This shows the relevance of field, capital and habitus among Chinese speakers of English. They value the fun and playfulness and recognise the capital and function or yong of Chinglish among themselves intra-​culturally. To GH-​M-​ 2, Chinese English is the English with our “Chinese thought patterns”, which are dispositions characterised among Chinese. GH-​M-​2 also acknowledges that Chinese English has been gaining popularity internationally. Therefore, Chinese English expressions are not exclusively used by Chinese but also by foreigners. GH-​M-​2 regards Chinese ways of speaking English as “bad habits”, because, just as how we name Chinese English, “it’s good to conform to the norm”. Names data excerpt 6 R: 

My next question is about Zhongguo Yingyu. How would you translate the four characters into English? TH-​M-​2: [Laugh a bit] Very interesting! I could immediately think of three translations, including Chinese English, Mandarin English, and Chinglish [laugh]. R:  Interesting indeed! Have you heard of a term called China English? TH-​M-​2:  China English? Not really, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, and it sounds natural to me. China feels even bigger. Among the four, Chinese English, Mandarin English, Chinglish, and China English, if I were asked to choose one, I would choose China English. It feels more grand or significant, compared with the other three names. It could represent Chinese English more. R:  This is very interesting, because talking about British English, you wouldn’t say Britain English or England English, and for American English, you wouldn’t say the US English, or America English. For Australia, you would say Australian English. So why China English? TH-​M-​2: That is a real good question! [laugh] I think Chinese would not represent the whole China. But I wouldn’t want to relate this to politics. I think China is a bigger term, compared to Chinese, whether it’s internationally or locally. R:  So, you think China English is a bigger term, not based on the Chinese territory.

130  Decoding Chinese English names TH-​M-​2: Because

people with a China background may also be based in Malaysia, or Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. R: Then that would be more appropriate to say Chinese, for example, Malaysian Chinese, Taiwanese Chinese, Singaporean Chinese. You wouldn’t say Singapore China. TH-​M-​2:  Yes indeed. [silence] Chinese English? It feels like putting two languages together. I still think China English sounds better. I can’t explain why. R:  Impressive! This is what the academia has been debating about. Scholars have long been naming it China English. For example, those scholars in the 70s and 80s, they wanted to make a distinction between Chinese English and Chinglish, which can be full of grammatical errors, such as good good study, day day up. So, in order to distinguish Chinese English and Chinglish, they decided to call it China English. So, good Chinese English, which is used, e.g., in China CCTV, and China Daily etc., is called China English, so your instinct for the name China English makes good sense. Then, if I say Chinese English, what impressions do you have? Accent? vocabulary? grammar? Or cultural stuff ? For example, Chinese Spring Festival, Dragon Boat Festival etc.? TH-​M-​2:  My first impression would be accent. The second would be grammar. Accent is without saying a distinguishing factor, in comparison with Japan and other countries. For grammar, it would be more chaotic. When Chinese speak English, their organization of structures could be problematic. R:  In Linguistics, there’s also pragmatics, for example, how to compliment people, how to make a request, and how to greet people. For example, if you make a request to your boss, asking for a day’s leave. Would you say the reasons first, or make the request of taking a day off upfront? TH-​M-​2:  I would make the request upfront. Because, at first, you should make it clear what you want to do, before you provide a lot of reasons. I would say at the beginning, I want to take a day off, and then I would explain why I make the request. Possibly my logic is a little bit Western. I know that it feels a bit Western in terms of the cause-​effect sequence. R:  This is an example of the use of Chinese English, e.g., in terms of greeting, when we say, have you eaten? where are you going? we’re greeting others really, not necessarily being concerned about whether they have eaten, or where they are going. By the way, what do you think Chinglish is? TH-​M-​2:  Chinglish, to me, is a direct translation of conventional or habitual Chinese expressions. R:  For example 人山人海 is people mountain people sea. So you think this is Chinglish? TH-​M-​2: Yes. R:  Would you think it’s part of Zhongguo Yingyu (Chinese English)？ TH-​M-​2:  I think it belongs to Chinese English, not China English.

Decoding Chinese English names  131 R: 

I really appreciate your response! Thank you so much! By the way, talking about the names of Chinese English, you’ve also mentioned Mandarin English. Why so? TH-​M-​2:  Mandarin means huayu (华语) or China language, China speak, so Mandarin English is English spoken by Mandarin speakers. It simply occurred to me that it could be called Mandarin English. I would think that my time spent in Tsinghua University has played a role in my use of English. I was exposed to English speakers, and as a Mandarin speaker, I could help them both in terms of studies and daily lives. So, my English to those English speakers could be Mandarin English. TH-​ M-​ 2 was a Master’s student in his mid-​ twenties, graduating from civil engineering at Melbourne University at the time of the interview, i.e., November 2018. He is currently an engineer in a private company in China. It is interesting to note that TH-​M-​2 came up with a new name for Chinese English, which is Mandarin English, or English spoken by Mandarin speakers. He is aware of Chinese English and Chinglish, but upon hearing China English, his first instinct was that this name sounded more “grand or significant” than all the other names. In comparison, the name Chinese English makes him feel that it’s putting Chinese and English languages together, and the name Chinglish, to TH-​M-​2, is “a direct translation of conventional or habitual Chinese expressions”. TH-​M-​2’s interpretation of Mandarin English is an interesting one because it is interpreted from the perspective of non-​Mandarin speakers. This shows that the habitus of the speakers of English plays a role in how people name their English in a specific field. In TH-​M-​2’s case, it was in Tsinghua University, where he drew upon his Chinese social and cultural capital to help his non-​Mandarin-​speaking friends using “Mandarin English” as their medium of interaction. This is more of a functional or yong perspective in naming Chinese English. Names data excerpt 7 R:  Now,

when I mention the four characters: Zhongguo Yingyu (中国英语), how do you translate them into English? LY-​F-​2:  As I’ve studied in this area, I would say China English, but prior to my studies, I would possibly say Chinglish, that is, Zhongshi Yingyu (中式英 语). Since I’ve studied in this area or specialization, I realise that there should have been a distinction between the two. R: Yes, China English and Chinglish are different. There’s one term you haven’t mentioned, which is Chinese English. If someone asked you: What is Chinese English? Or what does it mean to you? Then how would you respond? Or would Chinese English be more identifiable with China English or Chinglish? LY-​F-​2:  Chinese English to me sounds like huaren (华人) or ethnic Chinese people’s English. Chinese constitutes a very large community. Just like

132  Decoding Chinese English names what you said just now, Singapore may also have a lot of Chinese, but they have their own Singapore English. There is also Malaysian English. I personally prefer China English, referring to mainland Chinese users’ English, because they have their same or similar linguistic backgrounds, particularly their common cultural experience. As far as I’m concerned, I think China English should be recognized and it is a variety that grows well. However, during my learning of English, I was also confused, because China is very big, and English in China has regional variations, so how to define or distinguish China English accurately can be a big challenge. R:  I think you’ve made a very good point in that Chinese English may refer to Chinese people’s English, with Chinese here referring to ethnic Chinese people. In that sense, Chinese in Singapore and Malaysia may also speak Chinese English, as their mother tongue is Chinese, whereas China English may specifically refer to Chinese English in its territorial sense. This means, it takes place within China. LY-​F-​2:  Yes, I personally feel so. R:  This is a good point. However, my understanding is that China English exists more or less in the field of academia. In academia, scholars or researchers may refer to Chinese English as China English. Now they tend to think that Chinese English may sound more normal, and it can refer to English in China, and it may also refer to Chinese English overseas, like the English we use here and now, if our English is relevant to China and our Chinese experiences. LY-​F-​2:  What about those early Chinese migrants to Singapore and Malaysia, who speak Singlish? Would they be regarded as speaking Chinese English? R:  I wouldn’t think so. Now the distinctions among varieties of English are not that clear-​cut. We may say that our English has many “-​nesses”, including Chinese-​ness, Singaporean-​ness, American-​ness and British-​ness. LY-​F-​2:  Or a kind of new pidgin. R:  Hahaha, a new pidgin, an interesting way of putting it. LY-​F-​2 completed her Master of Applied Linguistics when she had the interview in my office in July 2017. She was in her late twenties at the time of the interview. Prior to doing her Master’s, she had completed her Bachelor’s degree in China and worked afterwards as an air stewardess in an international airlines company. LY-​F-​2 has an applied linguistics background, so her responses were to a large extent informed by what she has studied, including knowledge or awareness of world Englishes. She responded to the question of what Zhongguo Yingyu was to her by saying that it was China English, acknowledging that if she had not studied in this area, she would have named it Chinglish. This shows that the term China English has been closely related to Chinese academic discourse. To her, China English and Chinglish should be distinguished. The way in which she would distinguish Chinese English and China English is that Chinese English is a broader term

Decoding Chinese English names  133 referring to the English language spoken by ethnic Chinese people both in China and overseas, whereas China English refers to “mainland Chinese users’ English” in its territorial sense. The distinction here is related to the field in which English is used, and to the habitus of the speakers of English. Towards the end of the interview excerpt, both LY-​F-​2 and I felt that we currently speak a “new pidgin” English containing a variety of different Englishes, e.g., British English, American English, Australian English and Chinese English. This shows that the ti of Chinese English may not have to be the essence of Chinese culture, but it can be dynamic and evolving, depending on how English is used in relation to its yong, i.e., its function or application. Names data excerpt 8 RA (RESEARCH ASSISTANT):  Wow, you’ve heard Singlish! What about Chinglish? CY-​F-​4:  Chinglish is how Chinese speak English. RA:  Do you know that Chinese English and Chinglish are different? CY-​F-​4: Isn’t Chinglish a blend of Chinese and English? Two words are

blended into a new word. RA:  So they are the same? CY-​F-​4:  Yes, they should be. I’ve not done any research, but I RA:  What is Chinglish then? CY-​F-​4: The so-​ called Chinglish is derogatory, and I think

think they are.

Chinglish is an expression used to look down upon the English spoken by Chinese. So that’s why there’s this expression Chinglish. It means that Chinese people do not speak standard English. First, their pronunciation is not standard; second, their use of vocabulary is not standard; and third, their spellings are full of mistakes. I notice that some foreigners make fun of some wrong translations from Chinese into English, and they include them in a booklet, and they show it to the British, to laugh at! They make fun of such translated English. So, Chinglish is a bit sarcastic (一种讽刺的用词). RA: I know what you mean. Do you think Chinese English professionals, like English teachers, translators and journalists, speak good English, or Chinglish? CY-​F-​4:  I guess if they do not stay in touch with foreigners, their English could have more Chinglish components. But now young people have many different channels to stay in touch with the original, or the authentic English-​speaking environment, and they know how to imitate the original English spoken by native speakers, which makes them better English speakers. I think Chinglish refers to the English spoken by those half-​ cooked learners who haven’t really mastered English (我觉得 Chinglish 主要还是指的那些对英文半瓶子醋的，半懂不懂的。) They may use machines or apps to translate Chinese into English, and they don’t even know the mistakes, and that’s Chinglish. RA:  Like the people you mentioned, those who stay in touch with the original, what sort of English do they speak then?

134  Decoding Chinese English names CY-​F-​4:  That would be relatively standard English, not Chinglish. RA:  By standard English, you mean British English and American English? CY-​F-​4: Yes. RA: Like, without their own language features, standard, like those of the

British? CY-​F-​4:  Yes, without their own features, theoretically speaking at least. RA:  If Chinglish is derogatory, how would you name this Chinese English? CY-​F-​4:  Chinese style English? RA:  Ok, interesting. How do you see Chinese style English? CY-​F-​4:  This is my understanding. By Chinese style, I mean speakers know the

deep structure of Chinese culture, which is different from Western culture. What these people say or convey is of a Chinese style. For example, when they talk about Chinese current affairs, Chinese politics, then there would be no other corresponding Western official languages. This Chinese style English can be a bit complicated, and it may have traces of Chinese grammar, and it may not even make sense, but it has a Chinese meaning in it. RA: So there’s a “Chinese style” here. Do you think the English speaker listeners would understand? CY-​F-​4: Yes, Chinese style English, the British would understand, but they wouldn’t know why you speak like that. CY-​F-​4 was a Chinese migrant in Melbourne at the time of the interview. She was interviewed by her daughter (coded as RA), who was my research assistant back then in October 2014. CY-​F-​4 was in her early fifties, and she used to be a professional TV producer for a news media station in Beijing. CY-​F-​4’s responses represent the perceptions and attitudes of many Chinese people regarding Chinese English and Chinglish, i.e., “Chinglish is how Chinese speak English”. It is different from standard British or American English in the sense that it contains non-​standard pronunciations, vocabulary and spellings, and it can be full of mistakes. To CY-​F-​4, English has to be learned or used in its English-​speaking environment, such as English-​speaking countries, or in authentic contact with original speakers of English, i.e., native speakers of English. Otherwise it would be “translated English” or “textbook English”, because Chinese learners and teachers, including the teachers of Chinese English teachers, learn their English through textbooks. It can be noted that such perceptions and attitudes show the deep-​rooted schema that English is a foreign language to Chinese people. The field in which English is used should be associated with the “original” habitus of the English language and its native speakers. To CY-​F-​4, the term that represents the appropriate use of English by Chinese people is “Chinese style English”. This Chinese style English is about “the deep structure of Chinese culture”, especially when Chinese people talk about Chinese current affairs and Chinese politics without “corresponding Western official languages”. Chinese style English can be “a bit complicated” with traces of Chinese grammar and Chinese meaning

Decoding Chinese English names  135 embedded in it. This shows CY-​F-​4’s awareness that Chinese English is more about the Chinese ti (essence), or in her own words, “the deep structure of Chinese culture”, when English is used in relation to its yong (function and utility) in the field of Chinese society. Names data excerpt 9 R: 

Okay, when you hear the words Zhongguo Yingyu, how would you respond, or how would you translate them into English? HW-​M-​3: Isn’t that Chinglish? R: That’s interesting! I like your response “Isn’t that Chinglish”? HW-​M-​3:  I don’t know. Is it … the pronunciation or accent? Or probably it sounds Chinglish. I don’t know what are the other … I don’t know. R:  Haha, I know Chinglish, but do you think … have you heard about the term China English? HW-​M-​3:  Um-​hm … No. R:  Okay, what about Chinese English? HW-​M-​3: No. R:  No? You haven’t heard of Chinese English? HW-​M-​3: No. R:  So, it’s just Chinglish, right? HW-​M-​3: Yeah. R:  Do you think Chinglish is good or bad? HW-​M-​3: Ur-​ hhhh, if people can understand you, sure. I don’t know, like there’s no good or bad, I guess. It’s just like sometimes you just don’t make yourself look foolish, I guess. R:  Okay, one final question: What English do you think you speak? HW-​M-​3: Me? R:  Do you speak American English? HW-​M-​3:  A mixture between Chinglish, British and American. R: Okay? HW-​M-​3:  I started learning English when I was five, and all the textbooks were in American English. But when I was in middle school and elementary school, all the textbooks in Shanghai people used were by Cambridge University Press, so that’s British English, and Hong Kong, although I didn’t stay there for long, Hong Kong is British English again. But I do … I do feel that my accent is not, for sure, it’s not American accent either. So, it’s a mixture of all of the three. R:  Hahaha, so interesting. So your English does have some Chinglish elements in it. Right? HW-​M-​3:  I think so, and I’m not perfect. I think the word Chinglish, for people, most of them, there is … it comes with a negative connotation. R:  Yep yep yep, okay. So true. This is a silly question, but you may have a smart response to it. In terms of percentage, how do you, like 70% American English, 20% British English? How do you kind of respond to that?

136  Decoding Chinese English names HW-​M-​3: 

Um-​mhhh, I’d say, since I said I had three parts, I’d say 33.33% for each. R: Hahaha, so equally divided, right, or evenly divided. 33.33%! Okay, interesting! That’s a very smart response. I think that’s also a very diplomatic one. HW-​M-​3 is a graduate from Harvard Business School. At the time of the interview via Zoom in Sept. 2019, he was at his apartment in Washington DC. HW-​M-​3 was obviously aware of Chinglish, but what was a little surprising to me was that prior to the interview, he had not heard about China English or even Chinese English. To him, Chinese English was most likely Chinglish. However, he was aware that to most people, Chinglish would have a negative connotation, and it’s something that would make its speakers look “foolish”. This kind of perception of English is similar to that of CY-​F-​4 in that English is regarded as a foreign language, given that the context in which HW-​M-​ 3 learned his English was primarily British English and American English oriented. In terms of HW-​M-​3’s own English, he acknowledged that he was not perfect, as his English was a mixture of Chinglish, British English and American English, and that he was fine with it. It can be noted, from the perspective of HW-​M-​3, that Chinglish was not very much distinguished from Chinese English or China English, and it was to a greater or lesser degree negatively associated with peculiarities in the use of English by Chinese speakers of English. This semi-​structured interview data analysis shows that among average Chinese speakers of English, Chinese English is still commonly and subconsciously associated with Chinglish, with its negative impressions, connotations and prejudices; e.g., YX-​F-​2, CY-​F-​4 and HW-​M-​3 expressed this association between Chinese English and Chinglish explicitly. However, there appears to be an increasing awareness among the participants that Chinese English and Chinglish are different entities. To some of the interview participants, Chinese English is about “how Chinese people use English” (YJ-​F-​33); “it’s our Chinese after all, and it’s the English with our Chinese thought patterns, which are gaining popularity internationally” (GH-​M-​2); “Chinese English is a broader term referring to the English language spoken by ethnic Chinese people both in China and overseas” (LY-​F-​2). In contrast, Chinglish is “impure English in Chinese context” (EL-​F-​3); Chinglish can be “code-​mixed” use of English in the Chinese context (EL-​F-​3); Chinglish is associated with “non-​ standard English” (TC-​M-​2; HW-​M-​3); Chinglish is “a direct translation of conventional or habitual Chinese expressions” (TH-​M-​2); Chinglish is also for intra-​cultural, fun and playful communication (GH-​M-​2); and Chinglish is how Chinese speak English, and it is different from “standard” British or American English (CY-​F-​4). In addition, participants are generally aware of Indian English, Malaysian English and Singaporean English, and they know that Chinese English is different from these. It is interesting to note that both LY-​F-​2 and HW-​M-​3 acknowledge that they do not speak a particular variety

Decoding Chinese English names  137 of English but a “mixture” of Englishes, and I share their views. As far as the names Chinese English and China English are concerned, the preferences among the participants are divided, with YJ-​F-​3, EL-​F-​3, TC-​M-​2 and GH-​ M-​ 2 preferring Chinese English, whereas YX-​ F-​ 2, TH-​ M-​ 2 and LY-​ F-​ 2 prefer China English. In addition, a new name, Mandarin English, has also been suggested, with its own denotative and connotative meanings specified by TH-​M-​2. As the data collection was ongoing, while working on this chapter, I exchanged views regarding the names of Chinese English with another participant, coded as DY-​F-​3 here in this chapter. She is a lecturer of English in a teacher education university in southern China. She was a visiting scholar and a PhD candidate at Monash University at the time of the exchange of views. As she is also interested in world Englishes and Chinese English research, her views represent those who are informed about world Englishes. Names data excerpt 10 Regarding the names of Chinese English, I tend to take “Chinese English” more or less as an umbrella term, while China English as its “academic” name, and Chinglish as its nickname. I know a lot of people may not agree with me :). Personally, I prefer Chinese English, as a name of a broad sense, as a continuum, or even a matrix. However, as I review lots and lots of academic papers on Chinese English, it seems that the majority of the researchers, who published their articles in the 1990s, and the first decade of the Century, take the term “China English” as the most appropriate name, mostly because of the deep-​rooted association between Chinese English and Chinglish, and that’s why they avoided using “Chinese English”. However, younger researchers do not seem to have that historical baggage, and they don’t even think that Chinglish has a very negative connotation, so they use the term Chinese English more commonly and “naturally”. DY-​F-​3 points out that Chinese academics tend to refer to China English as the Chinese variety of English, and that China English is more of an academic discourse. Reflecting on the issue of naming Chinese English, DY-​F-​3 recalls that I was a teaching assistant of the unit An Introduction to World Englishes in my university. There was a section about Chinese English, which we would call China English. It was mainly because the teaching materials were academic papers (both in English and Chinese) in which the name China English was most commonly adopted. She also thinks that China English is more mainland-​based, whereas Chinese English is more widespread and diasporic. “For instance, Malaysian Chinese

138  Decoding Chinese English names or Singaporean Chinese all speak Chinese English, but that doesn’t mean they speak China PRC English”. The habitus of DY-​F-​3 as a world Englishes-​ informed academic enables her to reflect on both ti (essence) and yong (utility) of English in China, in its local and global contexts or field. DY-​F-​3’s views on naming Chinese English are aligned with the ecological perspective of the names of world Englishes by S. S. Mufwene (2009, pp. 220–​221): Names can tell a great deal about the contact history of a language and the ecology of its emergence. There is often a disjuncture between, on the one hand, the name in currency among native speakers and, on the other, those imposed on the language by outsiders, including the experts and the groups controlling the socioeconomic system. In the case of Chinese English, the naming issue has been ongoing, be it Chinese English, China English or Chinglish. The naming issue is also ontological in the sense that it is essentially about the existence, being, becoming and reality of Chinese English, both in the minds of Chinese speakers of English and in our physical and also, increasingly, virtual realities. The discussion in this section shows the respective views of naming Chinese English of both leading experts in the field and common Chinese speakers of English.

Naming practices among Chinese speakers of English In this section, I explore naming practices among Chinese speakers of English, which can be equally as controversial and complicated as the naming discourse of Chinese English. There is by no means a consensus regarding whether Chinese speakers of English should have English names, and how their Chinese names can be spelt out in English, given the overt incongruence between Chinese and English naming conventions, and if they choose to have English names, how they manage to use them. In this section, I adopt the pentagram framework to elaborate on the naming practices among Chinese speakers of English. Stories like the one in Micro-​narrative 12 are not uncommon when Chinese communicate with others in English. Personal (English) names have always been an interesting topic, and it is most likely one of the first few topics prior to any extended conversation or communication going deeper. Naming practices in China can be dated back to approx. 200 AD, when the ancient Chinese author Liu Xi, born around 160 AD at the end of the East Han Dynasty of China, compiled the first book on names, entitled Shih Ming, literally Explanation of Names, a Chinese dictionary on phonological studies of Chinese names. Miller (1993), who translated Shih Ming (Explanation of Names) into English, commented on the significance of the naming practices of China:

Decoding Chinese English names  139

Micro-​narrative 12:  “Well, Marc is not my official name” On 20 December 2018, I had an appointment with a COACH programme leader in her office. COACH is a programme for reaching out to local community families and members who struggle with various aspects in their lives, including mental health issues. The COACH leader, Rosie, has been very appreciative of the volunteer mentors for the programme, and she was also very organised in sending me an email to arrange this meeting, as I have been a volunteer mentor in the COACH programme. I took it as an occasion to exchange gifts, as Christmas was just around the corner. So, Rosie and I met, and we greeted each other. She asked what I had been doing, and I responded by saying that I had been working on my book project, a sequel to the one I published in 2010 in Hong Kong, which was Chinese English: Features and Implications. Rosie asked what my current book project was about. “It’s about Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives”, I said. She looked interested, and asked me to share a bit more about it. Yes, there are three sections in this book. The first section is about “names”. You know, Chinese English has some naming issues, in terms of whether it is Chinese English, China English, or Chinglish. Another aspect I’m going to explore in this section is about personal names, e.g., whether Chinese speakers should have English names. Some do, but others don’t. Rosie asked, “Is it like Marc is your English name?” “Yes, indeed”, I said. “How did you get it?” she asked Well, Marc is not my official name. I chose it when my very first native speaker English teacher at University wrote lists of boys’ names and girls’ names on the blackboard and asked each of us to choose one. I chose Mark, because it’s simple, and it’s also a name in the Bible. “How many were there in your class?” “We had 19 classmates”. “Wow, but your name is Marc with a c?” Yes, there’s a story behind it. We were English major students at the University, so unlike other students in science and engineering, we were expected to choose and learn a “second” foreign language, apart from English. So I chose German. You know that nouns in German have genders, for example, der, die and das, indicating masculine, feminine and neuter. For some reason, the German

140  Decoding Chinese English names currency, that is, Deutsche Mark is feminine, and it’s die Mark! So some of my classmates started calling me “die Mark”. I felt a bit embarrassed, so I changed my name from Mark to Marc with a “c”. It’s still Mark, but with a “c”. “An interesting story”, Rosie said, and we both laughed.

For the author of the Shih ming, as for all known Han scholars of language and linguistic theory, language was a sociological phenomenon of intrinsically profound ethical and moral significance. Words, i.e. names, were not simply arbitrary linguistic signs that had become attached to arbitrarily segmented parts of the real world through a gradually accumulating process of social convention. Rather, words were immutable cosmological entities, each one of which contained within itself a kernel of absolute moral and ethical principle; such principles in turn reflected much of what man was able to learn about the nature of the world and of the society in which he lived. It was the duty as well as the function of linguistic scholarship to discover and elucidate these principles; and it was this vital work of “discovery and elucidation” to which the shih (“explanation”) of the title of the work has immediate reference. The Shih Ming was therefore a lexicographical compilation that aimed at the discovery and elucidation both of the reality and of the principles that the author believed to underlie all languages. (Miller, 1993, p. 425) Current research on Chinese naming practices has been comprehensively conducted by Pan (2007) in his work entitled “中外命名艺术” (The Art of Chinese and Foreign Naming), in which he has summarised a total of 464 Chinese naming approaches for things and people in relation to domains and geographies as well as social and historical dimensions. There are four major categories of naming practices: the differentiating labelling (标记, biaoji) category, the commemorating and symbolising (述志, shuzhi) category, the artistic naming (艺术, yishu) category and the competitive naming (竞争, jingzheng) category. Naming, according to Pan (2007, p. 3), is “to provide a name to a newborn, a new place, a new company, or a new product”, and Chinese tend to favour a “good name” (好名儿, hao ming’er). Two major reasons for favouring a “good name” are: 1) providing a good name implies formality; 2) providing a good name also implies well-​educated-​ness and good research, a discipline similar to Onomastics of the West (Pan, 2007, p. 3). The first category, i.e., “differentiating labelling”, contains those names or symbols that serve the objective purpose of differentiating one thing or person from another; the second category, i.e., “commemorating and symbolising”,

Decoding Chinese English names  141 contains those names that express certain wishes, ideals and expectations. Such names embody or represent the close relationship between national culture, languages and individual psychology; the third category, i.e., “artistic naming”, contains those names that look good and sound pleasant, incorporating an artistic pursuit and naming skills. Such names may not be directly translatable across languages; and the fourth category, i.e., “competitive naming”, contains those names, particularly for corporations, merchandise and product brands, that confer added meanings and values due to competitive marketing considerations (Pan, 2007, p. 15). The fundamental differences between Chinese and Western, mostly English, naming practices lie in the observation that Chinese names are rarely in the first category, i.e., “differentiating labelling”, but largely in the second or the third categories, i.e., “commemorating and symbolising” and “artistic naming”, whereas Western or English names are primarily in the first category. According to W. Pan (2007, pp. 169–​170), Chinese people can barely tolerate names that capture only sounds without any semantic meanings. Another difference between Chinese and Western or English naming practices is that the Chinese tend to “name” people or things creatively, while Westerners tend to “select” among existing names for people or things (Pan, 2007, p. 170). The differences in naming practices also reflect the ti–​yong dichotomy regarding essence and utilisation, in which ti is more of a representation of the identity of the Chinese people, and yong manifests in the domain of instrumental function of practical use. In relation to naming practices, the Chinese names of Chinese speakers of English serve to represent their ti or intrinsically embodied identities, whereas their English names, if they choose to have them, are adopted to add to their identities from the perspective of instrumental function or practical use in a more global context. Chinese personal names can be formal and non-​formal. Regarding formal names, Chinese personal names consist of a surname (or 姓, xing) and a given name (or 名, ming), with the surname preceding the given name. There have been more than 5000 surnames over the course of Chinese history, but only a few hundred are in wide use today. In ancient China, men could have several given names; e.g., apart from ming, they could also have a zi (or 字), indicating a man reaching manhood, and a hao (or 号) acquired later in a man’s life, particularly for a learned man. Regarding non-​formal names, Chinese people may have pen names, stage names, Buddhist and Taoist names, and nicknames. These non-​formal names are personal choices, and they are closely related to personal circumstances, e.g., family history and personal beliefs. Adding to the Chinese naming systems, English names of Chinese speakers can be formal or informal, and they are closely related to the personal beliefs, education and professional contexts of the Chinese who choose to have English names. Some people also have English names due to their family histories, e.g., people in the Chinese diasporas or migrant families and their second or subsequent generations.

142  Decoding Chinese English names For a Chinese, “the adoption of an English name is just an extension of the pre-​existing cultural practice of using several personal names throughout one’s lifetime” (Heffernan, 2010, p. 32). The English naming practices among Chinese speakers of English are of a diasporic nature, meaning that there are regional differences among Chinese from the Chinese mainland and those in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and overseas. Heffernan’s (2010, p. 33) research on naming practices among Chinese and other East Asian speakers shows that: 1) “English personal name use among Chinese is gradually becoming conventionalized, with the Hong Kong community leading the way”, and 2) “the adoption of English names among East Asians is not only pragmatically-​driven, but also culturally-​driven”. Some Chinese names in their Pinyin or Romantic spellings may stretch too far for their non-​ Chinese peers or interlocutors; this may be one of the reasons for anglicising their names, just to keep things simple, and anglicising one’s name is like rebranding one’s identity. In addition, there seems also to be a certain extent of Anglocentric elitism in the name-​game among Chinese speakers of English, and names are invariably linked to people’s changing identities. The following is an account by a Hong Kong-​born linguist and researcher, D. C. S. Li (2002, p. 574), reflecting on his English name, i.e., David, and his “borrowed identity”. About half way through my secondary education, it became apparent that without adopting an English first name, English lessons would be inconvenienced to some extent, partly because Chinese given names, mostly disyllabic, with or without the family name in addition, sounded funny when pronounced in English. Encouraged by my teacher of English, therefore, I looked around for a name of my choice, and finally settled on “David,” which has since become a useful exponent of my “borrowed identity,” both in inter-​and intra-​ethnic encounters. Personal naming practice, particularly the discourse surrounding the use of English names among non-​English speakers, can be best understood through the pentagram framework, in which yong (utility) and various forms of capital may vary with the ti (essence) and habitus of the speakers involved in a particular field, context or circumstance. Studies have found that “job applicants with a name that suggests membership in a non-​dominant ethnic group are less likely to receive a response or be invited for interview than candidates with a name that suggests membership in the dominant ethnic group” (Piller, 2016, p. 67). In a 2009 Australian study, it was reported that “applicants with Chinese and Middle Eastern names were least likely to be called back and invited for interview” (Piller, 2016, p. 67). I conducted a survey around 2013 and 2014 among Chinese speakers of English regarding whether they have or should have English names and their reasons or justifications. The survey contains the following questions:

Decoding Chinese English names  143

Micro-​narrative 13:  Reflecting on my own names I seem to have an ongoing issue with my name(s) in English. Am I Zhichang Xu, or Xu Zhichang? If I spelt my name as Xu Zhichang, which is the actual name that appears legitimately in my PRC citizen ID and my Chinese passport, would English readers misunderstand Zhichang as my surname, last name or family name, and Xu as my given name, or first name? I was brought up knowing that we do not normally differentiate our names by first and last names. If we did, then my “first” name is actually my surname or family name, i.e., Xu, and my “last” name is my given name, i.e., Zhichang. I have simply been torn between Chinese and English naming conventions and norms. In my previous international academic publications, I used Zhichang Xu, and there don’t seem to be any issues with the international academic community recognising Xu as my surname. However, I notice that in Chinese academic journals, authors conventionally present their names in a Romanised format, with their family names in capital letters preceding their given names with the initial letter in capital. If I followed this Chinese academic naming convention, then my name, at least in academic publications, should be spelt as XU Zhichang. However, I am aware that I don’t normally have my research published in China in the first place, as far as “field” is concerned, but I do identify myself as a Chinese speaker of English and hence a Chinese researcher of Chinese English in a broader field of world Englishes.

1) Do you have an English name? If you do, how did you get your English name? What does it mean to you? 2) If you have an English name, do you prefer to use your English name or your Chinese name when you interact with others in English? 3) If you don’t have an English name, what’s your preferred name to be addressed when you interact with others in English? 4) Do you have any other thoughts or ideas about the use of English names by Chinese people? Should they have English names at all? What are their general practices as far as you know? There were 34 valid responses from participants, mostly coming from China. There were also participants who were Chinese bilingual English users outside the Chinese mainland, e.g., from Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Australia, the US and the UK. There were 23 female and 11 male participants with their ages ranging from mid-​twenties to mid-​seventies. All of them were Chinese bilingual speakers of English. Regarding the first question of whether they had English names, 27 of them responded with a “yes” and 7 with a “no”.

144  Decoding Chinese English names The participants are presented in the following analysis with their codes, e.g., BX, GY and FZ. I have also added further information on the participants’ gender and age range, e.g., BX-​F-​2 means that participant BX is a female in her twenties; GY-​M-​7 means that participant GY is a male in his seventies; FZ-​F-​4 means that participant FZ is a female in her forties. Among the 33 participants, the following have English names: BX-​F-​2, FZ-​M-​4, JW-​F-​4, LH-​F-​4, LY-​F-​3, NL-​F-​5, OY-​M-​4, QL-​M-​3, SY-​F-​2, SH-​M-​4, SM-​F-​3, TA-​ F-​4, WY-​F-​2, XS-​F-​4, XG-​F-​4, XW-​F-​2, XY-​F-​3, YJ-​M-​4, CB-​F-​4, YX-​F-​4, YS-​F-​4, YX-​M-​4, ZK-​M-​3, ZL-​F-​2, ZY-​F-​3, ZG-​F-​4 and WG-​M-​4. And the following do not have English names: CY-​M-​7, GY-​M-​7, WL-​M-​4, QD-​F-​4, YT-​M-​3, YR-​F-​4 and ZL-​F-​5. For those without English names, some of them provided reasons; for example, GY-​M-​7, who was a retired professor of English from a prestigious university in Beijing, said: I’ve never thought that I should have an English name. I didn’t have one even when I was a student at the English department of Beijing Catholic University. Most of the instructors were from the U.S. and I found they addressed us by our Chinese names with the same ease as the English names. By the way, few in my class took the trouble to have an English name. This is an interesting response, as Beijing Catholic University, commonly known as Fu Jen University or the Catholic University of Peking, was first established in Beijing in 1925 and later closed in 1952 and merged with a number of leading universities in Beijing, such as Beijing Normal University and Peking University. This indicates that in the first half of the 20th century, Chinese people, even students studying English in a university, did not tend to have English names, and “few” students “took the trouble to have an English name”, according to GY-​M-​7. It is also interesting to note that during that time, most of the instructors from the US addressed their Chinese students by their Chinese names “with the same ease” as the English names. YT-​M-​3 was another interesting case. He was in his thirties, based in Japan at the time of participating in the survey. He said: I don’t have an English name. As a Chinese living in Japan, my Chinese name can be expressed in Kanji characters (similar to traditional Chinese characters), but their pronunciations are different. However, for some formal documents or formal circumstances, I would use my passport name (in Pinyin) to show my full name. The case of YT-​M-​3 shows that location may also have an influence on whether Chinese speakers choose to have an English name. The geographical field of Japan, in the case of YT-​M-​3, determines the linguistic and cultural capital of using one’s name(s) in either Kanji characters or Pinyin to reflect

Decoding Chinese English names  145 one’s habitus and ti (essence) in the actual use or yong of one’s name(s) in communication. YR-​F-​4 was in her late forties when she responded to the questionnaire survey. She was brought up and educated in China, but migrated to the UK when she was in her thirties. She was more straightforward when she responded, and she linked her decision not to use an English name with her identity by saying that “I don’t use an English name simply because that is not me”. To YR-​F-​4, her Chinese name serves to represent her intrinsic nature as a Chinese, and ti or essence embodies her Chinese identity. People may not have English names for various reasons, as far as ZL-​F-​5 was concerned; she was a senior lecturer teaching Chinese studies in a university in Melbourne at the time of the survey, and responded by saying “No, I don’t have a special English name because my Chinese given name ‘Lin’ can be taken as a shortened form of Linda”. To ZL-​F-​5, her Chinese name also functions as an English name, implying that in her case the yong of her Chinese name as an English name is aligned with her Chinese ti and habitus as a senior lecturer working in a university in Australia, where English is the medium of instruction. For those who have English names, my follow-​up survey question was how they managed to get their English names. Again, their responses varied. A number of them recalled that their English names were given to them by their English teachers, or they were provided with common English names to choose from in their first English classes with their “foreign teachers”. FZ-​M-​ 4 said: I got it when I was a Year one university student (a long time ago!). In the first English conversation class, our American teacher asked us to choose an English name from a list of popular names she prepared. This was the one I liked most. XG-​F-​4 had a more detailed description: My English name was given by my English teacher in the first year of my college study. She named all the girls in her class with the queens’ names in the history of England. I was the first one on her name list, so I was named Elizabeth, the name of two England queens. Unlike some girls who later changed to their own favourite names, thinking these names are too old-​fashioned, I have kept this name till now and it has become a real part of my identity. YJ-​M-​4 and CB-​F-​4 were a couple living and working in Chicago, in the US, and they gave a joint response: Both of us had English names while we were studying English in China. We don’t quite remember whether it was because we were English majors,

146  Decoding Chinese English names thus should have English names, or our English teachers (from US or England) required us to have English names so that it would be easier for them to remember. YJ picked his English name of Daniel. CB’s English teacher picked for her the name of Blanche after she heard that her Chinese name meant ice and that she liked white snow. ZY-​F-​3 recalled: it was about the time of my first English class by a foreign teacher, she wrote many names on the blackboard, and asked us to choose one freely, and circle it on the blackboard to make it our own, or we could also simply write an English name of our own preference. So I went up to the blackboard and circled Vivian. Later, I found out that the name meant vitality or life, so afterwards, when I studied and worked overseas, I would continue using it. Apart from the participants whose English names were provided by their English teachers during their first or their first few English classes, there were also participants whose English names were provided by their friends, e.g., XW-​F-​2 said “my boyfriend gave this English name to me”, and similarly, YS-​F-​4 said: My English name was given by my best friend, who thought it was a beautiful name, very feminine and rhythmical. Also, he thought it sounded like a pretty girl, since it could be written in Chinese as 爱美丽 or “loving beauty” literally in English. In the case of WG-​M-​4, his English names were given by an English teacher and a friend: My Intensive English course teacher gave me my first English name, Tony, in my college freshman year in China in 1991. Then in graduate school in China in 1997, an American friend gave me another name, Jake, because he could not say my name right. Jake was one of his cousins. For a number of other participants, their English names were self-​selected. For example: “I gave myself an English name (rather than given by parents or others). It sounds similar to my Chinese name” (JW-​F-​4). “I picked the name according to the pronunciation of my Chinese name as it sounds close to it” (XS-​F-​4). “I got myself an English name from the appendix of an English-​ Chinese dictionary. It means angel. The reason I chose it is because I want my name to be on the top in an alphabetical ordered name list” (SY-​F-​2). It was about when I did my undergraduate studies, it was an oral English class by a foreign teacher. Perhaps it would be more convenient for the

Decoding Chinese English names  147 class roll call, so she asked us each to think of an English name. I randomly chose Richard, and I couldn’t recall why I did it. I also used other English names during my undergraduate studies, for example, Carl. Since I went to Macau to study, I’d been using my English name more often. I remember that when I first arrived and got to the English Department to register, the secretary asked whether I had an English name, and I said Richard. So up until now, my foreign teachers and those in Hong Kong and Macau would call me by this name. To me, it doesn’t really mean much, and it’s just Richard. (ZK-​M-​3) Apart from the two major categories of circumstances where Chinese speakers of English obtained their English names, there are also what I would call “mixed circumstances”, where people may have more than one English name due to their changing circumstances. For example, LH-​F-​4 responded: “I had one when I was in China, named by my English teacher, who was a British. When I came to Australia, I named one by myself. It sounds a bit similar as my Chinese name.” YX-​F-​4 responded: I have many English names. When I was at Uni, my foreign teacher gave me an English name, which was Jessica. Later, I didn’t like it that much, so I changed it to Diana, and I looked it up in the dictionary, and it meant the Moon goddess. I liked it for a number of years. Later, there was another foreign teacher, who said Isabella was also a good name, so I changed mine to it, and I think it’s a very ladylike name. My QQ (social media) name is Cindy, because it’s short and easy to remember, and also it sounded like my Chinese name. For those participants who have English names, I also followed up by asking what their English names meant to them. As could be expected, their responses vary. For some, their English names do not mean much. For example, here are a number of typical responses from the participants: “I didn’t know whether it (Rick) has a meaning or not” (QL-​M-​3); and “I use the name Richard and it doesn’t have any specific meaning to me” (ZK-​M-​3). However, there are also participants who are aware what their English names mean to them. For example, “I think the name (Cynthia) has to do with Greek mythology and moon” (BX-​F-​2); I have this English name, Iris, for a number of reasons: its literal meaning, its pronunciation, and it’s easy to remember and write. I know that it has three meanings: it’s a beautiful flower, which can be seen everywhere in Australia; and the pupil in the eye, which is so important for everyone, and a moon goddess, a symbol of rainbow, beauty and elegance. (NL-​F-​5);

148  Decoding Chinese English names “Angela means angel. The reason I chose it is because I want my name on the top in an alphabetical ordered name list” (SY-​F-​2); “Since Peter is a most faithful apostle of Jesus. It may signify faith” (SH-​M-​4); I had only one English name, Palla, used for years even from the day I was an English major student. At that time, I was in love of Greek myths. So I took the name Athena Pallas of Goddess Wisdom as an inspiration for my name. A glorious and big name for a common person like me, but I keep using it till today. The first name of the Goddess is too familiar to people. I used the second name instead and later on had it shortened to Palla which is easier to remember and pleasant to pronounce. (SM-​F-​3) I also asked the participants, especially those who have English names, whether they would prefer to use their English names or their Chinese names when they interact with others in English. More participants prefer to use their English names for a number of reasons, for example: “I’d use my English name when I communicate with English speakers, because there’s no way they could pronounce my Chinese name accurately. For their convenience, I’d introduce myself using my English name” (NL-​F-​5); “I prefer to use my English name when interacting with foreigners in English. But with my students or colleagues, I prefer to use my Chinese name, even though we are using English as the medium” (XG-​F-​4); “After we came to the US, we have never used our English names. We use our Chinese names (or to be more exact, their pinyin forms) when we interact with others in English” (YJ-​M-​4 and CB-​F-​4); “I’d prefer to use my English name. I don’t feel like a foreigner is calling me if my Chinese name is used. Using English name would suit the English-​speaking context” (XY-​F-​3); and Communicating with others in English, I’d use my English name, because when we use English, the people speaking to me are mostly foreigners, or those Hong Kong and Macau people, who get used to using English names. I think it’s a matter of convenience. (ZK-​M-​3) There were also participants who responded by saying that whether Chinese people adopt English names depends on individual circumstances. For example, BX-​F-​2 responded: “It depends on whom I’m talking to. I’ll use English name only when talking to people who do not speak Chinese.” LY-​F-​3 also responded: It depends. When chatting with my friends in English, I prefer my English name if they addressed me my English name from the very beginning, but if they could address me my Chinese name and used it for the first couple of meetings, I would prefer my Chinese name.

Decoding Chinese English names  149 SM-​F-​3 had a more elaborate response: It is a question that depends on different choices, I think. Name is a very important distinction of people. It is the first step to remember each other in communication. I think to have an English name is necessary for international communication. Actually, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon relating to English names years before. Several Chinese friends around me had an English name at first. Later on they choose to give up their English name for Chinese name. I am very curious to this kind of change at the time. Now I think I understand why they discarded their previous English name and got back to original Chinese name. I predict that they are hoping to be remembered more like a real Chinese. Chinese identification is as important as or more important than English identification in their eyes. SM-​F-​3’s response does not only show the changing nature of having or abandoning English names among Chinese speakers of English; it also implies that when considering their names, one of the factors that Chinese speakers of English take into account is their ti or essence, and it is a representation of their identities, both self-​perceived and other-​ascribed, in the field of naming practice across cultures. Given that Chinese names have their surnames preceding their given names, I asked my participants whether they would prefer to be addressed by their surnames, or given names, or full names. Most participants are happy to be addressed by their given names. And again, the responses vary, e.g., My PhD supervisor always called me Wang. At the beginning I was a bit offended, as I thought there were millions of Wangs in the world. Later I realized that he was actually trying to be friendly. For a senior person, calling a junior by their surname is actually affectionate. In the past, before I went to the UK, I preferred people to call me by my full name. After living in the UK for 4 years, now I would prefer people to call me by my given name in Chinese. (WL-​M-​4); If I didn’t have an English name, I’d like others to address my first name. I don’t like them to address my full name in a social situation. However, if a student addresses me by my first name, I don’t feel that comfortable. It takes time for me to get used to that. (XS-​F-​4); “It depends. With close friends or people of the same age, I expect them to call me by my given name. With strangers, my full name is OK” (XG-​F-​4); “English colleagues and friends here address us by our first names and we do

150  Decoding Chinese English names the same. If we are interacting with Chinese friends, we prefer to use our full names” (YJ-​M-​4 and CB-​F-​4); When I was in graduate school in the United States, I let people call me by my last name because that was easy for my American classmates and teachers. Once I started working as a professor, I introduced myself by my first name. I use “first name +​last name” in official contexts, such as academic conferences and publishing. I could not control how people call me. So Americans have called me by my first name, last name, or “Professor +​last name”. (YX-​M-​4); Quite a few friends of mine would prefer to be called by their surnames instead of their given names because our Chinese surnames are simpler with usually one syllable, and they can be close to English pronunciations, for instance, Wang, Liu, and Fang. (ZL-​F-​5) In addition, in the survey, one of the questions was an open-​ended question, asking the participants to provide any thoughts or ideas about the use of English names by Chinese people, and the general practices of using English names as far as they knew. It is interesting to find out that the participants’ collective habitus plays a role in their attitudes and practices, or yong, of English names; their habitus in this case is reflected in their generations and localities, which are to some extent related to another component of the pentagram framework, i.e., field. For example, BX-​F-​2, who was studying and living in Hong Kong at the time of the survey, responded: For my generation, Chinese people (from the Mainland), like me, might be given English names by their very first English teachers, because their parents may not have the tradition of giving their children English names. HK parents tend to give their children English names. That’s another thing. As far as I know, there are many Marys, Davids, Susans, Jennys etc.:p. I think more and more Chinese people are using English names nowadays, especially in foreign companies and some fashion boutiques. In this response, it can be noted that “generation” is explicitly mentioned, indicating that BX-​F-​2 is aware of the variation across generations. She also refers to Chinese people from the Mainland, and people from Hong Kong, who have different practices or yong of using (or not using) English names. There is also another factor that plays a role, i.e., the extent to which their parents have or do not have the “tradition” of giving their children English names. She has also mentioned “foreign companies” and “fashion boutiques”, which are specific “fields” in the broader business field where English names

Decoding Chinese English names  151 are used in relation to certain forms of capital, be it economic, cultural or symbolic. Participants FZ-​F-​4 and XS-​F-​4 also mentioned regional variations in naming practices between Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong people, e.g., “Mainland Chinese usually prefer short, contemporary and easy to pronounce and remembered names; while Hong Kong people seem to prefer longer, more old-​fashioned, even obsolete names” (FZ-​F-​4); I think Chinese people should have English names since they make communication easier. However, it is good to maintain their Chinese names to keep their identity. Also it depends on the context, e.g. in America, people in the professional world, they will try their best to use your Chinese name, however, in HK, people will try to use your English name according to my experience. Regarding using English names, generally young people use more often their English names in interactions. It also depends on the context and who they are talking to, and whether they would be willing to integrate into the target English culture or not, etc. (XS-​F-​4) Participant YT-​M-​3 points out that whether Chinese people use or do not use English names is a matter of personal choice, so it “depends on individuals”. He also notices that Chinese people who use English names in Japan are “mostly from Hong Kong and Taiwan”. Again, regional variation is salient. I think it depends on individuals, and if they think it’s necessary it would be fine. Living in English speaking countries, if Chinese people have English names, it would be easier for people to remember. It is indeed true that some Chinese names are very difficult for non-​Chinese speakers to remember and pronounce. For example, my surname is Yang, but some of my American friends would always pronounce it as Yan, and they simply couldn’t help it. I’m not too sure about how Chinese people use or do not use English names, but in Japan, those Chinese who use English names are mostly from Hong Kong and Taiwan. (YT-​M-​3) In addition, ZY-​F-​3 and YR-​F-​4 shared similar views: If both living and work environments are Chinese, then it would be meaningless to use English names. For example, if I come back to the Chinese mainland to work, I would not use my English name. It’s not a matter of whether one should or shouldn’t use an English name, and it’s all up to individual preferences. After all, names are personal. I know that some English names used by Chinese actually resemble their Chinese names, e.g., Jeffery for 建辉 (Jianhui), and Jessie for 觉西 (Juexi). Some people

152  Decoding Chinese English names prefer to use English names of those characters in movies, novels, and the names of superstars and scientists. There are also people who take English names casually, as long as they sound nice and easy to spell. When people use their English names, they tend to have their English names followed by their Chinese surnames. I also notice that in current business communication, Chinese people also use their Chinese names in Pinyin forms, and this becomes more and more common. (ZY-​F-​3) I don’t use English name, because that’s not me. I like being called by my Chinese given name. I’m aware that using English names may enable people to be integrated into the Western world. Chinese children in the UK generally have both Chinese and English names. In British schools, it’s more common for Chinese kids to have English names, and the British teachers would also prefer students to have English names. As adult Chinese, we’d prefer our Chinese names. And they’d prefer their children to use their Chinese names also. To give them English names is for their children to integrate into the society and the Western culture, and it is more or less coerced. Of course, children of interracial families would have English names, as they are half Western as well, although they also have Chinese names. (YR-​F-​4) The use of English names by Chinese people may also be related to how much they are exposed to English-​speaking cultures or whether they live or work in English-​speaking societies. In such cases, “field”, referred to as social space in a society, becomes a more salient factor, as it affects people’s dispositions and their habitus. For example, LH-​F-​4 points out: I think it would be easier and comfortable to use my English name when interacting with others in English, especially if the Chinese name is difficult to be pronounced. I cannot say that Chinese people should have an English name, however, it would be good to have one. As far as I know, Chinese people who have English names are normally using their English names in an English-​speaking environment for their daily life, e.g. school, work and social activities. Likewise, LY-​F-​3 also shares her understanding of the issue: My understanding is that, Chinese who have been exposed to a lot of western cultures would like to use English names in their daily life. For example, they give their children English names and use the names in their daily life. For most ordinary Chinese people, they only use English names when they chat with foreigners. And they may change their English names if they don’t like them. I think Chinese people can have

Decoding Chinese English names  153 English names if they would like to. Names are just the symbols that help others to identify one person from others. Other participants, e.g., YS-​F-​4, ZL-​F-​5 and ZG-​F-​4, share similar views about English naming practices in China and the English-​speaking world. Firstly, in China, it is the person who learns English and loves Western culture that usually has an English name and likes others to call him/​her by their English name. And also, culture factors are involved in naming a person as well. From my point of view, Chinese people don’t like to call somebody’s name (either Chinese or English), but their surname instead. Elders are commonly respected and honoured in Chinese culture, so people would like to call a person, whose surname is Li for example, “Old Li”, “Teacher Li”, “Brother Li”, “Sister Li” or “Master Li”, no matter what his or her profession is and how young or old he or she is. Maybe that is the culture barrier that is difficult to overcome, since Eastern culture is different from Western culture, where people would like to call somebody’s name or nickname. (YS-​F-​4) Chinese people should have an English name if they live in an English country because you should “入乡随俗” (When in Rome, do as the Romans do). Many Chinese people choose an English name with the pronunciation close to their Chinese name, for instance, Ray for Rui, and Shane for Shen. (ZL-​F-​5) I think if you have to contact with foreigners on many occasions, you’d better have an English name, for convenience and respect. You see sometimes it’s quite difficult for a foreigner to pronounce and remember Chinese names. And I think nowadays some foreigners are using Chinese names for the same reasons. Some people will pick a name because they like that English name, such as Tom, or Harry; some use the English name because it sounds similar to their name or family name, such as mine; some others choose a name for certain meaning, such as David and Elizabeth. (ZG-​F-​4) Among the participants of the survey, there are professors, previously working at universities, who were in their seventies at the time of the survey, and they show a strong inclination for following Chinese norms for naming without having English names. For example, both CY-​M-​7 and GY-​M-​7 responded explicitly that we should follow Chinese naming norms, with CY-​ M-​7 using my Chinese name as an example. “I would follow Chinese naming norms, for example, your name would be Xu Zhichang, rather than Zhichang

154  Decoding Chinese English names Xu, and so is my name. That is, our Chinese surnames are followed by our given names”. GY-​M-​7 had a more elaborate response: I don’t think there is any need to have an English name. A Chinese name is enough to differentiate one from others. Do Australians have Chinese names? If not, why should we Chinese use English names? So far as I know, none of my (retired) peers have names other than the ones they got from their parents. Once a student of mine came to me for advice on what English name suited her best. I answered half-​jokingly Saint Maria. For my generation, people are generally not interested in having foreign names. I used to do my postgraduate studies in linguistics in the Foreign Institute of Harbin, and we had many Belarusians in the institute, and they were teaching undergraduate students. Our postgraduate courses were taught by Soviet Union experts, those real experts in their forties or fifties. Those Belarusian teachers were afraid Soviet Union experts, because they were political exiles. There was once a Soviet Union expert hearing a Belarusian teacher calling a Chinese student his Russian name got very angry, thinking that it was disrespectful to Chinese. Perhaps there are cultural and age differences regarding foreign names. I’ve never addressed my students by their English names, and perhaps I’ve gone a bit too much, but it’s pretty much how it is. For most participants, it is a personal decision as to whether or not they have English names, and how they use or do not use their English names in their daily circumstances. For example, FZ-​F-​4 shares her view: It is a personal decision. People should be able to make their own choice. Those with easy-​to-​pronounce Chinese names may prefer to keep their Chinese names; others may find it annoying that they have to correct foreigners’ wrong pronunciation all the time, for them, it is more convenient to have an English name. YJ-​M-​4 and CB-​F-​4’s joint response is: “Half of our Chinese friends have English names and use their English names when writing to us, half stick to their Chinese names. We think it is a personal preference.” YX-​M-​4’s response is more elaborate: There are numerous ways in which Chinese nationals adopt English names in the United States. The most common way is to replace their Chinese first name with an English first name and keep their Chinese last name. The second common way is to add an English first name on top of their Chinese first name, so the full name will eventually look like “English first name +​Chinese first name +​Last name.” Often the English first name is phonetically or semantically close to that person’s Chinese

Decoding Chinese English names  155 first name. People choose their names based on so many contingencies. As it is purely personal choice, there is no ground to judge these choices. There are opposing views regarding whether Chinese speakers of English should have or use English names. Some participants oppose the idea of having English names, while others are fine with it. WL-​M-​4 is an interesting case, as he was in his forties at the time of the survey; he was based in Hong Kong, originally coming from the Chinese mainland and having done his doctoral research in the UK. In his case, it is not the field, capital or habitus that has a direct impact on his view, but his strong association between his Chinese ti or essence and “our national identity”, in his own words, which determines his yong, in this case, not using an English name. It is also interesting to note that, from our personal communication, I got to know that his son, currently a school student in Hong Kong, has an English name. I don’t think Chinese people should have English names. I think originally Chinese people created English names so that foreigners can call them more easily. However, why should we do that? If they want to know us, they’d better remember our Chinese names. We would never call an English person by their Chinese names (I know some English people do create a Chinese name, but normally they are for fun, or for political reasons. They are seldom used in daily life.) If Chinese people use English names, we are losing our national identity. Once I heard an American journalist talking about a young Chinese golfer. He said, ‘His name is Zhang Huachuang, but he preferred others to call him Andy!’ He said it in such a sarcastic way, it really made me feel uncomfortable. (WL-​M-​4) TA-​F-​4 also shares a similar view, although she has an English name and was based in Canada at the time of the survey: Most Chinese people do not use their Chinese names maybe because it is hard for people to pronounce them properly. I do not know whether we should have English names or not. I notice people from other countries do not have English names. They only use their own names, such as people from India, Russia or the Philippines. Maybe we should keep using our Chinese names to let people from English-​speaking countries get used to our Chinese names. In contrast, NL-​F-​5 has a different view from the perspective of “interpersonal communication”: Names are an essential element in interpersonal communication, so for the sake of convenience, it’s perfectly fine for Chinese people to have

156  Decoding Chinese English names English names, as long as they like those names and the names are easy to write, remember and they sound pleasant. The majority of the participants share the view that it is alright to have English names. For example, I don’t have objections to Chinese people having English names. It depends. In an international working environment, perhaps yes. Chinese people now have more choices in choosing their English names. But my observation is that they prefer those popular ones. I know some people around me having names like Carl, James, Lydia, and Zoe. (QD-​F-​4) I think it is reasonable for Chinese people to use English names when they communicate in English. Many use an English name which sounds or has similar meaning with their real name. People from other cultures, such as India or Saudi Arabia do the same way when they communicate in English. Perhaps English names stand between nicknames and Chinese full names. (WY-​F-​2) There are also other interesting findings regarding the survey. One of them is that Chinese speakers of English tend to use English or English-​like names on the Internet for social media communication. For example, XG-​F-​4 points out that “another case where English names are widely used is on the Internet. Many Chinese netizens prefer to give themselves an English name so as to give themselves a different identity on the Net.” This shows that in a different field, i.e., the virtual online space, Chinese speakers may reconfigure their habitus and ti by constructing a new identity for themselves using unconventional or idiosyncratic English names. It is also interesting to note, as some participants point out, that not all seemingly “English” names that Chinese use are real “English” names. They are simply “strange” or “weird” names in the English alphabet; e.g., participant XY-​F-​3 points out that Many people, especially Chinese students, tend to use some strange names to make themselves special, for example, Sky, Money, Apple. Chinese should have English names for cross-​cultural communication. General practices really depend on their personality. Some are open-minded and outgoing. They can accept nearly everything alien. They tend to use some weird names to attract other people’s attention. Some are very traditional and shy. They just pick up English names from dictionaries. They really don’t care about names. What they care is whether they are easy for pronunciation or not. In their mind, English names are just names without special meanings.

Decoding Chinese English names  157 ZK-​M-​3 was based in Macau at the time of the survey, and he has elaborated on the laid-​back attitudes towards Chinese speakers’ English names. I think that Chinese people using English names is primarily for convenience, but I can’t exclude that some people may think having English names makes them feel stylish and Western (i.e., 洋气). Chinese people tend to be a bit flexible with their English names, and they may not comply with English naming conventions. For example, some people may simply choose a favourite word in English as their name, and it would look funny in the eyes of foreigners. Micro-​narrative 14 shows the evolving understanding of my various names and my changing identities or multiple “selves”. This understanding has been developed based on my habitus and the field that I am in, and it is also highly relevant to my self-​perception of ti (essence), and in what contexts my various names are used in terms of one of the elements of the pentagram framework, i.e., yong. Apart from the survey on naming practices among Chinese speakers of English, over the years since 2014, I have also interviewed various people, mostly Chinese bilingual speakers of English, and I have asked for their naming stories. I consider these interviews as specific case studies of their

Micro-​narrative 14:  My marked and unmarked names I gave a talk for our Translation and Interpreting Studies seminar series in May 2019. My topic was about self-​translation. I introduced myself as Zhichang Xu (Marc), and I talked about the markedness of my names. I said, Xu Zhichang is how I would call my Chinese self, and Marc is my English name and it represents my English-​speaking self. So, Xu Zhichang is my most unmarked name, and Marc is definitely a marked name. Zhichang Xu is also slightly marked, because the first and last names are reversed from my unmarked name. However, I’m aware that the markedness also depends on the context in which my names are used or addressed, and the markedness varies with whom I interact with. For the majority of my colleagues, Marc is actually unmarked here in the workplace at Monash in Australia, at least to the majority of my colleagues and students. I also have a penname, Xuan Tong, which means universal harmony, and it’s a marked name in the sense that it is only used for sharing my creative writing pieces in specific contexts. After the talk, one of my Chinese colleagues commented that Xuan Tong would not be very “marked” to him, as he understood that writers tended to have pennames. I think that was a good point, as we share common Chinese norms and schemas regarding names.

158  Decoding Chinese English names naming practices. The following section serves as a narrative inquiry into a more detailed and nuanced analysis of the naming practices among Chinese speakers of English.

Case 1: EQ-​M-​5 R: Regarding

your name, how would you introduce yourself to foreigners at work? Would you say, my name is [EQ-​M-​5’s Chinese name with surname first followed by his given name], [EQ-​M-​5’s Chinese name with given name first followed by his surname], or an English name? EQ-​M-​5:  I would use both. When I was in Secondary 1, my teacher named me “Edward”. I sometimes use it. Later, I changed my English name. Because my Chinese name is [EQ-​M-​5’s given name], which means spring water. So my English name is Water. Many people think I’m Walter. I would say no. It’s Water, just Water. I would say that you all need me because I am Water. It is easy to remember. But I would often introduce myself as [EQ-​M-​5’s surname plus given name], not [EQ-​M-​5’s given name plus surname], or I would say Water plus [EQ-​M-​5’s surname]. I seldom use Edward now. I think Water is related to my Chinese name. R:  You said that you seldom use Edward now. What’s the reason behind it? EQ-​M-​5:  One reason is that it’s named by other people, and also it’s a bit too Westernised. I think I would like to have an English name that is related to my Chinese name, and it also sounds comfortable. My Chinese name has a middle character, which is a generation marker. In our generation in my family, all boys have this middle character as their middle name, and all girls have another middle character as their middle name. There’s a long history in Chinese naming practice. Like many Chinese bilingual speakers of English, EQ-​M-​5 was also initially given an English name by one of his English teachers when he started learning English. This English name was, in a sense, randomly assigned to him, so it didn’t really match his ti (essence). It was simply yong or used for his English learning-​related activities, such as attending English classes. However, he gave himself an English name later, based on his Chinese name, which has a character meaning “spring water”; hence, “Water” as his English name. It can be noted that “Water”, albeit not a conventional English name per se, corresponds more closely to his habitus and his Chinese ti, so in certain specific fields where he engages in intercultural communication, he would introduce himself as Water plus his surname. He is aware that Water is not as

Decoding Chinese English names  159 “conventional” an English name as Walter, but it makes good sense to him, and he would negotiate with other English speakers by saying “you all need me because I’m Water”. This is an interesting case in light of the pentagram framework, as most of the elements of the framework, i.e., ti, yong, habitus, field and capital, are at play when EQ-​M-​5 shifts his English names and his use of his Chinese name as he becomes more self-​aware of his own essence, or ti, from initially being given a Westernised English name to giving himself a personalised “English” name, which is not an “English” name in its traditional sense, to using his Chinese name in its traditional Chinese order, to using a mixed mode of name, i.e., “English” name followed by his Chinese surname, and to abandoning the use of his original English name, i.e., Edward, for the very reason that “it’s a bit too Westernised”.

Case 2: YJ-​F-​3 R:  Do

you have an English name? Yes, you do, Alice, as far as I know. How and where did you get your English name? What does your English name mean to you? YJ-​F-​3:  When I first started learning English in the junior middle school, our English teacher gave each of us an English name. So I was called Alice. I didn’t know why. [laugh] So, everybody got one, and mine was Alice. So my English name was actually given to me by the English teacher, at the very beginning of my junior middle school, when I first learned English. She gave everybody a name, and mine was Alice. I didn’t know what it meant, but I felt it sounded good, and the spelling was simple. And it’s easy to remember. So, I’ve been using it. Until later, I know many different names and meanings, and I could change my English name, but I didn’t. And I liked it. R:  So you didn’t know what it meant? YJ-​F-​3:  No, I haven’t checked its meaning. But “ai li si”, the three Chinese characters corresponding to Alice, sound nice and look good. R:  When you communicate with others, do you use your English name or your Chinese name? YJ-​F-​3:  When I communicate with Chinese, I’d use my Chinese name, but when I communicate with English native speakers, I would use English name. R:  But you’ve been here for half a year, when you introduce yourself here, how would you introduce yourself ? YJ-​F-​3: I’d say, I’m Alice. Because, my name [YJ-​F-​3’s Chinese name], for foreigners, it’s simply too difficult to pronounce. I wouldn’t want to embarrass other people or make it unnecessarily difficult for them. [laugh] R:  Back to English names for Chinese people again, do you think at this stage of the world, Chinese people should have English names?

160  Decoding Chinese English names YJ-​F-​3: 

In my opinion, for those who have contacts with foreigners, they should have English names. For our parents’ generation, they didn’t even know English alphabet, so it’s meaningless for them to have English names. But for our next generations, they do need English names. They need to learn and use English to communicate with foreigners. So they should have English names. R: What about the status or roles of the English names for Chinese people? Should they appear in their passports? In what circumstances should they use their English names? YJ-​F-​3:  I think they should not appear in their passports. Passport names should be their legal names. I think their English names should be used when they communicate with foreigners. For example, I use Alice when I’m overseas, but in my home country, I use my Chinese name mostly. YJ-​F-​3’s case is another interesting case. Unlike EQ-​M-​5, she sticks to the English name that was given to her by her secondary school teacher, because she likes it, and she uses it when she communicates with English-​speaking people. The reasons for her sticking to the English name Alice are that “it sounded good, and the spelling was simple. And it’s easy to remember.” In addition, the transliterated Chinese characters for Alice, i.e., ai li si, “sound nice and look good” to YJ-​F-​3. This shows the yong aspect of English names to Chinese speakers of English. And the use of English names is also field dependent, according to YJ-​F-​3: “When I communicate with Chinese, I’d use my Chinese name, but when I communicate with English native speakers, I would use English name.” YJ-​F-​3 is also aware of the generational variations in the use (or non-​use) of English names. YJ-​F-​3 implied the ti and yong dichotomy with regard to Chinese name and English name when I asked her whether English names should appear in our passports. For YJ-​F-​3, Chinese names are more closely associated with Chinese people’s ti or essence, and they represent their “legal names”, hence appearing in passports. And YJ-​F-​ 3’s response implies the yong function in relation to the specific “field” when Chinese people “communicate with foreigners”.

Case 3: TC-​M-​2 R: 

So, as Chinese, when we communicate with English speaking people, or non-​Chinese speakers, sometimes we use English as a lingua franca, so, in this case, do you introduce yourself, or do you have an English name, by the way? TC-​M-​2:  Yeah, I don’t have an English name. R:  From day one? When you even learned English?

Decoding Chinese English names  161 TC-​M-​2: 

There was an English name. There was an English teacher, who gave me a name, Victor. But I didn’t use it, not much outside THAT classroom anyway. R:  Alright. That’s interesting, because a lot of people from your generation, or people who were born in the eighties, they are okay with English names. So, what’s your point of view about having an English name? TC-​M-​2:  I have no problem with people using English names. But I just think it’s quite weird to have an English name, you know, it’s just something very foreign to me. It was just given to me, and it’s not part of me. If that name was in the passport, then I would accept it. But it’s something weird, at least for Chinese people, and people change their names, their English names. So, that is one reason. I just don’t feel quite connected with any English name. Not that I’m so old-​fashioned. Another reason is that I realise at quite an early stage when I was communicating with foreigners, that’s when they find remembering my Chinese name is going to be very difficult, but once they remember, they’ll never forget it. [laugh] So all the Lucys and Jacks are gone, they remember the Tian [one of the two characters in TC-​M-​2’s Chinese name]. In the case of TC-​M-​2, he does not have a current English name, and he tends to associate names with people’s passports or legal names, or people’s ethnic identities more closely. Unlike others of his generation, he sticks to the uniqueness of his Chinese name even when communicating with “foreigners”. His logic is that once those foreigners remember our Chinese names, they will not forget them. His intuitive feeling that he’s not “quite connected with any English name” shows that the element of his Chinese ti plays a predominant role in his not using an English name, even though, like other participants, he was given one, the name Victor, by his English teacher. His actual yong (or use) of Victor was limited to “THAT classroom”, because the English name was something “foreign” to him, and it felt “weird”, in his own words, to use it outside “THAT classroom”. In terms of field and capital, TC-​M-​2’s English name was used only in a specific field, for a practical value of identifying himself as equal to his peers, who were all given English names by their English teacher. However, he makes it clear that he has “no problem with other people using English names”.

Case 4: GH-​M-​2 R:  Do you have an English GH-​M-​2:  Yes, Kevin.

name?

162  Decoding Chinese English names R:  Why

do you have an English name, and in what circumstances did you get it? GH-​M-​2:  For the need of attending language classes. As a male student, I’d like a simple name. I use my English name mostly for language classes. R: Do you use your English name in Australia? How would your supervisor(s) call you? GH-​M-​2: They’d call me by my first name, to avoid repeated names. They don’t use Kevin. R:  When would you use Kevin? GH-​M-​2:  When I attend language classes, with my friends and classmates. I’d now use my Chinese name with friends, or when I don’t really want to leave my real Chinese name, I’d use Kevin. R:  For spelling Chinese names in English, do you think we should follow English norms, to have given name first, followed by surname? GH-​M-​2:  It depends. For academic writing, I’d rather have my surname first. For filling in forms, I’d have my given name first. I’d rather prefer to spell my name in Chinese way, to avoid confusions. GH-​M-​2’s use of his English name is more of a pragmatic nature for a yong or utility purpose. He would use his English name when he does not want to reveal his Chinese name, or when he is in language classes. In most circumstances, he prefers to follow the Chinese naming norms and practices to “avoid confusions”. His interview responses also imply a gender difference in choosing English names, in that “as a male student”, he prefers a “simple name”. GH-​M-​2 is also aware of the different “fields” where naming conventions, as far as Chinese people are concerned, can be different. “For academic writing, I’d rather have my surname first. For filling in forms, I’d have my given name first. I’d rather prefer to spell my name in Chinese way, to avoid confusions.”

Case 5: TH-​M-​2 R:  I remember that you have an English name, Ryan, right? TH-​M-​2:  Yes, Ryan, R-​Y-​A-​N. R:  Where did it come from? TH-​M-​2:  This is very interesting. It’s one of my favourite swimming stars,

named Ryan Lochte. At that time, I was about to go abroad, just before I went abroad, then I would give myself an English name, and I decided on Ryan. R: Was it because you would go abroad that you chose yourself an English name? So you didn’t have an English name when you were in primary and secondary schools?

Decoding Chinese English names  163 TH-​M-​2: 

It was possible that my teachers gave me English names, such as Jackie, Mark, but I forgot them all. R:  So your teachers did give you English names? TH-​M-​2:  Yes, they did. R: After you arrived in Melbourne, when you introduce yourself to other people, or foreigners, would you say, I’m Ryan, or I am [TH-​ M-​2’s first name]? TH-​M-​2: I changed recently. I would use [TH-​ M-​2’s first name] now. (laugh) R: That’s interesting! Why did you change? Before you came to Melbourne, you had given yourself an English name after a swimming star, and when you first arrived in Melbourne, you would introduce yourself as Ryan [TH-​M-​2’s surname], wouldn’t you? TH-​M-​2: Yes, that’s right. Later, I felt that my Chinese name could represent myself better. I don’t know it was from when, but with time passing by, it was a gradual change of mind. I can’t even explain why, it was an overall change, not necessarily triggered by a particular thing or event. R:  So is this your second year in Melbourne? TH-​M-​2:  Third year. I feel it’s getting a bit odd, the longer I stay here, the more Chinese I’ve become. R:  So you identify with your Chinese self better, I mean your Chinese identity? TH-​M-​2: Yes. R:  So you’ve found your uniqueness, your Chineseness. TH-​M-​2:  Yes, previously I would reject all of this, and I just wanted to be Ryan, with a foreign name. But later, I changed totally. R:  This is an interesting phenomenon. Would you still use Ryan? Or is Ryan just for a period of time? It has come to an end. Period. I’m no longer Ryan? TH-​M-​2:  Perhaps I would use my Chinese name more. This is an interesting case, as TH-​M-​2 named himself after a swimming star before he went abroad, and he used his English name at the beginning when he arrived in Melbourne, but then he stopped using it, as he feels that “the longer I stay here [Melbourne], the more Chinese I’ve become”. So, whether to use English names or not is closely associated with one’s self-​identification of one’s own ti or essence. In the case of TH-​M-​2, it seems that he intended to change his Chinese identity to a Westernised self by giving himself an English name while he was in China, but then he started realising that his Chinese name could represent himself better while staying overseas. In his own words: “I don’t know it was from when, but with time passing by, it was a gradual change of mind. I can’t even explain why, it was an overall change,

164  Decoding Chinese English names not necessarily triggered by a particular thing or event.” As far as the case of TH-​M-​2 is concerned, it can be noted that the pentagram framework of ti, yong, habitus, field and capital plays a significant part in this “gradual change of mind” from naming and using to stopping using his English name. The “field” here is a particularly tricky one, as unlike other participants who would choose to use English names while living overseas, particularly in English-​ speaking countries, TH-​M-​2 becomes more “Chinese” with time passing by while he studies overseas, in this case, in Melbourne. And as a result, he chose not to use his English name, Ryan, any longer, and he would use his Chinese name more.

Case 6: LY-​F-​2 R:  I

know that you have an English name. I wondered whether there were any stories associated with it? Where did you get this name? Or was it given by yourself ? What does it mean to you? LY-​F-​2:  My English name is Leah. This is a name I gave to myself. In fact, my first English name was when I was in my primary school, when I started learning English, my primary school teacher chose a bunch of English names for all the students in our class. [Laugh] Everyone was given an English name. The English teacher gave an English name to me and it was Doreen. But I had no idea why the teacher did so, because in our primary school, English classes were taught in Chinese. She actually didn’t use my English name very often. So the name existed when I learned English in China. When I was in senior high school, our classmates would talk about what English names would suit us. There was one of my favourite movies at that time, the Star Wars. There was a Princess Leah in it. I felt the name sounded similar to my Chinese name. So I chose this name for myself, Leah. R: Interesting indeed. When you communicate with other people, or introduce yourself to others, of course in English, would you use your Chinese name, or Leah? LY-​F-​2:  I would introduce my Chinese name, and say you can call me Leah. R:  [Laugh] Okay, you’ve covered both. LY-​F-​2:  Yes, because after graduation from university, my first job was with an airlines. At that time, most of my colleagues were foreigners, from different countries. My Chinese name is very simple. Both characters sound like Chinese surnames. So they can be very confusing. So I would prefer Leah. And my name tag was Leah. And also my first name is Yang, and foreigners may not be quite able to pronounce it, as they might pronounce it as Yan, so it sounded awkward to me.

Decoding Chinese English names  165 R:  My

next question is not necessarily about your own name, but in general, do you think Chinese people should have English names? LY-​F-​2:  I thought about this, in terms of why Chinese people have English names. I’d like to share what I’ve observed. I grew up in Guangzhou, but my parents come from Sichuan. I went to Guangzhou when I was six. So, my mother tongue is Putonghua. When I was in junior high school, I noticed that my peers who grew up in Guangzhou tended to have very interesting English names. For example, some of my classmates would call themselves Ah Bi. R: Abby? LY-​F-​2:  No, Ah Bi, or Ah Bee. Or other names such as Yoyo. You would notice that these names are by no means conventional English names. But my classmates in Guangzhou would give themselves such names. They find it interesting and they hope others would address them like this. I may even forget what their Chinese names are, but I still remember their names like this. R:  Would these names be like what we call in Chinese xiao ming (small name), or nicknames, but not necessarily official names? Not like David, Paul etc. LY-​F-​2:  Yes, but our small names are given by our parents. For example, my parents would address me by my “small name”. But for those names as I mentioned, they were given by themselves. R:  Yes, they are different from nicknames. LY-​F-​2: I also notice that girls with such names are most likely a bit trendy. I wondered whether such names could give them a sense of trendiness. R:  Or a sense of new identity. LY-​F-​2:  Yes, a sense of distinction from others, because I thought such names as Yoyo, could sound a bit Japanese as well. It might be the influence of Japanese pop culture. R:  I find this very interesting, as there’s some sort of regional variation. For example, in the Northeast, there’s hardly anyone who’d have an English name. [Laugh] LY-​F-​2:  [Laugh] Yes indeed. Sometimes when I hear someone call herself Yoyo, I’d guess that this person must have been from the South. R:  Possibly also under the influence of Hong Kong and Taiwan. LY-​F-​2:  Or at least she’d be keen on TVB programs. The case of LY-​F-​2 is unique in the sense that she was given an English name, much like other participants for this project, when she started learning English, but she didn’t use that name much outside that class. She later gave herself an English name, which was the name of a protagonist of one of her favourite movies. The name also resembles her Chinese name. This may explain why

166  Decoding Chinese English names she identifies with her self-​chosen English name more than the one she was given, and she uses it for work in a foreign airlines company, where colleagues use English as a lingua franca. Here, the notions of both ti and yong, as well as field and habitus, all play a role in the use of her self-​chosen English name. When I asked her how she would introduce herself when interacting with other English speakers, she responded by saying “I would introduce my Chinese name, and say you can call me Leah”, and this response shows how she manages her ti and yong in a flexible and socially appropriate way. The data also shows her awareness of the regional differences in the use of English names, and the use of unconventional “English” names, such as Ah Bi and Yoyo, in Guangzhou, where she grew up. The use of unconventional “English” names, as we found during the interview, implies a sense of “trendiness”, and a sense of identity and distinction, among those who have unconventional “English” names. This is relevant to the yong or utility of cultural and symbolic capital relative to the habitus of people.

Case 7: CY-​F-​4 M:  Do you have an English name? CY-​F-​4:  Yes, Tracy. M:  Who gave this name to you? CY-​F-​4:  Me, myself. M:  Why Tracy, sounds good? CY-​F-​4:  Yeah, it’s a bit special. Not M:  Do you use this name often? CY-​F-​4:  Yes, often. M: Why? CY-​F-​4: Because it’s easy! Here in

many people are Tracys.

Australia, to English speakers, my Chinese name would be difficult to pronounce. It’s easier to use my English name. M:  Particularly your surname is a bit difficult for others? CY-​F-​4:  Both my surname and given name are actually difficult to pronounce for foreigners. M:  How do your friends call you, usually? CY-​F-​4:  Here, including Chinese friends, they’d call me by my English name. CY-​F-​4 has given herself an English name, and she has been using it among her non-​Chinese-​speaking colleagues as well as Chinese friends in Australia, for the simple reason that the context or field is Australia, and her Chinese name, specifically the characters of her surname and given name, is difficult for foreigners to pronounce. The component of field in the pentagram framework here is highly relevant, as CY-​F-​4 would not have used her English name prior to her migration from China to Australia. In addition, she wanted to have a

Decoding Chinese English names  167

Micro-​narrative 15:  Names and identities I came across an interesting article on Facebook on 29 May 2019, and it’s titled I refuse to believe my name is too difficult for people to pronounce, written by Ahir Shah. According to the article, A survey of 1,000 people by the law firm Slater and Gordon has found that a third of employees from minority ethnic backgrounds have been asked to change their name to something more “English”, with the majority of those polled worrying that their careers would suffer if they refused. As a result, “Mayur became Mike; Panagiotis became Peter; Maciej became Magic”. “However, this survey does indicate that there is still an unnecessary expectation for people to change in order to accommodate their surroundings, purely because their surroundings can’t be bothered to make an effort.” The author of this article continues by saying, “I refuse to believe that my two words –​three syllables, eight letters –​are too complex for people who can read and immediately know how to pronounce a name like Stephen Murphy-​Homes.” This is interesting, in my opinion, and I couldn’t agree more. The author also shared a story of his dad: My dad once told me a story about working with a white man called Kenneth. When Kenneth asked if he could call my dad Victor, my father responded: “That depends. Can I call you Kanubhai?” they reminded Vikram and Kenneth. The author ended the article by suggesting that “It is your name. Insist on it.” Well, the article reminds me of the common issues we share, not just among Chinese, but among many speakers of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, e.g., Sri Lankan, Nigerian, Swedish, Australian Aboriginal, Mauritian and Russian. To Englishise or Anglicise our names, or not; that may not so much be the question. “It is your name. Insist on it”. In Chinese, there is a saying 行不更名, 坐不改姓, which means: do not change one’s given name and surname no matter what circumstances are. It means we should never conceal our names, or hide our own identities. sense of distinction in her English name, Tracy, as she said that “Not many people are Tracys”. It can be noted that what Chinese speakers of English look for as far as their English names are concerned may not be simply a “name”, or simply another “name” per se, but something that can give them a sense of distinction in relation to their new identity, or ti and habitus. It

168  Decoding Chinese English names can also be noted that one of the major reasons for Chinese speakers to have English names is that they feel their Chinese names are difficult for foreigners to pronounce. As shown in Micro-​narrative 15, this may also be common among other ethnic community speakers.

Case 8: HW-​M-​3 R: 

Do you have an English name? How did you get your English name? What does it mean to you? HW-​M-​3:  My English name is Clement; it’s actually a French name which I got from a friend of mine now almost 15 years ago when I started learning French. I always tell people it means benevolence, kind, and polite, but actually it was such a random pick, and it doesn’t carry too much meaning to me. R:  When you communicate in English with others, including Chinese in the United States, would you use your English name, or how would you like others to call you? HW-​M-​3:  It depends. If it’s in China, and it’s not the first-​tier cities, like when I come back to my hometown, which is Wenzhou, I’d use my Chinese name, as they wouldn’t understand English. As my Chinese name has four characters, and it’s a bit complicated, I’d use my English name in first-​tier cities in China. R:  By first-​tier cities, you mean Guangzhou, Beijing and Shanghai? HW-​M-​3:  Yes, like Shenzhen and Hong Kong. When I’m overseas, I’d introduce myself as Clement. This is how I use my names from a geographic perspective. Another perspective is, if I know that one I’m interacting with has got overseas experiences, wherever they are, I’d use my English name, and it’s more convenient. And if it’s a personal circumstance, I’d just say my English name, but if it’s a business context, I’d add my surname as well. R:  Generally speaking, Chinese people, as a group, when they interact with foreigners, or when they learn and use English, should they have an English name or not? What are the benefits or downsides? HW-​M-​3: It’s indeed difficult to say. Indeed, I’ve thought about this question. Some friends are a bit determined to let their original names be known. If possible, I think the majority of Chinese should do like this. But my circumstances are so special, because my Chinese name is too complicated. I think it’s a bit tough for foreigners to get my Chinese name. R:  So is my Chinese name! All the three characters of my Chinese name are difficult for foreigners to pronounce. It would be much easier if someone is Wang, or Li. So, whether some Chinese should have English names also depends on whether their Chinese names are easy to pronounce?

Decoding Chinese English names  169 HW-​M-​3: 

Yes. This is how I feel about names. However, to those post-​90s generation, those younger people, they might think that having an English name may contribute to another identity. For example, they may have watched a movie and they liked one of the protagonists, and they have an opportunity to make their own choice. Because their Chinese names were given to them by their parents. It’s not a matter of whether we should or not have English names. R: It’s a personal preference. HW-​M-​3:  Yes, it is, or to some extent, it’s something meaningful. HW-​M-​3’s “English” name episode is interesting in that his “English” name, i.e., Clement, is a “French” name in the first place. He is also aware of the meanings of his French/​English name, i.e., “benevolence, kind, and polite”. However, as it was “such a random pick”, in his own words, it doesn’t carry too much meaning to him. It can be noted that not all “English” names used by Chinese speakers of English are “English” in the first place. It can also be noted that “field” or a “geographical perspective” plays a particular role in HW-​M-​3’s decision regarding the use of his French/​English name, and he specifically mentions the “tiers” of cities in China as a determining factor. The “tier system” is a hierarchical classification of Chinese cities commonly adopted as a point of reference for the “developed-​ness” of Chinese cities, based on commerce, transportation, tourism and education. Different tiers reflect differences in consumer behaviour, income level, population size, consumer sophistication, infrastructure and business opportunity. Therefore, the use of English names in first-​“tier” cities, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong, has a particular reference to economic, social and symbolic capital. In addition, HW-​M-​3’s use of his French/​ English name is also “overseas” related, as he says that when he is overseas, he would introduce himself as Clement. HW-​M-​3 is aware that his use of his English name also varies with contexts or domains, e.g., personal circumstance versus business context. “And if it’s a personal circumstance, I’d just say my English name, but if it’s a business context, I’d add my surname as well.” HW-​M-​3 regards himself as a special case due to his extensive “overseas experiences”, largely in the US. For one thing, he says that “my Chinese name has four characters, and it’s a bit complicated”; for another, his social networks are largely comprised of English speakers and/​or bilingual Chinese speakers of English. As for the majority of Chinese, he thinks that they should “let their original (Chinese) names be known”. This is aligned with the ti–​yong dichotomy in the pentagram framework, in the sense that people’s Chinese names are associated with their ti, and their English names serve the function of yong or utility. HW-​M-​3 also points out that younger Chinese generations may develop new identities, and using English names may contribute to such evolving identities.

170  Decoding Chinese English names

Case 9: DY-​F-​3 R:  Do you have an English name? What’s your name story? DY-​F-​3: I gave myself an English name, Amy, when my foreign

English teacher asked us to have English names. I chose it myself from the appendix of an English dictionary. I changed Amy to Dora later, which sounded more like my Chinese name. When I have more chances to know more people from different countries, I prefer to use my Chinese given name in Pinyin as my English name. It is easy for them to pronounce. More importantly, I can keep my Chinese identity when using it. I feel very happy when the PhDers around me in Australia call me by my Chinese given name. I hope that maybe several years later when they say my Chinese given name, they would easily identify the one from China. I have a lot of friends who don’t have English names. They just use their Chinese names. If their Chinese names are difficult to pronounce, then they may choose a part of their names, like a character from their names. For example, I have a friend, whose given name is Guanglei, and his English name is Lei.

DY-​F-​3’s case is both common to and different from other participants in this study in the sense that she has had two English names. She chose her first one from a dictionary, and then another one that resembles the pronunciation of her Chinese name. She then stopped using her English names, as her Chinese given name is easy to pronounce, and she identifies more with her Chinese given name used in English-​speaking contexts in its Chinese Pinyin form. Her preference for using Chinese Pinyin of her name as her English name reflects the intricate relationship between ti (essence) and yong (utility), as she can keep her Chinese identity while using her Chinese name in Pinyin. She has also mentioned a naming strategy by Chinese for their English names, which is to use a character (or a part) of their Chinese names as their English names. This is not uncommon among Chinese speakers of English, but it has not been mentioned by other participants of the study. In this chapter, I have explored the naming discourse of Chinese English and the naming practice of Chinese speakers of English. Based on the analysis of the interview and survey data regarding the naming discourse of Chinese English and the naming practice of Chinese speakers of English, including a dinner conversation in which pioneers of Chinese English research and current researchers chatted about naming Chinese English, and other conventional data collected via semi-​structured interviews with Chinese speakers of English and a survey on the naming discourse of Chinese English and the naming practice of Chinese speakers of English, this chapter has applied the pentagram framework and analysed the common practices as well as the debates and nuances of naming Chinese English and how Chinese speakers of English use or do not use English names for communication in English.

5 Unpacking Chinese English norms

In this chapter, I explore norms associated with Chinese speakers of English. I first define norms based on relevant literature, and unpack perceptions of pragmatic norms drawing upon semi-​ structured interviews with Chinese speakers of English. I then look into cultural norms associated with Chinese xiao (孝, filial piety) through the lenses of world Englishes and English as a lingua franca (ELF) communication. I acknowledge the Kachruvian “three Concentric Circles” (Kachru, 1982) in which different varieties from the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles have been respectively perceived as “norm-​providing”, “norm-​developing” and “norm-​dependent” varieties, and I adopt an ELF perspective in terms of the three approaches proposed by Jenkins (2014, pp. 48–​49) towards positions on norms and practices of global Englishes, namely, “conforming”, “challenging” and “paradigm-​shifting”. Towards the end of the chapter, I explore how Chinese cultural and pragmatic norms are instantiated and practised by Chinese speakers of English for ELF communication through naturally occurring conversation data analysis, and conclude by summarising the major findings of the chapter.

Defining norms Linguistic and cultural norms have an implicit nature, and they are usually observed as something normal or linguistically and culturally unmarked. In a panel discussion (Pakir, Hung, Tan, & Chan, 1993, p. 80) at a seminar on The English Language in Singapore: Standards and Norms in November 1992, Pakir introduced the panel and pointed out that “norms” are not just “norms” but they imply ideological matters such as acceptance and adoption, the agents and the authorities involved, the beneficiaries and the victims of norms, conflict between different norms and the classification and the codification of norms. Bös and Claridge (2019, p. 1) posit that “the notion of norms is fuzzy and extremely complex” and that “norms are manifested and constructed in discourse”. Indeed, people follow norms most often without being conscious of DOI: 10.4324/9781315209463-5

172  Unpacking Chinese English norms

Micro-​narrative 16:  Discovering dominant and recessive norms I had not been aware of “norms” associated with my own use of English before I left Beijing for Perth in 2000. Back in Beijing, I took it for granted that all learners of English should sound as close as possible to “native” English speakers, whoever they are, and use English in a way that native speakers “normally” do. However, after I arrived in Perth, I started noticing differences in linguistic and cultural “norms”, and I became naturally interested in “norms” research. As a visiting fellow and later a doctoral candidate in those years while shuttling back and forth between Beijing and Perth, I had read relevant books and written about my life experiences as an English learner and user in the two major cities. So, I embarked on a research article titled “From Recessive to Dominant Linguistic and Cultural Norms: Moving out of the Comfort Zone”, which was published in an edited volume Alchemies: Community exChange (Pass & Woods, 2004). Here’s how I started the article: Different linguistic and cultural norms apply when using English in different settings. I became aware of these differences when I moved to Perth after having lived in Beijing for many years. My experience in adjusting to the use of English in a new environment brought to mind an analogy with the concepts of “recessive” and “dominant” genes, where the coded information of a recessive gene is prevented from being read, while the code of a dominant gene is translated into structures present and operating in the cell. When I was teaching and using English in a familiar cultural milieu such as Beijing, the linguistic and cultural norms were “recessive”, however, when I use English in Perth I am aware that I am in a constant search for appropriate norms, both linguistic and cultural, thus making them active or “dominant”. This searching process often makes me feel unsettled, as if I am moving out of a comfort zone into some degree of anomie, or feeling a temporary loss of orientation. (Xu, 2004, p. 287) them, but sometimes they do so consciously, as they live their day-​to-​day lives, behaving in various social settings and interacting with others in appropriate manners, or as “appropriate” as they deem them to be. Bartsch (1987, p. 176) has defined the concept of norm as follows: A norm consists of a norm content, which states a regularity, and the norm character which has one of the two characteristics “obligatory”

Unpacking Chinese English norms  173 or “optional”. Norm content and norm character together form the norm kernel. This norm kernel is associated with a normative force that is exerted by norm authorities, and other agencies involved, towards the norm subjects, and it is also exerted by the norm subjects among themselves by corrections, criticism, and sanctions. (Bartsch, 1987, p. 176) Approaching the concept of “norm” from a cross-​ cultural perspective, Bamgbose (1998, p. 1) regards a language norm as “a standard language form or practice that serves as a reference point for other language forms or practices”. Bamgbose (1998, p. 2) categorises linguistic norms into different types, including code norm, feature norm and behavioural norm. Code norm is “a standard variety of a language or a language selected from a group of languages and allocated for official or national purpose”; feature norm is “any typical property of spoken or written language at whatever level (for example, phonetic, phonological, morphological, syntactic, orthographic, etc.) and the rules that go with its production and use”; and behavioural norm is “the set of conventions that go with speaking, including expected patterns of behaviour while interacting with others, the mode of interpreting what is said, and attitudes in general to others’ manner of speaking”. People observe and appropriate these different categories of norms according to specific social contexts, and “they adjust to or shift from one set of norms to another when contexts of communication vary” (Xu, 2004, p. 290). Bös and Claridge (2019, p. 2) suggest that “changes of norms and conventions have to be considered in the context of the communities where specific linguistic practices are used, developed and negotiated”. From a world Englishes perspective, Kachru (1982a, p. 48) points out that the term “norm” is used in two senses: “in one sense it entails prescriptivism, and in another it entails conformity with the usage of the majority of native speakers, defined statistically”. Following Kachru’s (1982b) three “Circles”, Seargeant (2010, p. 107) suggests that Inner Circle varieties are characterised as “norm-​providing”, Outer Circle varieties as “norm-​ developing”, and the Expanding Circle, in which English has traditionally been seen as a “foreign” language, as having not yet developed internal norms and relying instead on the external norms provided by the Inner Circle. However, Kachru (1982a, p. 52) argues that it is difficult to define “norms” for world Englishes, and he points out that the case of English is unique because of its global spread in various linguistically and culturally pluralistic societies; its differing roles in language planning in each English-​using country; and the special historical

174  Unpacking Chinese English norms factors involved in the introduction and diffusion of English in each English-​speaking country. Kachru (1986, p. 84) points out that “in English the prescribed norm does not refer to the use by a majority. The motivations for such a preferred norm stem from pedagogical, attitudinal, and societal reasons, and are not due to any authoritative or organized move for codification”. Adopting an ELF perspective, Jenkins (2014, pp. 48–​49) proposes three approaches towards positions on academic English norms and practices, namely, conforming, challenging and paradigm-​shifting; i.e., conforming “by default to native academic English”; challenging “in the sense of questioning in various ways what lies behind the linguistic conformity”; and paradigm-​ shifting “as constituting an entirely new paradigm in academic English research, as it starts from an entirely new premise and involves new ways of looking at some of our most cherished linguistic constructs such as language, variety, and speech community.” In light of the world Englishes and ELF communication perspectives of norms, Schneider (2009, p. 209) argues that among emerging varieties of English, “there is an inbuilt dynamics from an original exonormative orientation via linguistic change, creativity and debate (the ‘complaint tradition’) towards endonormativity.” Seidlhofer (2012, p. 395) draws upon a concept in German, i.e., vorauseilender Gehorsam, to elaborate on how non-​Anglo speakers of English behave submissively as they “imagine” the powers of the Anglo world and they “pre-​empt the wishes of the powerful” so as to “comply with pre-​supposed expectations”. “The compliance in the non-​Anglo world with Anglo norms and Anglo ways of doing things is akin to ‘pre-​emptive obedience’ ” (Seidlhofer, 2012, p. 395). Seidlhofer (2012, p. 404) points out that “pre-​emptive obedience towards Anglo-​American norms needs to be recognized and overcome –​and the pivot is the understanding of English as a lingua franca as conceptually distinct from English as a native language”. In the early 1990s, Prabhu (1993, p. 2) comments on issues of standards and norms regarding English-​using communities in Singapore and India and argues that “any enforcement of the norms of English prevalent in Britain and the United States on these communities in Singapore or India will be authoritarian, ill-​founded and blind to the natural process of language variation”. In addition, S. N. Sridhar and Kamal K. Sridhar (2018, pp. 129–​130) have commented critically on native speaker norms, arguing that they are “unsuitable on many counts”. They argue that “native speaker norms are a distraction where the primary interlocutors are non-​native or nonstandard speakers –​the majority of English use globally involves interaction between one non-​native speaker and another”, and that “it is clarity and intelligibility rather than an idealized authenticity that is crucial for intercultural communication” (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, pp. 129–​ 130). This “idealized authenticity” reflects to a large extent the propensity for “pre-​emptive obedience” among many current English learners or non-​native speakers of English worldwide. It is worth asking such questions as whether

Unpacking Chinese English norms  175 norms, sophisticated as they were, can be “idealized”, and how “authentic” norms are when they are “idealized” beyond the immediate local contexts where they are practised, co-​ constructed and (re)shaped spontaneously among speakers of world Englishes for an ELF communication. As far as Chinese speakers of English for ELF communication are concerned, Kirkpatrick and Xu (2002, p. 269) have predicted that Chinese English is “characterised by a number of discourse and rhetorical norms derived from Chinese”, and they argue that “the presence of these L1 discourse and rhetorical norms should not be seen as ‘deviations’ from Anglo norms”. Although Chinese L1 discourse and rhetorical norms, if appropriately instantiated, may not be seen as deviations for ELF communication, there has always been a “tension between exonormative and endonormative orientations to English” among Chinese speakers of English (Wang, 2013, p. 255). The participants’ exonormative orientations reflect their belief in the centrality of native English speakers to norms of English use, their conceptualization of English as a fixed entity, and their aspiration for social advantages that they believe the conformity to ENL norms can bring to them. Their endonormative orientations relate to their acknowledgement of the communicative function of English that diverges from the norms of ENL and their concern for their cultural identity, which they believe conflicts with the conformity to ENL norms. (Wang, 2013, p. 255) D. C. S. Li (2002) has explored the tension between exonormative and endonormative practices among non-​English L1 speakers, and he characterises this tension as “pragmatic dissonance”. The term “pragmatic dissonance” is proposed to capture the bilingual’s ambivalent disposition in intercultural communication, in which decision-​making between following L1 or L2 sociopragmatic norms may be an agonizing, sometimes involuntary, process. (Li, 2002, p. 587) Pragmatic dissonance occurs when “respecting and instantiating sociopragmatic norms and cultural values of L2 would entail a violation of those in L1, and vice versa” (Li, 2002, p. 561). Such a pragmatic dissonance is indeed experienced by speakers of world Englishes on a day-​to-​day basis due to the implicit nature of linguistic and cultural norms. “The ubiquity of linguistic diversity all too frequently remains obscured and we come to accept that having one particular standardized language is normal and deviations from the norm are problematic” (Piller, 2016, p. 31). As far as norms are concerned, they are indeed ubiquitous, and they regulate linguistic behaviours of community members in the sense that “intolerance of deviations from linguistic social norms is widespread” (Piller, 2016, p. 150).

176  Unpacking Chinese English norms From the perspectives of world Englishes and ELF communication, all that can be said is that linguistic change will follow changing norms across communities, including those of Chinese speakers of English in China, Chinese diasporas and more globally. The research so far regarding Chinese speakers of English for ELF communication has shown that there has been an increasing awareness of norms associated with their use of English and how they are instantiated and negotiated in intercultural communication in a translanguaging and transmedia world. Norms and meanings emerge in relation to the functions people perform in situated interactions. This effort to go beyond labelled, autonomous, and separate languages, and consider the synergy between verbal resources in meaning-​ making activity, is behind the shift to translanguaging. (Canagarajah, 2017, p. 7)

Micro-​narrative 17:  Norms as communicative “appropriacy” I was interviewing a Chinese doctoral student in my office as part of my data collection for a book chapter I was working on, which was about Chinese pragmatic norms for ELF communication (Xu, 2022). While transcribing the interview data, I was impressed by the term “appropriacy” used by the participant. She said: norms can be a kind of behaviour that people “normally” do when they are in a certain context. In different types of context, they behave in a different way. So, linguistic norms, in particular pragmatic norms, have much to do with the communicative “appropriacy”. My understanding is that, when using a language, whether English or Chinese, or a mix of both in a translanguaging manner, we tend to use the language in an “appropriate” way according to the context, especially where you are, and whom you’re talking to, and when you’re talking to those people, for what purpose. While I was reflecting on this interview transcript, I was curious about whether the term “appropriacy” was indeed an “appropriate” English word, so I took a little detour and consulted three English dictionaries online, namely Cambridge, Oxford and Collins English dictionaries. To my relief, all of these three dictionaries have an entry for “appropriacy”! This very act of mine, i.e., taking a detour and consulting online dictionaries including Cambridge, Oxford and Collins regarding the “appropriateness” of appropriacy as an English word or otherwise, shows how much my own exonormative tendency plays a part in my use of English as a non-​native

Unpacking Chinese English norms  177 speaker of English. This is at the level of code norm and feature norm, as far as I am concerned, as I was not sure whether the word “appropriacy” existed in English, and whether there was such an expression as “communicative appropriacy”. It turns out that the three dictionaries have all defined the word “appropriacy”. Cambridge English Dictionary defines it as “the fact that a word or phrase sounds natural and is acceptable when used in a particular situation” (https://​dic​tion​ary.cambri​dge.org/​dic​tion​ary/​engl​ish/​appr​opri​acy). Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “the extent to which something is suitable or proper in the circumstances”, and in Linguistics, it refers to “the

Micro-​narrative 18:  Appropriacy or appropriateness, that is the question After consulting the three dictionaries regarding the word “appropriacy”, I knew that the word exists in English, but I was not quite sure whether English L1 speakers would use it, and if they did, how they would use it. So, I Google-​searched “appropriateness or appropriacy”, and I came across a lexicoblog (http://​lex​icob​log.blogs​pot.com/​2012/​05/​appr​opri​ acy-​or-​appr​opri​aten​ess.html), which was based in Bristol, UK, by Julie Moore, who was self-​identified as a “freelance writer, lexicographer and teacher trainer”. In her post on Tuesday 29 May 2012, she encountered the same dilemma of using “appropriateness” or “appropriacy” while preparing a webinar. She also checked a dictionary, and wrote: “I checked the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary first, and slightly to my relief, found it includes both –​so I wasn’t going completely mad.” It is interesting to observe the ongoing discussion at the “Comments” section of this blogpost among the blogger and her L1 English-​speaking friends. One of them (Diane Nicholls) responded by saying: “I’d go for ‘appropriateness’ every time, Julie. It looks like ‘appropriacy’ is limited to sociolinguistics and similar, so best reserved for a specialist audience. For your webinar audience, ‘appropriateness’ seems the more ‘appropriate’ to me 😉.” And the blogger replied: “I knew someone would take up the challenge 😊 You’re right, although I think in my context, ‘appropriacy’ is actually appropriate, as you say, it’s much less frequent, so I’ll stick with the awkward mouthful that is ‘appropriateness’!” Interestingly, another friend of the blogger (Tyson Seburn) responded: “This struck me because I always write ‘appropriacy’ but inevitably a red squiggly line appears under it (even as I write this comment) as though it isn’t a real word. Surprised to see others do the opposite.” It’s interesting to observe the discussion, and also to note how “a red squiggly line” serves as a “norm” regulator or reinforcer when we write “English” words. This also shows the ubiquity of “norms” in our virtual and physical spaces.

178  Unpacking Chinese English norms extent to which a word, phrase, or grammatical pattern is correct or suitable for a particular context or social situation” (www.lex​ico.com/​en/​def​i nit​ ion/​appr​opri​acy). Likewise, Collins English Dictionary defines appropriacy as “the condition of delicate and precise fittingness of a word or expression to its context, even when it is chosen from a number of close synonyms” (www. collin​sdic​tion​ary.com/​dic​tion​ary/​engl​ish/​appr​opri​acy). Given the fluidity of norms, and in light of my experience with the word “appropriacy”, I tend to understand norms as “communicative appropriacy” in specific socio-​cultural and intercultural contexts from the perspective of language use. In the following section, I explore perceptions of “pragmatic norms” among Chinese speakers of English.

Perceptions of pragmatic norms In order to find out how Chinese speakers of English perceive norms, in particular, pragmatic norms associated with their use of English and Chinese, I have been collecting data in the form of casual conversations or semi-​ structured interviews through face to face and social media interactions. My topics of conversations or interview questions are about the use of English and its associated norms among Chinese speakers of English. During the conversations or interviews, I ask questions including: What are linguistic and cultural norms? How do you understand pragmatic norms in relation to your use of English? Do you think Chinese and English-​speaking people have different norms? For this chapter, I code my informants in a similar fashion to what I did in the previous chapter; i.e., I give each participant a two-​letter code, followed by either F or M representing female and male, and then a number (from 2 to 5) indicating whether the participants are in their twenties, thirties, forties, or fifties. The participants involved in this chapter are aged between 20 and 55, and their years of learning and using English range from 10 to 40. At the time the casual conversations and interviews were conducted, these participants were located in different cities in China and overseas, e.g., Beijing, Shiyan, Suzhou, Chengdu, Hong Kong, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Melbourne and Cape Town. It should be noted that while working on this book project, I was also collecting data on pragmatic norms of Chinese speakers of English for a book chapter (Xu, 2022), so I summarise some of the data analysis and findings in the chapter (Xu, 2022) here in this and the following section. Throughout the conversations and interviews, it appears that Chinese speakers of English tend to associate norms with rules, regulations, laws, standards, expectations, values, beliefs, attitudes and appropriate behaviours. Specifically, DY-​F-​3 relates “norms” to “the universally acknowledged laws, rules and standards of language use by the speech community in a specific context”. WQ-​F-​3 understands norms as “what people are normally expected to do in different cultures and environments”. WL-​F-​4 understands norms as “a kind of behaviour that people normally do when they are in a certain

Unpacking Chinese English norms  179 context”. This understanding appears to coincide with Bamgbose’s “behavioural norm”, i.e., “the set of conventions that go with speaking, including expected patterns of behaviour while interacting with others, the mode of interpreting what is said, and attitudes in general to others’ manner of speaking” (Bamgbose, 1998, p. 2). In addition, WL-​F-​4 also comes up with a novel expression to define pragmatic norms by saying that “pragmatic norms have something more to do with the communicative appropriacy”. This “communicative appropriacy”, as far as I am concerned, captures how we understand “norms” in all forms of social interaction. As illustrated in Micro-​ narrative 17, regarding definitions of “appropriacy” in Cambridge, Oxford and Collins English dictionaries, communicative appropriacy implies naturalness, acceptability, suitability, correctness, and delicate and precise fittingness in a particular context or social situation. LY-​F-​3 perceives pragmatic norms as “rules or regulations we adopt in certain communicative environments based on culture and traditions”. WG-​M-​4 perceives pragmatic norms from a “community” perspective, focusing on how norms may or may not affect interpersonal understanding or misunderstanding. He says: “pragmatic norms are rules that a community sticks to, and they shall not be violated. If anyone should disobey the norms, it would cause misunderstandings to others, also troubles to themselves” (WG-​M-​4). It is common for Chinese speakers of English to attach great importance to norms, and this has something to do linguistically with the first language of the Chinese. Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 273) points out that “the very nature of the Chinese language and its ideographic script means that standards and adherence to the norm have traditionally been of utmost importance to Chinese.” In addition, XJ-​M-​3 takes a “social interpersonal communication” perspective, saying that “pragmatic norms are underlying abstract values, thinking modes, beliefs, attitudes, and expectations that instruct and constrain people’s verbal or nonverbal language use in social interpersonal communications”. To HH-​M-​2, pragmatic norms range from words and expressions that exist in people’s minds to “cultural concepts and communicative ways” that can be recessive, i.e., other people may not see or understand them. XQ-​F-​4 is not only aware of the differences between Chinese and English norms; as she interacts with both Chinese and English L1 colleagues for her work, she also feels the tension or competing nature between Chinese and English norms. One of the examples she has provided is about mutual adjustment and negotiation of expectations and norms between Chinese and English L1 speakers among her colleagues. I have some very vivid experience while working with foreign teachers. You know, being a staff member in the English department, you are always taken for granted as a translator or interpreter by the school administrative departments. And they always need native speakers to proofread some materials, like the headmasters’ speeches, or reports of some big events. The most terrible thing is that they have no awareness

180  Unpacking Chinese English norms that if you ask foreign teachers to do this favour, you’ve got to give them sufficient time. This is a kind of interruption or inconvenience for their normal life and there’s no one who is always there being ready for language correction, editing or proofreading. So it’s quite impolite to give them a draft and say “please give me feedback as soon as possible or I need it tonight”. For me, I am just the person in the middle. I keep on explaining to our teachers about the situation and the cultural differences. (XQ-​F-​4) For Chinese speakers of English, it is important to be aware of the pragmatic norm differences between Chinese and English. To apply the pentagram framework, pragmatic norms are largely instantiated while speakers use English, i.e., yong, in specific contexts, or fields, and the norms are reflective of their various habitus and ti; hence the differences and norm re-​negotiations in order to achieve effective communication, be it informational or transactional, signifying various forms of economic, cultural or symbolic capital. Reflecting on what norms to follow by Chinese speakers of English, WQ-​ F-​3 said: I personally think that it is extremely challenging for Chinese speakers to follow all the English-​speaking norms when they use English to interact with others, because the pragmatic norms actually reflect the cultures and ideologies behind the languages, but I think at least Chinese speakers of English should make some efforts to develop their awareness of those differences in pragmatic norms which can subserve the cross-​cultural communication. WQ-​F-​3’s response about dealing with competing pragmatic norms reflects the notion of pragmatic dissonance when speakers are obliged to “follow all the English-​speaking norms when they use English to interact with others”. Such pragmatic dissonance is a result of the interplay among Chinese speakers’ habitus, ti, cultural capital, as well as yong in a social field or context where English may or may not be directly linked to its pre-​empted British or American norms. In terms of greetings, TC-​M-​2 thinks that Chinese speakers of English develop norms that can be more “sophisticated” because “we just don’t have the ‘set’ of language to greet, but we actually do greet, in different ways”. This response echoes what Proshina (2019: 237) has pointed out that “due to the wider influence from the Inner Circle varieties of English, the Expanding Circle exonorms are much more variable than endonorms of an Inner Circle variety” and that “wider variability, cultural underpinning, and language transfer make up the distinctive features of Expanding Circle world Englishes, or varieties” (Proshina, 2019: 241). In terms of responding to compliments, TC-​M-​2 says that he would say “Thank you” in an English-​speaking context; however, he also says that “but if somebody says the compliment in Chinese,

Unpacking Chinese English norms  181 yeah, I would have to be more humble”. He makes this more explicit by saying “if it’s complimenting in Chinese, you would have a different set of norms. If it’s in an English-​speaking context, you would adopt, or you would adapt yourself to another set of norms”, and he concludes that this is more about the language … If you say something complimentary to me in English, I would say “thank you”, but if you say it in Chinese, I would respond in a Chinese way. So, it’s not about the person. It’s very much about the language. Here, the languages one possesses are also an integral part of one’s habitus, and this habitus works closely with the field, where different languages can be spoken with different people in different contexts, in this case Chinese being the ti (essence) and English being the yong (use or application), so the responses in different languages reflect different cultural values and cultural capital.

Experiencing norm differences Chinese speakers of English are aware of the pragmatic norm differences between Chinese and English as they experience those differences in their daily life. In order to find out how they experience norm differences, in my conversations and semi-​ structured interviews with my participants specifically for this book project, I also asked them to share their experiences of using English and Chinese, and what differences they had experienced. The following is the analysis of the excerpts taken from the transcripts of the conversations and semi-​structured interviews that are directly relevant to norm differences experienced and articulated by Chinese speakers of English. WG-​M-​4 is an academic working in a prestigious university in Shanghai, and he has touched upon the differences between Chinese and English norms regarding academic writing. R: You’ve

written a lot in Chinese, but why did you choose to write in English for one of your academic books? WG-​M-​4: This is an interesting question. In fact, after the publication of this book in English, the publisher asked me to translate it into Chinese, but I declined, with the reason being, I think writing in Chinese and writing in English are two different things. Chinese language and thought patterns, particularly expressed in academic writing, which read very natural, would read very weird if they are translated into English directly. English readers would doubt whether this is the competence or level of research of Chinese scholars. They would think that our writing is simply a few metaphors, and there’s no reasoning or logic, or argument, but merely an association or an analogy. It would give them an impression that our academic research

182  Unpacking Chinese English norms is shallow or rough. This is very obvious to me. My supervisor shared a similar feeling. She said that when she translated scholarly works of established Chinese scholars for an edited volume, she felt at a loss as she couldn’t manage to render the works in another language, because the Chinese scholars used a language that’s full of parallel expressions, metaphors, such as the visible hand, and the invisible foot, iron rice bowl, the cook as zhang shaode (the one who’s holding the ladle) and the like, very imagery and vivid, such as analogies and four-​character idioms, however, in the West, there’s no such notion as four-​character idioms (Chengyu). If you use a couple of metaphors, they would question whether this is a quality academic paper. They feel like it’s the pub talk, or a chat in a bar, rather than academic writing. Literary writing is less of a problem, but academic writing can be very different. … In this sense, we may say that language transfer from a language to another language is not a seamless process, but a process with much damage. Every transfer is a damage. This is an issue of language itself. There can be other reasons or factors for the use of Chinese to express English sentences. Some people may like your translations, but others would hate you so much. So, why I chose to use English to write this book is mainly because that I’d use Laconian language so that I could resonate with the English readers. There are rhetorical traditions, norms and conventions associated with different languages. WG-​M-​4’s response here implies that in academic writing, the norms can be so different that he thinks “writing in Chinese and writing in English are two different things”. Chinese language and thought patterns, which read naturally in Chinese academic writing, would read “very weird if they are translated into English directly”. Although academia can be regarded as a field, it is by no means a universal or unified field. It comprises different sub-​fields, where academic expressions are valued differently, e.g., whether metaphors and analogies are used or valued in academic writing. Such differences are also embedded in the habitus and ti (essence) of the academics and researchers in relation to how they construct and transfer knowledge. XY-​F-​4 is a freelance writer who used to work for a few major mass media agencies in Beijing, including China Radio International and the 21st Century newspaper (English edition) affiliated with China Daily. She elaborated on the differences between “our Chinese system and the Western systems” in relation to news writing. XY-​F-​4: For

news writing, what I had learned during university was different. For news, I’ve found that our Chinese system and the Western system were different. For example, for the news intro, we Chinese tend to write about good things to praise, but foreigners would write about the most serious things, the most eye-​catching stuff, or

Unpacking Chinese English norms  183 anything news-​worthy. For English news, as English is a big language, we’d need to go out and interview people. I’d also need to re-​write the news in English, not necessarily just translate. After we re-​write the news, there were also foreign expert colleagues who would edit the news, as we broadcast overseas, we had to conform to their norms. But the high pressure has trained me well. I mean, the work environment provided a lot of professional training, as far as my English is concerned. During work, I also wanted to go abroad, because I think that only when I live in an English-​speaking country, I could really understand the language. Psychologically speaking, people may have fears in life. I think only when people are right in the middle of fears, their fears may disappear. For example, we may worry or fear how we could reach the level of native English speakers. Once I live in a native speaker environment, I start realising that it’s okay not to sound like a native speaker, as I’m not a native speaker anyway. However, while in China, I couldn’t have had this sort of breakthrough. XY-​F-​4 has developed a good awareness of the contrasts between English and Chinese news writing norms and how this awareness has helped her develop her skills professionally. It can be noted that she has experienced a shift of mind over the years from “we had to conform to their norms” to “I start realising that it’s okay not to sound like a native speaker”. What can also be noted in XY-​F-​4’s response is that her ti or habitus has not significantly changed, but the change of field or social environments has enabled her to become aware of the norm differences and her shifting attitudes towards those differences. Her awareness as well as her increasing exposure to different norms across languages and cultures make her realise the cultural capital associated with Chinese and Western norms in the domain or field of English news writing. EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 were interviewed as a focus group. EL-​F-​3 was a visiting fellow and YX-​F-​2 was an exchange student at the time of the interview. We chatted about various topics, and one of the topics was norms associated with the use of English by Chinese. They tend to follow the rule that “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”, but they also suggest that it all depends on the specific contexts and the people we are interacting with. R:  What are the most outstanding features of Chinese speakers’ English? EL-​F-​3:  The Chinese culture and Chinese conceptualisation embedded in

the English we speak. R:  Our cultural norms, aren’t they? EL-​F-​3: Yes. For example, there’s a Chinese expression, luo hun, and it’s translated into “naked marriage”. These are not necessarily Chinese English expressions, but there can be some metaphors in them. “Naked” means having nothing, and naked marriage means bringing nothing to the marriage. There can be Chinese culture and Chinese conceptualisation in it.

184  Unpacking Chinese English norms An interesting example! Luo hun or “naked marriage”. By the way, for the two expressions, Jiaozi and Chinese dumplings, which one do you think follows the English norm more? EL-​F-​3: I’d rather say Jiaozi. I read an article, it says that dumplings are not Jiaozi. R:  What about Taichi and shadow boxing? EL-​F-​3: I’d say Taichi. For another example, it’s tofu, not bean-​curd. R:  What about “black taxi”, like a taxi without a licence? Like a black market? EL-​F-​3:  I think it makes sense, I mean black taxi, although it may not follow the English norm. YX-​F-​2:  Chinese may understand, but I’m not sure if foreigners would understand these expressions. EL-​F-​3:  I think we should say “black taxi”, if foreigners don’t understand, we could explain it to them. My opinion is that if we’re talking about common things or universal things, we’d better follow English norms, but when it comes to our own things, we’d better use some Chinese English expressions, or expressions with Chinese characteristics, to conceptualise our own ideas. R: When Chinese people speak English, for example, when they do some speech acts like greeting people, do you think Chinese people should make some changes, to follow Western norms? EL-​F-​3: I think it depends. When Chinese people are abroad, they should follow their local people’s norms. When in Rome do as the Romans do. It’s assumed that when Asians greet one another, they would say “where are you going?”, but in reality, when we speak English to greet people, we’d hardly think of “where are you going?” as a greeting. R: 

EL-​F-​3’s response here echoes Cheng’s (1992, p. 174) observation that “English in China largely reflects the socio-​ political situation there. The pattern of the Chinese varieties of English are clear; when China is inward-​ looking, the English there acquires more Chinese elements; when China is outward-​searching, English there is more like the norm in the west”. EL-​F-​ 3’s response also shows that there can be norm negotiations between Chinese speakers and other speakers of English, e.g., “if foreigners don’t understand, we could explain it to them”. She also suggests that “if we’re talking about common things or universal things, we’d better follow English norms, but when it comes to our own things, we’d better use some Chinese English expressions, or expressions with Chinese characteristics, to conceptualise our own ideas”. R:  For

taking leave, would you make the request first or you’d give reasons first? EL-​F-​3: I’m somewhat caught in between. Sometimes, I’d say reasons first. I feel like after I present the reasons, I’d feel more comfortable making the request. If I have my request first in writing, I feel it’s a bit blunt. There

Unpacking Chinese English norms  185 should be some small talk or facework, that is hanxuan in Chinese, before we talk about the real business. This is our culture. I think it depends on whom we’re talking to or writing to. Like among ourselves, whether I’m writing to a friend or my boss, it would be different. YX-​F-​2: There are many joint-​ ventures and foreign funded enterprises in China. We have been taught that foreigners would have the most important things, like a request first. So, after knowing this, we’d try to have the request first, especially when we write in English, but it would be very different if we write in Chinese. The responses from EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 regarding the discourse of request-​ making show that they are aware of the cultural norm differences in terms of whether requests precede reasons or reasons precede requests. When EL-​F-​3 says that I feel like after I present the reasons, I’d feel more comfortable making the request. If I have my request first in writing, I feel it’s a bit blunt. There should be some small talk or facework, that is hanxuan in Chinese, before we talk about the real business. This is our culture she is actually showing how her habitus and ti play a role in her yong of English in the specific field of speech act, in this case, request-​making, showing her cultural values of face and effective communication. YX-​F-​2, on the other hand, is willing to change her request-​making strategies in English to follow the English norms, but she is aware that the language used for request-​making determines the norms associated with it. This means that whether the request is made in Chinese or English partially determines the discourse pattern of request-​making. TC-​M-​2 was a PhD student in anthropology at a university in Cape Town at the time of the interview. As far as pragmatic norms are concerned regarding speaking Chinese and English, he shared his experiences and opinions about his Chinese-​speaking and English-​speaking identities, and about expressing emotions across cultures, and hugging as a specific cultural and behavioural norm. TC-​M-​2:  …

yes, I have a Chinese-​speaking identity and an English-​speaking identity, and they definitely affect each other. I don’t know whether it’s good or not, but I just liked it. For example, I think I’m more expressive of my emotions. I don’t think that’s a very Chinese thing. But I would just say everything out when I am upset or angry with someone or something. I would just list everything out. If I have an issue with a person, I would just tell him or her. I would rather … I would be aware that if I’m doing this to a Chinese, I would be very careful, but I would still do it. I won’t just hide my feelings. And also it applies to positive emotions, for example, every time I say goodbye to a family, we hug. I think it’s a great

186  Unpacking Chinese English norms culture. Why not? We just hug. We wouldn’t say, you know, I love you. We wouldn’t go that far, because that would make my family members feel weird. [laugh] R: [laugh] TC-​M-​2 is aware of his Chinese-​speaking and English-​speaking identities; however, he can adjust his Chinese ti (essence) accordingly when it comes to cultural behavioural norms, such as expressing emotions and hugging when parting from friends and relatives. His bilingual and multicultural habitus has been developed due to his living and working experiences in Beijing, Hong Kong, Cape Town and many other places he has travelled to, e.g., Melbourne. The shifting fields in terms of geography, language and culture enable him to be aware of the cultural norm differences and coping strategies. In terms of greetings across cultures, TC-​M-​2 makes the point that “we just don’t have the ‘set’ of language to greet, but we actually do greet, in different ways”, and that “the Chinese way is more sophisticated”. R: 

And we have our own ways of greeting one another, for example, the traditional thinking would be: have you eaten your lunch, or where are you going? So do you regard these as greetings in an English speaking context? TC-​M-​2:  I think so. We just don’t have the set of language to greet, but we actually do greet, in different ways. R:  So you accept that greeting in different ways is fine with you. TC-​M-​2:  Yes, and I think the Chinese way is more sophisticated. [laugh] R:  Yes. [laugh] TC-​M-​2:  Yah, like you have to think what to say. TC-​M-​2’s reflection on Chinese greetings echoes EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 in the sense that Chinese greetings are more diverse and more context dependent. TC-​M-​2 also makes the point that responding to compliments may depend on the language used, be it English or Chinese. R:  Another

part is about complimenting. You know, if I say you look very smart, do you say no no no, or you’d say, oh, I just bought this new shirt. What’s your kind of intuitive response in terms of complimenting? TC-​M-​2:  I would say, thank you, now. [laugh] I know what you’re asking. I’ve seen people saying no no no no no no. R:  So, you’re having your English self, and you say thank you. TC-​M-​2:  Yes, but if somebody says that in Chinese, yah, I would have to be more humble. R:  So it depends on the language you use? TC-​M-​2:  Yes, it does. R:  If it’s complimenting in Chinese, you would have a different set of norms, if it’s in an English speaking context, you would adopt, or you would adapt yourself to another set of norms.

Unpacking Chinese English norms  187 TC-​M-​2:  Yeah,

I think this is more about the language. Say, you, Marc, if you say something, say something complimentary to me, I would say thank you. But if you say it in Chinese, I would respond in a Chinese way. So, it’s not about the person. It’s very much about the language.

TC-​M-​2 made the interesting point that people may act differently when they speak different languages, in terms of responding to compliments differently in either English or Chinese. In this case, the ti (essence) and habitus may shift or vary with the choice of language(s) for communication. This shows that ti and habitus are not fixed or static, but dynamic concepts, and they are closely associated with languages, contexts and the participants’ self-​identity perceptions. Another pragmatic norm TC-​M-​2 and I have touched upon is how Chinese speakers of English approach harmony and confrontation. The traditional Chinese cultural value of “harmony in diversity” is deep-​ rooted among generations of Chinese, and it’s closely related to Chinese perceptions and practice of face in social interactions. As a member of a younger generation, TC-​M-​2 is aware of the Chinese traditional value and practice, and he has also been exposed to different cultural values and practices, so he develops strategies for the yong or utilisation of pragmatic norms, particularly in between two cultures, in that he values harmony, but he is willing to deal with confrontation and to resolve it to actively achieve harmony. R: 

Another thing is that, just now, you mentioned that it’s okay to be confrontational, rather than harmonious. I think there’s a shift, because Chinese people value harmony a lot more than confrontation. There may be confrontation, but it’s really behind the scene, so on the surface, we value harmony a lot, but I think in that sense you’re shifting from harmony to … to … it’s okay to be confrontational. TC-​M-​2:  May I just add a note that I recall in one movie, it’s quite clearly, the movie is called something’s got a gift, I was very impressed by a scene, where the mom and the daughter had a fight about the party the daughter hosted, and the mother just didn’t like one of the people that got invited to the party, so they had this fight. And just just right after the fight, the mother turned back, thought about it for a minute, and went back to the daughter and said, I’m sorry. It’s my fault. He’s your friend, not my friend. I’m sorry. And they were happy just like that. I thought, oh, okay, if you realise you’re the one who makes a mistake, you can also just say it. Don’t, don’t make the tension, you know, last longer. So, what’s the point? When you come to the confrontation, yeah, you can be confrontational, but it’s also okay to resolve it. Just don’t take it too personally. GH-​M-​2 was a Master’s student in a university in Melbourne at the time of the interview, and he was majoring in media studies.

188  Unpacking Chinese English norms R:  Another

question, for example, if you’d like to take leave and go back to China, would you say the reasons first, or make the request first followed by reasons? GH-​M-​2: I’d make the request first, followed by reasons, to cater for or conform to Western thought patterns. R: What about Chinese who do not know much about Western thought patterns? GH-​M-​2:  Then reasons first followed by the request. R:  Why so? GH-​M-​2:  This is our Chinese habit, for example, two people borrowing money from each other, they’d have some small talks first, asking how things are going, and then make the request, i.e., to borrow money. This is our cultural habit. Chinese just won’t make the request of borrowing money straightforwardly. R:  What about writing to professors, Australian and Chinese, would you write in the same way? GH-​M-​2:  Definitely not the same way. Regarding request-​making, GH-​M-​2 is obviously fully aware of the Chinese and “Western thought patterns”, in his own words, and he chooses to follow Western thought patterns when making a request in an English-​speaking context in that he makes the request first, followed by providing reasons. However, he also makes it clear that in a Chinese context, he would make his request differently. This shows that his ti can be adapted to the real yong for effective communication. GH-​M-​2: 

Generally speaking, no matter how we speak English, we should make ourselves understood by all those who speak English. If others do not understand us, then we are really speaking Chinese English.

GH-​M-​2’s response here shows his understanding or perception of Chinese English as something that is incomprehensible to non-​Chinese speakers of English. He makes it clear that “no matter how we speak English, we should make ourselves understood by all those who speak English”. So, one of his strategies of English yong is to adapt his ti or habitus, so that the use of English achieves its communicative function effectively in the actual context. It also means that Chinese speakers of English may shift their English to a more intelligible version so that it’s comprehensible and interpretable across cultures. This echoes Kirkpatrick’s identity–​ communication continuum (Kirkpatrick, 2017, pp. 10–​13) in that in order to achieve communication, Chinese identity-​related features most likely to be reflected in Chinese English may have to be minimised, based on GH-​M-​2’s responses. R:  What

are your feelings about your hometown. You’ll be home soon, how do you feel about it? What do you call it, your “old home”, or hometown?

Unpacking Chinese English norms  189 “Old home” sounds very casual, hometown sounds a bit written, but both refer to hometown. About my feelings, although my hometown is not perfect, I’m still looking forward to coming home. I’ve stayed there for over a decade after all, and my parents and friends are all there. There’s good stuff to eat and lots of fun, and I’m familiar with it. I don’t feel that I have a place to stand elsewhere, so I would feel lonely in other places. R:  If someone asks you about your hometown, how would you introduce it? GH-​M-​2:  To a Chinese, I’d say it has ma la ban (a spicy food), and coal mines. To foreigners, I’d say it’s close to North Korea, and they would be interested in this. Or, I’d say directly, it’s the Northeast of China, because they would know Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou, but not necessarily my hometown, and where it is located in China. GH-​M-​2: 

GH-​M-​2 is aware of the two expressions “old home” and “hometown” and in what contexts they tend to be used, i.e., yong. It is interesting to notice that GH-​M-​2 would introduce his hometown to his fellow Chinese and “foreigners” differently, in that he would talk about specialities of his hometown, such as food and coal mine industry, to a Chinese, whereas to “foreigners”, he would talk about where it is located. This shows, again, as in the previous analysis, that the ti and habitus can be evolving and dynamic in relation to the field or context and the specific topics of a conversation, as there can be different intra-​cultural and intercultural capital involved in the interaction. Li (2002, p. 559) suggests that among Chinese speakers of English, there exists a “traditional Chinese practice of referring to one’s ancestral hometown as part of one’s Chinese identity”. This Chinese identity is closely related to the ti (essence) of the pentagram framework, and it works closely with yong in relation to habitus, field and capital corresponding to the context of interaction. Xu (2010b, p. 133) has proposed an “ancestral hometown discourse” among Chinese speakers of English, which comprises topics such as location, size, special food, dialects and other things associated with their hometown. It is interesting to notice that GH-​M-​2 reshapes the “ancestral hometown discourse” and adjusts the norms associated with it depending on whether he is interacting with his fellow Chinese or “foreigners”. LY-​ F-​ 2 was a graduate from a university in Melbourne majoring in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the time of the interview. She had worked previously as an air hostess in an international airlines company. LY-​F-​2: I’ve

got this thought that our English should be more relevant to our experiences of learning and use of English. For example, I’ve also explored this in my Master’s thesis, for the first few years when I arrived in an English-​ speaking environment, I’d intentionally mimic local speakers of English, the so called didaode (authentic or original) English. This would show that I’m capable of adapting and integrating into the society, and that I’m an excellent English L2 user. However, with time passing, I feel that it has become pointless to intentionally mimic others.

190  Unpacking Chinese English norms This is my personal opinion, and I’ve spoken about this with people around me, and found that they also share similar ideas and experiences. That is, if you stay overseas for a long time, to maintain your own traits or characteristics, of course such characteristics do not include heavy Chinese accents to the point of unintelligibility, which can be something negative, to maintain your own cultures, such as norms, for example when Chinese are complimented, they’d respond by saying, no no no, to be modest, in contrast, Westerners would say, oh thank you, I feel like the whole world has become more and more integrated. M:  Like a global village. LY-​F-​2:  Yes, yes. There are indeed Westerners who understand Easterners’ modesty. And they would also appreciate this. And I find this very interesting. As English users, after communicating or interacting with other users of English for a long while, they would become more confident about their own cultures. LY-​F-​2’s intuition or thought that “our English should be more relevant to our experiences of learning and use of English” explicitly highlights the intricate relationship between Chinese ti (essence) and yong (function). Her response shows that she has experienced a shift of her ti from a learner and novel user of English mimicking “local English speakers” for the first few years of living and working in an English-​speaking environment to a competent and confident user of English after staying overseas for a longer time, maintaining her own “traits or characteristics”, or her own cultures and norms. CY-​F-​4 was a Chinese migrant in Australia in her forties at the time of the interview. She used to work in journalism and mass media in China. She is well aware of the different cultural and pragmatic norms associated with Chinese and English in both China and Australia. M: 

In English, we’d use Mr. and Mrs, or Miss, and Ms. But in Chinese, there are different address terms, like xiao Zhang, old Wang. In work places, there can be “director”, “head” etc. CY-​F-​4:  Yes, those are titles. M:  Could you elaborate on that? CY-​F-​4:  In work places, for those younger colleagues, we use xiao (little), and those older, we use old, followed by surnames, usually. M:  For you, it would be xiao Cui or old Cui. CY-​F-​4:  Yes, from xiao Cui to old Cui. M:  Is it by age or generation? CY-​F-​4:  By age. M:  In work places, about titles, would you address your boss or manager as “Manager Smith”? CY-​F-​4:  No, I find that foreigners prefer first names. Regardless of your boss or your colleagues, we’re equal, so we use first names.

Unpacking Chinese English norms  191 M:  You don’t feel disrespectful, CY-​F-​4:  No, I don’t.

and it’s normal.

As far as norms associated with the yong or use of titles and address terms are concerned for interacting with Chinese and English speakers, CY-​F-​4 takes the field or context fully into consideration, and she would shift to local Australian norms of using first names to address her colleagues and boss regardless of her habitus or ti. This shows again that one’s habitus and ti are shifting concepts, and Chinese speakers of English tend to adapt to their use of English to achieve effective communication in relation to field and capital associated with their use of English. Apart from titles and address terms, CY-​ F-​4 has also responded to greetings and other speech acts, such as making apologies, as shown in the following excerpt: M:  How would you greet people here? People you know or otherwise? CY-​F-​4:  For those I know, I’d ask some shallow questions, like “How was your

weekend? How was your big evening last night?” For example, someone might have attended their child’s graduation ceremony etc. M:  For Beijingers in Beijing, how would they greet one another? CY-​F-​4:  Something like “Have you eaten yet?” This is among neighbours. It’s really a way to say hello, there’s nothing serious about it, and it’s not about you are hungry or not. It’s simply a greeting. Among colleagues, we wouldn’t say that, it’s just among neighbours. M:  How would you apologize? CY-​F-​4:  “Sorry?” In English, if I’ve done something wrong, I’d explain it to others. I’d say can I have a few minutes? If possible, I’d say “I’m sorry about something.” I’d explain what was wrong, and admit it, feeling sorry, and apologize, like that. M:  In Chinese, is it the same? CY-​F-​4:  It would be more complicated, in Chinese. It can be beating around the bush, or it can also be very straightforward, and it all depends on whom you’re talking to. For beating around the bush, I wouldn’t mention specifically what was wrong, but I’d say to you, my weaknesses in my personality, and I’d ask for forgiveness. M:  [Laugh] It’s really beating around the bush. CY-​F-​4: Yes, but the other party would understand what I meant. Beating around the bush, 迂回 (yuhui, or doing it in a roundabout manner), or better still, 含蓄 (hanxu, or implicit and reserved). Norms associated with speech acts, such as greetings and making apologies, according to CY-​F-​4, could vary across contexts and people with whom we interact. Being a bilingual Chinese and English speaker, she is fully aware of the different sets of norms, and she admits that “it would be more complicated in Chinese” as far as making apologies is concerned.

192  Unpacking Chinese English norms HW-​M-​3 was living in the United States at the time of the interview via Zoom, and he was in his early thirties. M: My

next question is about behavioral norms, like ways of speaking, and thought patterns, etc. I found that my Chinese has been very much influenced by English, like word order and choice of words, it’s pretty Europeanised, or Englishized. Behavioral norms also involve speech acts, like greetings, such as have you eaten yet? where are you going, or you’d say how are you doing? how are you going? How are you? And how would you react to compliments? Would you say thank you, or like a Chinese, you would tend to say no no no. The question is, when Chinese speak English, are they still Chinese? Or they’ve gradually become Westernised? HW-​M-​3: I’ve never thought about this, but as far as I recall, it pretty much depends on context. I came to the States in 2008. Among the 11 years, I was only in China for about 1.5 to 2 years. When I was in Beijing, I had this Hutong or neighbourhood feeling, and when I came across someone familiar, I’d say “Daye, nin chifan le ma?” (Great uncle, have you eaten yet?), but when I’m in the United States, I would not tend to have this sort of “neighbourhood feeling”, particularly after graduation here in the States. To me, asking whether someone has eaten should be in a particular context, such as in the 1990s in Shanghai nongtang, or Beijing hutong, or to general Chinese, it could be work-​unit based communities (jiguan dayuan), so the neighbours generally know one another. In a different context, we won’t ask whether they have eaten etc., at least not as a greeting. This “neighbourhood feeling” elaborated by HW-​M-​3 in his response is an interesting notion, particularly in relation to behavioural norms, such as greetings. It shows the role of the shifting ti and habitus in relation to field or specific context in people’s interactions, e.g., HW-​M-​3 points out that “it pretty much depends on context”.

Chinese pragmatic norms associated with xiao (filial piety) In this section, I go beyond code and linguistic feature norms, and behavioural norms regarding speech acts, such as greetings, responding to compliments and making apologies, and focus on more deep-​ rooted Chinese cultural beliefs and values that underpin the cultural behaviours and norms among Chinese speakers of English. I associate such beliefs and values with culturally constructed concepts, such as zhongyong (中庸, Doctrine of the Mean), he er butong (和而不同, harmony in diversity), principles of ren yi li (仁义 礼, benevolence or love of others, righteousness and ritual), yin yang (阴阳), fengshui (风水) and xiao (孝, filial piety). In this section, I report research findings of a project regarding xiao (filial piety) across generations and cultural boundaries, involving Chinese primarily and, more specifically, Chinese

Unpacking Chinese English norms  193

Micro-​narrative 19:  Researching xiao (filial piety) In recent years, I have embarked on a number of reflexive journeys with Chinese culturally constructed concepts, for example, exploring the meanings of xiao (filial piety) across generations and cultures through the lenses of world Englishes and cultural linguistics. Working in a multilingual and multicultural environment in Melbourne enables me to become more conscious and self-​reflexive about my own cultural roots and backgrounds and about how my cultural beliefs and values affect the way in which I interact with people around me. In early 2017, I started a joint research project with one of my colleagues on Chinese culturally constructed concepts, e.g., xiao (filial piety). For this project, I team-​worked with a sessional colleague, who looked into Australian second-​generation writers and their transcultural creativity in creative writing. She is a second-​generation Australian herself, so I collaborated with her in tracing how the Chinese concept of xiao (filial piety) had developed and been perceived from ancient China to contemporary Chinese diasporic societies and across generations.

speakers of English. The outcomes of this project have been published as a book chapter (Xu & Fang, 2020). I summarise the major findings here in this section in relation to the discussion of Chinese cultural norms. My major argument throughout this project on xiao (filial piety) is that Chinese cultural norms can be communicated, negotiated and renegotiated across cultures through Chinese English as a translanguaging and transcultural practice. In Canagarajah’s (2013b, p. 72) words, “rather than ruling out items that stand outside the shared norms as erroneous or idiosyncratic (in fidelity to systems), it is more important to consider how people do end up giving them meaning and achieve communicative success”. Canagarajah (2013b, p. 72) refers to the use of an existing English word in a new context as the word “receiving new indexicality”. The project on xiao (filial piety) shows how new norms and indexicality develop across generations and cultures. The notion of xiao (filial piety) in Chinese has a long history, and its original meanings include respecting ancestors, worshipping gods, taking care of elders and being obedient to parents. It has been inherited through the generations as a Chinese cultural and behavioural norm since ancient China, dating back to one of the classical Chinese texts, composed and compiled around the 4th century BC, entitled Xiao Jing, translated as the Classic of Filial Piety. The text consists of 18 short chapters documenting what Confucius said about the notion of xiao in the form of conversations between Confucius (551–​479 BC) and one of his disciples, named Zengzi (505–​435 BC). The notion of xiao has been considered as one of the top virtues among many others in China, for example, 仁 (ren, benevolence), 义 (yi, righteousness),

194  Unpacking Chinese English norms 礼 (li, propriety), 智 (zhi, wisdom), 信 (xin, faith), and 忠 (zhong, loyalty). As a cultural and behavioural norm, xiao (filial piety) is closely associated with obedience, loyalty, respect, kindness, and unconditional obligation of people towards their parents (Xu & Fang, 2020). The 18 chapters in Xiao Jing illustrate different meanings and implications of “filial piety” in ancient Chinese societies. According to Xiao Jing, the notion of xiao is considered to be a moral norm prescribed by Heaven and the fundamental virtue among all the human virtues. A close examination of the entire Chinese classical text of Xiao Jing reveals the intricate and layered meanings of xiao (filial piety). The cultural and behavioural norms derived from Xiao Jiang are that xiao is practised as one of the highest virtues among Chinese people, and it is explicitly about honouring, respecting and looking after parents; in the meantime, it is also about humbleness, courtesy, righteousness, morality, abiding by the law, loyalty, prosperity, nobleness, and the worship of the Lord or the Son of Heaven. Xiao is ultimately about achieving harmony between Heaven and Earth. Such norms are followed by Chinese regardless of what languages they speak and where they are, as these norms essentially reflect their Chinese ti and habitus, and Chinese cultural values and traditions. My co-​researcher, in this case a second-​generation Chinese Australian, and I were interested to find out how the cultural norms of xiao have changed from their instantiation in the Chinese classics such as Xiao Jing to how they are perceived in modern online virtual realities, such as Internet chatrooms and forums. We have noticed that since these chatrooms and forums are primarily conducted in English, participants in the online discussions commonly refer to the notion of xiao as “filial piety”. Such online discussions centre around intriguing questions, e.g., “What are the pros and cons of filial piety?” “Is filial piety moral?” and “Is filial piety taken too far?” Such questions indicate how the notion of xiao or filial piety and its associated cultural norms are perceived and challenged from intercultural perspectives. The responses to these questions regarding filial piety on the Internet also reveal that the cultural norms associated with filial piety have been shifting and expanding from their original meanings in the Confucian classical text on filial piety. For example, chatroom and forum participants argue that “great respect and unquetionning obedience are two very different things”; “the fact one is older than another or the fact that one is the parent of another is insufficient warrant to grant respect –​there must be a reasonable argument for that respect” (Xu & Fang, 2020, p. 80). This shows that the understanding of xiao has shifted, and this has an influence on the behaviours and moral norms among Chinese speakers of English. The Chinese cultural and behavioural norms surrounding the notion of xiao permeate contemporary Chinese societies, including Chinese diasporas, and virtual realities. Some original meanings of xiao have shifted in different historical and socio-​cultural contexts. For example, the meaning that xiao begins with the love of one’s body has gradually lost its impact in contemporary societies, as people currently associate xiao primarily with the

Unpacking Chinese English norms  195 parent–​child relationship within the family and extended family domain or the field of home. In addition, in its historical context, the notion xiao also means worshipping the Lord, or the Son of Heaven. However, the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and the1970s led to people re-​schematising this worshipping the Lord as an act of feudal superstition; therefore, this meaning has also been phased out. Over time and space, the cultural and behavioural norms of xiao or filial piety have been re-​schematised. Although the notion of xiao, according to Xiao Jing, does not necessarily mean absolute obedience, e.g., “when a father acts un-​righteously, his son should correct him directly; when the Lord acts unjustly, his ministers/​governors should provide advice to him straightforwardly”, the associated notion of “filial piety” in English has been stigmatised as unconditional obedience of children towards their parents; therefore, it has been critically challenged as to whether it is moral, or taken too far (Xu & Fang, 2020, p. 82). Xiao is ultimately about achieving harmony between Heaven and Earth. However, the re-​schematisation of “filial piety” in contemporary societies and Chinese diasporas, as evidenced through Internet chatrooms and forums, shows the changing nature of norms in relation to ti and yong as far as “filial piety” is concerned from a critical intercultural and intergenerational perspective. Instead of being adopted as a social construct that contributes to harmonious relationships, as originally meant in the Confucian Xiao Jing, it has been increasingly re-​conceptualised as a cause of tension and conflict between generations and across cultures. Such norm shifts and re-​schematisation can be attributed to socio-​cultural factors that involve globalisation, for example, urbanisation, Westernisation, increasing socio-​economic development, and mediated communication through the Internet and mass social media across generations and diasporas. The cultural and behavioural norm re-​schematisation of xiao and filial piety has historical, socio-​cultural and economic roots. In addition, this re-​ schematisation takes place implicitly in different dimensions, including geographical, historical and virtual realities. Geographically, the norm has spread across Asia and Southeast Asia into different parts of the world through migration, globalisation, language contact and cultural blending; historically, the norm has changed and shifted from the love of one’s body, respecting and serving one’s parents and ancestors, and worshipping the Lord, to reciprocal support and mutual assistance financially and emotionally across generations, to legal considerations using filial piety for ruling or punishing unfilial acts and behaviours, and to marketing implications for promoting commercial products. In virtual realities, this norm has been reiterated, praised, questioned, challenged and critically appraised across cultural boundaries and generations (Xu & Fang, 2020, p. 83). This analysis of the norm changes and re-​ schematisation associated with xiao or filial piety implies the heterogeneity of xiao as a cultural and behavioural norm among Chinese speakers of English. This changing norm associated with xiao has become an essential part of the ti and habitus of

196  Unpacking Chinese English norms Chinese speakers of English, and depending on the field or context in which Chinese speakers of English use or utilise English in relation to ti and yong, there can be different cultural, social and symbolic capital in operation for intra-​and intercultural communication. This analysis also shows that Chinese speakers are not necessarily dependent on external norms provided by English L1 speakers and cultures when they communicate in English across cultures, and that they also develop norms and contribute to the dynamics of norm re-​ schematisation and negotiation among speakers of world Englishes. Throughout this xiao (filial piety) project, I engaged in intercultural and intergenerational communication, using English as a lingua franca, with my Australian second-​generation sessional colleague. To a large extent, my co-​ researcher and I were playing varying roles as norm-​providers and norm-​ developers when we unpacked the cultural concepts and norms associated with xiao (filial piety). There have been shifting dispositions regarding our norms and practices during our interactions from an ELF perspective in terms of schematising and negotiating cultural norms. In the next section, I explore how pragmatic norms are instantiated from the perspectives of Chinese speakers of English in intercultural communication.

Instantiating programmatic norms Throughout my first-​hand interactions with Chinese speakers of English, as far as pragmatic norms of using English and Chinese are concerned, I have noticed that there has been ongoing accommodation and negotiation of norms. It is evident that Chinese speakers of English are not only aware of different pragmatic norms between Chinese and English, but also tend to adapt, accommodate and negotiate norms as they become aware of any tension or dissonance arising between Chinese and English pragmatic norms. I have conducted a series of semi-​structured interviews, as I explained in the first section of the chapter, regarding norms associated with the use of English by Chinese speakers. I would often ask the questions explicitly, e.g., are there any differences between Chinese norms and English norms? do you follow English norms or Chinese norms when you speak English? And the responses of my participants vary. For example, DY-​F-​3 insists that “I don’t think ‘following’ English-​speaking norms for Chinese speakers of English is a ‘must’. With the increasing intercultural communication, people from different cultures are adapting to different norms”. She further shares with me that “for request making, I don’t think Chinese people always follow the ‘reason-​first’ pattern. Due to the fast-​pace-​of-​everything era, people tend to be direct when making requests. So there’s no need to fix Chinese speakers of English in that ‘cliché’ ”. WQ-​F-​3 responds explicitly that “as English has been increasingly used as an international language by people from different countries and cultures, the pragmatic norms of traditional English-​speaking counties may not be applicable to all the English communications, especially those between non-​native English speakers”. CB-​F-​4 takes a more pragmatic

Unpacking Chinese English norms  197 stance, saying that “there is a virtue in the saying ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’. I would say we should follow the English norm in the English-​ speaking world if there is a norm difference, unless it is a matter of personal principle, religion or belief ”. Likewise, WL-​F-​4 echoes a similar view by saying that I agree that we should conform to native-​speakers’ ways of speaking instead of developing our own way of speaking English when interacting with others. But I strongly believe that we should transfer some of our Chinese pragmatic norms into interactions with others. The following interview excerpt between me (coded as R) and YX-​F-​2 provides more insight regarding pragmatic norm accommodation and negotiation in terms of Chinese speakers of English responding to compliments. YX-​F-​2: 

I would accept (compliments), I think partially because we’re educated through different ways, and we know or we have the awareness of other people’s cultures. And we are happy to accept their cultures, because if we stick to the Chinese way, it is okay, and we can keep the conversation going, but it may not help maintain our relationship in the long term. They might think that we’re too Chinese, or that we’re not very ready or willing to communicate with them. Because from the other peoples’ perspectives, they might … they just want to get the kind of responses in a way that they would expect. So, I think I would consider how they feel. R:  This is interesting. So you can adjust your behaviour and your pragmatic norms, based on how you think the other people would expect you to respond. This is interesting awareness. YX-​F-​2:  Yeah, yeah, but this is not at the expense of sacrificing ourselves or our own norms. It’s just for the purpose of maintaining a good relationship, and it’s a kind of a socialising strategy. R: Yes, this is also about cultural sensitivity. It means that you’re pretty much sensitive to the fact that other people have their own norms and expectations. You simply make adjustments, accommodating and negotiating norms, without sacrificing your own cultural values, for example, your own modesty, in a culturally appropriate way. It is evident that Chinese speakers of English adopt a pragmatic mixture of the three approaches elaborated by Jenkins (2014, pp. 48–​49), i.e., conforming, challenging and paradigm-​shifting approaches to their intercultural ELF communicative practice. These three approaches seem to co-​exist among the participants involved in this research. They tend to be conforming to English norms to a certain extent when they communicate in English; however, they also develop awareness of pragmatic norm differences between Chinese and English, and relevant strategies geared towards specific communicative ELF contexts from challenging and paradigm-​ shifting perspectives. It can be

198  Unpacking Chinese English norms argued that, as far as Chinese speakers of English are concerned, there is an ongoing shift from exonormative orientation to endonormative propensity in the ELF communication context. Such a shift echoes the observation of Seidlhofer (2011) that ELF users’ non-​conformity to the norms of native English-​speaking world manifests how ELF users exploit their communicative resources to suit their pragmatic purposes. Apart from the preceding findings from my interactions with Chinese speakers of English, I have also engaged in naturally occurring conversations with a group of Japanese speakers of English in early 2019. During three extended conversations with the Japanese speakers of English, which lasted nearly three hours in total, we covered a range of topics that were of mutual interest, including various cultural festivals, i.e., jieri (节日) in Chinese or matsuri (祭) in Japanese, special food such as sushi, osechi (food for the New Year’s Day in Japan) and jiaozi (Chinese dumplings), tea and coffee, hobbies, films, people and place names, sports such as Chinese kungfu, taichi and Japanese karate, yin and yang philosophy, zodiac animals, as well as cities and hometowns in China and Japan. As far as pragmatic norms associated with Chinese and Japanese speakers of English are concerned, the following excerpts taken from the three conversations show that we constantly draw upon shared knowledge, e.g., written characters or Kanji, as well as cultural references, i.e., similarities and differences between Chinese and Japanese.

Micro-​narrative 20:  Conversations with Japanese exchange students The “naturally occurring conversations” that I mentioned involved me as a Chinese speaker of English and a group of exchange students from Japan visiting Melbourne in February and March 2019. There were three extended conversations, initiated by the exchange students. There were five of them: four were Japanese students, and one was a Chinese student living and studying in Japan. All of them were university students in their early twenties. The first conversation included me, coded as R, and three Japanese exchange students, coded as J1, J2 and J3. The conversation was primarily about “festivals”, and it lasted 46 minutes. The second conversation included me, J1 and J2. It covered a number of topics, and it lasted 1 hour and 16 minutes. The third conversation included me, J1, J2, J3, J4 and J5. The topics were initiated by J2, and they were primarily about “coffee” and “sushi”. This conversation lasted 52 minutes. I asked for their consent to record the conversations and use the recordings as “data” for teaching and research purposes, and they all agreed. The students were deidentified and coded throughout the data analysis.

Unpacking Chinese English norms  199 I present data excerpts from the extended conversations mentioned in Micro-​narrative 20 and analyse them in terms of the pragmatic norms the Japanese exchange students and I co-​construct and negotiate. These include 1) negotiating meaning through written characters or Kanji; 2) drawing on shared cultural references of zodiac animals; 3) sharing pastime activities and their cultural underpinnings; and 4) seeking a common ground in food culture. Negotiating meaning through written characters or Kanji R:  For the first day of January, what do you call it? Is it a festival? J1 (JAPANESE PARTICIPANT 1):  January first, we call it Ganjitsu (元日). R:  We have a similar expression. We call it Yuandan (元旦). J2:  Yeah, yeah, Gantan! J1:  No no no. In fact, Gantan means January first morning. R:  Morning? Oh. J1:  Just the morning. But Ganjitsu is the day. J3:  Really? I didn’t know. J1:  Yeah, yeah. R:  Here the 旦 means the Sun is coming out. J1, J2 AND J3:  Oh, yeah yeah yeah. J1:  From the ground? R:  From the ocean. The Sun comes out of the ocean. So it’s the morning. J1, J2 AND J3: Yeah. R:  And this character 元 means the beginning. And it also means original,

like the beginning of something. So, it’s the first day. So, is this a festival? Is this a Matsuri? J1, AND J2: No. J2:  But I think a Ganjitsu is similar to a festival, because in Ganjitsu, we pray. We pray for ourselves to be healthy. R:  Yes, for good wealth, prosperity, development and harmony? J1, J2, AND J3: Yes. In this conversation excerpt, I adopted a pragmatic norm of drawing upon shared knowledge of written characters or Kanji between Chinese and Japanese, and explained the meanings of 元旦, i.e., “this character 元 means the beginning. And it also means original, like the beginning of something”, and “Here the 旦 means the Sun is coming out”. There was also some meaning negotiation, as J1 asked whether the Sun comes “from the ground”, and I responded by saying “From the ocean. The Sun comes out of the ocean. So it’s the morning”. The shared knowledge among the speakers involved in the conversation implies shared cultural schemas and norms, and these norms are enacted and embodied through the shared cultural habitus of the speakers, and in turn, the shared knowledge can be utilised as cultural capital to facilitate the intercultural communication between me as a Chinese speaker of English and the Japanese exchange students.

200  Unpacking Chinese English norms Drawing on shared cultural references of zodiac animals R: Another

thing is that, do you have the years in the names of different animals, like dragon, horse, you know, do you have those? Like monkey, tiger? J1:  Yeah yeah. We have twelve different animals. R:  Tell me what they are. So what are the twelve different animals? J1:  I can’t remember all of them. It’s difficult to translate them into English. Umm, my year is dragon. J2:  I have tiger. R:  Oh, okay, so I can guess. A dragon would be 1976, 1988, 2000, so you were born in 2000? J1: Yeah. R:  Oh, okay. And a tiger would be 1998? 1998? J2:  Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! R:  Because we assign each year with an animal. The year 2000 was a dragon, and the year 1998 was a tiger. And I was 1966, so in my year, it was a horse. J1 AND J2:  Oh, a horse! R:  I am happy because I believe in this, and I believe that as a horse myself, I can make good friends with dragons, and I can also make good friends with tigers. In this conversation excerpt, I drew upon cultural references of zodiac animals as cultural capital in finding out whether these zodiac animals exist in Japanese cultural conceptualisations, and the extent to which the Japanese exchange students were aware of such cultural references. The excerpt shows that Chinese and Japanese share zodiac animals to some extent, and the participants could figure out the year of their birth through the lunar calendar system of zodiac animals. It is worth noting that inquiring about people’s zodiac year of birth, if done appropriately, can serve as a pragmatic means for finding out sensitive information such as people’s age and their personalities in Chinese cultural practice (Xu & Sharifian, 2018). Sharing pastime activities and their cultural underpinnings R: 

Another hobby of mine is taichi. Do you know taichi? You know, the slow movement body exercise? Taichi is different from kungfu. J5: Oh, Kungfu Panda! R: Yeah, Kungfu is more action-​based. J4: Yeah. R:  Taichi is more of a slow movement, breathing, and it’s also good for relaxation. Yeah, when you work under stress, you can just relax through doing taichi. J5:  Yeah, I’d do karate. Karate has many ways for breathing.

Unpacking Chinese English norms  201 R:  Yes,

different breathing techniques. In terms of taichi, we also talk about yin and yang. I don’t know if you all know this yin and yang. It’s about integration and harmony. And also, yin and yang means movement. It’s moving. It’s not static or still. So, when you practice taichi, it’s really about breathing in and breathing out, and it’s about the Sun and the Moon, you know, the female, the male, and it’s also about balance. If you want to push, you have to move backwards first, so that you can push forward. It’s not just a physical activity. It’s also about your mental development.

In this conversation excerpt, my Japanese participants and I chatted about our hobbies, such as taichi and karate, and the cultural underpinnings, e.g., the yin and yang philosophy, which according to my understanding is about integration and harmony, movement, the Sun and the Moon, the female, the male, and it is also about balance and mental development. The pragmatic norm here is East Asia oriented, and it emerges as a shared cultural norm, as the conversation among myself and my Japanese participants develops. Seeking a common ground in food culture R:  We may talk about dumplings or jiaozi? J2, AND J4:  Gyoza! R:  This is my favourite food. And I cook,

I make dumplings, together with my wife. So the way we make dumplings is that, basically, my wife would make a dough. A dough is made of flour and water, and also egg white. She mixes them together and makes a dough. And then I would … I would knead the dough, and then I would turn it into a roll, and I cut it into smaller pieces, and each piece can be rolled and turned into a skin, like a round skin. In the meantime, I also make the filling … the filling. And the filling is made of meat, which is minced, very finely minced meat, and then we put in some salt, some soy sauce, and also pepper, and we also put in some vegetables, some finely chopped vegetables, like cabbage or carrot, and then mix them together with some vegetable oil or peanut oil, and some sesame oil. And then we roll the smaller pieces of the dough into a round skin, and we put some filling on top of it, and then we wrap it up together, to make a dumpling. And there are mainly three ways to cook the dumplings, one is to boil them in the boiling water, another is to steam them, and the third one is to fry them in a frying pan. J1 AND J2: Oh! J4:  Fried dumpling is the major … major … is the favourite in Japan. R:  Oh, do you have boiled dumplings, like boil the dumplings in a big pot of boiling water, and you put the dumplings in? J2:  We call it suigyoza. J1:  Sui means water. J2:  And gyoza means dumplings. R:  Ahh, we have the same thing. We call it exactly the same thing, like shuijiao.

202  Unpacking Chinese English norms J2: Yeah, suigyoza. R:  Do you make the

dumplings in the same way, like you have the dough, the filling. J1:  I think in the same way. R:  In the same way. Okay. That’s very interesting. In this conversation excerpt, my Japanese participants and I chose a topic that was associated with our common daily life experiences in different cultural contexts, i.e., food culture, specifically making dumplings, or jiaozi in Chinese and gyoza in Japanese. The choice of such a topic may serve a pragmatic function of connecting two cultures and the daily life experiences of Chinese and Japanese involved in the conversations. My description of my family’s jiaozi making process reflects endonormative norms of Chinese food making, even though the conversation was in English. Such endonormative norms were shared among my Japanese participants and myself as we identified cognate expressions, such as jiaozi and gyoza. In addition, we found out during the conversation that suigyoza in Japanese means the same thing as shuijiao in Chinese, or boiled dumplings. As pointed out by Canagarajah (2013a, pp. 83–​84), communication is a “two-way street”. Both parties have to co-​construct meaning, without assuming that one person’s norms can be imposed on the other. There are no predefined norms and meanings in contact zones. Interlocutors have to work with each other to co-​construct norms and intelligibility. In addition, interlocutors who manage to communicate effectively “display a strong language awareness, sensitivity to diversity of norms, and adaptability to change” (Canagarajah, 2013a, p. 84). The analysis of the naturally occurring conversations in this section shows that Chinese and Japanese speakers of English are capable of managing their communicative resources, or cultural capital, e.g., the shared written scripts and cultural references and underpinnings, to seek a common ground in relation to their shared cultural dispositions for effective communication. In most of the circumstances, as far as the participants in the naturally occurring conversations are concerned, the traditional English-​speaking norms become irrelevant, e.g., when they explore topics such as culturally specific festivals, food and philosophy. Indeed, the assumption that English speakers from English-​speaking countries serve as norm-​providing “native speakers” can be problematic, given the increasing nativisation of English and the changing linguistic landscape worldwide. Native speaker norms are a distraction where the primary interlocutors are non-​native or nonstandard speakers –​the majority of English use globally involves interaction between one non-​native speaker and another, say between a Korean car manufacturer and a Brazilian dealer. It is

Unpacking Chinese English norms  203 clarity and intelligibility rather than an idealized authenticity that is crucial for intercultural communication. It is pragmatically unsuitable where the reference group, for reasons of cultural authenticity and identity is a non-​native, indigenous elite rather than a distant, abstract, international model. It is impractical in transplanted contexts where the demographics preclude native instructors, even if such a model were desirable. (Sridhar & Sridhar, 2018, pp. 129–​130) Monolingual bias occurs because the notion of monolingual norms as an invariant standard presupposes monolingualism to be the unmarked, unexamined category and “native speaker” competence to be a uniform benchmark in relation to second language learning. In this way, the existing bi/​multilingual repertoires of multilingual speakers were either ignored or perceived in explicitly deficit terms (May, 2014a, p. 7). In this sense, it can be suggested that non-​English L1 speakers, including Chinese speakers of English, have the capacity and right to shift from exonormativity to emerging and shared “endonormativity”, and ultimately to “trans-​normativity”, for effective communication drawing upon their respective cultural habitus and capital, as well as ti, to the best use or yong of their multilingual repertoires to engage in translanguaging practices in the field of world Englishes.

Conclusion In this chapter, I have explored norms associated primarily with Chinese speakers of English when they interact among themselves and other speakers of world Englishes. I have first defined “norms” based on relevant literature, and unpacked perceptions of pragmatic norms drawing upon semi-​structured interviews with Chinese speakers of English. I have then looked into a case study regarding specific Chinese cultural and behavioural norms associated with Chinese xiao (孝, filial piety) through the lenses of world Englishes and English as a lingua franca communication. Towards the end of the chapter, I have explored how Chinese (and to a certain extent, Japanese) cultural and pragmatic norms are instantiated and practised by Chinese and Japanese speakers of English for intercultural communication through naturally occurring conversation analysis. The findings and discussions throughout the chapter show that Chinese speakers of English are aware of not only pragmatic norms but also the differences between Chinese and English norms. They adopt a pragmatic mixture of conforming, challenging and paradigm-​shifting approaches to intercultural communication as far as pragmatic norms are concerned. They tend to conform to commonly perceived English-​speaking pragmatic norms. However, they also adapt, accommodate and negotiate pragmatic norms aligned with intercultural contexts. In addition, research evidence and findings throughout the chapter show that there is a tendency among Chinese speakers of English to shift from a conforming approach, i.e., exonormativity, to

204  Unpacking Chinese English norms challenging and paradigm-​shifting perspectives and translanguaging practices in relation to emerging and shared “endonormativity” amidst intercultural communication drawing upon their habitus, ti and yong, as well as cultural capital in relation to field, i.e., the major elements involved in the pentagram framework. Given the transcultural contact-​zone nature of intercultural communication in world Englishes involving Chinese speakers of English, it can be proposed that “there is a further shift in practice among Chinese speakers of English, from shared endonormativity to co-​constructed and negotiated trans-​ normativity where pragmatic norms transcend traditional linguistic and cultural boundaries and are trans-​ created and instantiated through transcultural and translanguaging practices” (Xu, 2022, p. 218) in the field of world Englishes.

6 Reconstructing Chinese English narratives

In this chapter, I reconstruct narratives of Chinese speakers of English regarding their learning and use of English in varying circumstances and contexts, adopting the pentagram framework of habitus, field, capital, ti and yong. Over the past decade since I embarked on this book project, I have been interviewing Chinese speakers of English whom I know through different channels, e.g., work, personal and professional contacts, and social media. Most of the interviews were semi-​structured, in informal or formal contexts, through face to face and/​or written communication. For this chapter, I include interview data analysis of 16 participants. The topics for the interviews varied with the participants and the contexts in which the interviews were conducted, but they centred primarily on how the participants have learned or acquired English, how they use English for intra-​and international communication, and what their perceptions and attitudes are regarding Chinese English. The main purpose of this chapter is to unpack the collective narratives and experiences of Chinese speakers of English in order to have an emic understanding of Chinese English in relation to the habitus, field, capital, ti and yong of the users and use of Chinese English in various contexts.

The “narratives” Due to the semi-​ structured nature of the interviews, the questions that were asked varied with the participants and the circumstances in which the interviews were conducted. The interviews were largely conducted in Chinese. When I transcribed the recordings, I translated the interviews into English as closely as I could manage. The participants have various backgrounds, but what they have in common is that they were all born and brought up in China, with Chinese being their first language. They are all proficient speakers of Chinese and English. Following the coding system of the previous two chapters, I code the 16 participants as follows: WG-​M-​4, ZX-​F-​4, EQ-​M-​5, WD-​F-​4, YJ-​F-​3, EL-​F-​3, YX-​F-​2, TC-​M-​2, TF-​M-​2, GH-​M-​2, TH-​M-​2, LY-​F-​2, CY-​F-​4, LQ-​F-​4, HW-​M-​3 and DY-​F-​3. The first two letters represent the unique code for each of the participants; F and M represent their gender, and the number indicates their age range, e.g., 2 means the participant is in DOI: 10.4324/9781315209463-6

206  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives his/​her twenties. It can be noted that the majority of the participants in this chapter also provided data for the previous two chapters on names and norms. Appendix 2 shows the information of the demographics of the participants and their respective interviews.

Narrative, narrative inquiry and narrative knowledging In this section, I adopt the concept of “narrative” as a way to understand Chinese speakers of English and explore relevant notions of narrative inquiry and narrative knowledging. The concept of “narrative” here is adopted as a means to reconstruct subject realities. It is closely associated with personal trajectories, life experiences and ideologies, hence habitus, and ti (or essence) of the pentagram framework. The social sciences have witnessed what has sometimes been called a “narrative turn.” Narrative has become both a legitimate mode of thinking and writing in research and the focal point of a variety of approaches that come under the heading of “narrative inquiry”. (Barkhuizen, Benson, & Chik, 2013, p. 1) In “narrative inquiry”, narratives are perceived as sense-​making activities. Narrative inquiry concerns “the meaning making that accompanies the telling and retelling of stories. In the process of constructing narratives, narrators make sense of their lived experience; they understand it, give it coherence, make connections, and unravel its complexity” (Barkhuizen, 2011, p. 393). The main strength of narrative inquiry, according to Barkhuizen et al. (2013, p. 2), lies in “its focus on how people use stories to make sense of their experiences in areas of inquiry where it is important to understand phenomena from the perspectives of those who experience them”. Referencing Dörnyei’s (2007) three key terms, Barkhuizen et al. (2013, pp. 72–​73) have elaborated on a broad framework for the data analysis strategies involving narratives as data for qualitative research, specifically 1) “iterative” or “zigzag” patterns of qualitative research, where “researchers often move back and forth between data collection, data analysis and data interpretation”; 2) an emergent research design, in which a study is kept open and fluid so that it can respond in a flexible way to new details or openings; 3) fundamentally interpretive, in the sense that the research outcome is ultimately the product of the researcher’s subjective interpretation of the data, and that findings only emerge as a result of hard, and often creative, interpretive work by the researchers. According to Barkhuizen et al. (2013, p. 74), “the distinction between narrative and non-​narrative data is fuzzy”, but it often comes down to “how researchers choose to look at their data”. Interview data can be “treated as sources of narrative data” in three ways: 1) if the interview is designed to elicit a story, the interviewee’s contribution to the story may be treated as

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  207 a narrative; 2) the researcher may produce an edited narrative summary of the interviewee’s contribution for further analysis; and 3) the researcher may select for analysis a short extract from an interview in which the interviewee tells a story. “There is, therefore, no hard and fast rule for deciding whether data is narrative or non-​narrative in form” (Barkhuizen et al., 2013, p. 74). Regarding the semi-​ structured interviews I have conducted for the book, and this chapter in particular, the data are elicited and processed as “narratives” because essentially the interviews were about the participants’ own life experiences and viewpoints regarding their English learning and use in different contexts. My role as an interviewer as well as an active participant of the interviews or extended conversations (except one interview, which was conducted by a research assistant) was to open up dialogues with improvised questions based on the participants, the circumstances in which the interviews were conducted, and more importantly, the participants’ responses. In this sense, the interview data can be viewed and analysed holistically as “narratives” that reflect the “life-​world” of the participants, beyond the “system-​world” of the rules and conventions of the language they use. This is where the pentagram framework has its potential for reconstructing the narratives of the Chinese speakers of English in their most “natural, familial, domestic, or traditional” habitat (Robbins, 2005, p. 14). Narrative data analysis follows the approach of “thematic, content, or grounded theory” analysis, and “it involves repeated reading of the data, coding and categorization of data extracts and their reorganization under thematic headings” (Barkhuizen et al., 2013, p. 75). This is how I have analysed my semi-​structured interview data. After the interviews, I sorted out the recordings and put them in an e-​folder. While transcribing the data, I listened repeatedly to the recordings, and in the meantime, translated those Chinese interactions into English. Transcribing and translating the interview data was also a process of examining the responses, reconstructing the narratives of the participants as well as my own, teasing out themes and identifying relevant excerpts for the purpose of writing this chapter. This is a process of knowledge construction in the sense that while engaging in the interview conversations, both the participants and the two interviewers, i.e. myself and my research assistant, have been constructing our narratives of English language learning and use, making sense of our relationships with the English language and the various contexts. By constructing narratives participants engage in narrative knowledging by making meaning of certain issues and experiences that are important to them, thereby giving these issues and experiences coherence so that they as well as researchers are better able to understand them. (Barkhuizen, 2013, p. 78) “Narrative knowledging is something that we do, and in the process we understand that experience –​we generate knowledge” (Barkhuizen, 2011,

208  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives p. 396). Barkhuizen uses the term “knowledging” to refer to “the activity of meaning making, learning, or knowledge construction” (Barkhuizen, 2011, p. 395). Narrative knowledging is also a social activity. Narratives are discursively constructed with others in particular spatiotemporal contexts and, after analysis by researchers, are presented to an audience for (re)interpretation. Narratives in these various forms of social interaction function as mediational tools for narrative knowledging. (Barkhuizen, 2011, p. 397) To unpack and reconstruct the narrative data through narrative knowledging, I have also grounded the narrative analysis in Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, capital and field as well as two Chinese philosophical concepts: ti and yong. The narratives of Chinese speakers of English may help illuminate how their various habitus and different forms of capital embody their ti and become contingent on the field(s) where they apply yong (function) through English correspondingly in different contexts, as illustrated in Chapter 3. The work of Bourdieu, based on which the pentagram framework has been developed throughout this book, enables us to focus on speakers in relation to their speech and discourses in line with linguistic systems. Reconstructing narratives is also a process of reflexivity in the sense of what Bourdieu advocates as “reflexive sociology”. Reflexivity refers to the process whereby we continually reflect on how the assumptions underpinning our practice have been mediated through habitus and field. … there is a need to reflect on our personal values, attitudes and perceptions and how they shape our actions. (Houston, 2002, p. 159)

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives In this section, I analyse the narrative data collected from 16 participants through semi-​ structured interviews. My analysis follows a bottom-​ up approach in terms of teasing out the major themes that arise from the actual close examination of the data, i.e., transcribing, translating and reflecting on the interviews, while working on the theoretical construction of the pentagram framework for Chapter 3. In the meantime, I also adopted a top-​down approach incorporating the theoretical framework and applied it to Chapters 4 to 6. I introduce the participants and summarise what the participants shared with me as narrative data. I then reconstruct all the narratives and explore what it means to be a Chinese speaker of English in their various local and global contexts.

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  209

Micro-​narrative 21:  Reconstructing narratives of Chinese speakers of English I’m interested in reconstructing narratives of Chinese speakers of English, primarily because I am one of them in the first place, and I believe in the power of narrative, narrative inquiry and narrative knowledging. Over the years, since I came up with the monograph title Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives, I have been consciously reflecting on my own narratives and collecting those of others. I agree with Barkhuizen et al. (2013) that narrative data and their analysis have certain features, e.g., “iterative” or “zigzag” patterns, where I move back and forth between interview data collection, analysis and interpretation. One of my first interviews was actually conducted in a Chinese dumplings restaurant in Beijing, where I invited a former colleague of mine to lunch. As we were chatting about our past experiences, it occurred to me that I could (re-​)collect some of her experiences and narratives of English learning and use. Since that interview, we have had follow-​up interactions through emails and extended conversations, so the data analysis and interpretation process has been iterative and ongoing. According to Barkhuizen et al. (2013), the narrative data and their analysis are also “emergent” in the sense that my Chinese English: Names, Norms and Narratives book project has been kept open and fluid for the past decade, so that ideas surrounding the book keep emerging, growing, flowing and maturing, involving not only data collection but also theoretical grounding and reviewing literature so that I can respond in a flexible and sufficient way to new details and discoveries. The third feature of narrative data and their analysis is that they are perpetually interpretive, in the sense that while constructing and reconstructing the narratives, I have been acting on my own agency in the subjective interpretation of the data in terms of transcribing it, translating it as I transcribe, following up with some of the participants for clarification, and incorporating relevant literature-​based theoretical understanding into the data analysis. The findings are indeed a result of hard and often creative interpretive work throughout the years during which the book project has been undertaken.

“My strength lies in my Chinese culture” (XY-​F-​4) and “China has already been an indispensable part of the English-​speaking world” (WG-​M-​4) XY-​F-​4 is a female participant, in her forties at the time of the interview. She is a freelance writer and translator in Australia. WG-​M-​4 is a male participant, in his early forties at the time of the interview, and he is a professor working in a prestigious university in Shanghai. The interview with XY-​F-​4 and WG-​M-​4

210  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives was a joint one; in a sense, it was a focus group interview, and I was involved in the conversations as the interviewer as well as a participant. The topics centred around our experiences of learning and using English in Chinese and overseas contexts. Specifically, we talked about our intricate relationships with the English language at various times and in different spaces throughout our respective journeys with English, as well as issues of cultural confidence in us as bilingual speakers of Chinese and English in various contexts. XY-​F-​4 conceptualises English as a means to broaden her life-​world, and English helps her achieve her “ideals of seeing the world”. She regards English as an “essential skill” and a “global lingua franca”. In addition, she associates English with “professions”, such as working as a journalist or overseas correspondent. When I asked her “Why did you learn English?”, she responded: Why did I learn English? I started learning English, because I thought the world was big, and I wanted to travel overseas to see the world. English is a basic or essential skill, because English is a global lingua franca. My English teacher in high school encouraged me to major in English in Beijing Broadcasting Institute, so that I could become a journalist or a correspondent overseas. So, I thought it could help me achieve my ideals of seeing the world. (XY-​F-​4) Social changes have an impact on Chinese learners of English; e.g., according to XY-​F-​4, “In the 1980s, people’s minds were very active, and there were many new ideas and thoughts.” It was also a time when China started its economic reform and opening up to the outside world, and Western thoughts became popular. Business and commerce were popular majors for university students. According to XY-​F-​4, “English was also very popular”, and that was one of her reasons for choosing to learn English. In the 1980s, people’s minds were very active, and there were many new ideas and thoughts. For example, in the 1980s, Jean-​Paul Sartre, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Sigmund Freud were very popular, as well as many Chinese avant-​garde writers, such as Bai Hua, and Zhang Xianliang. And then there was the “total Westernization” (全盘西化), and there were many issues and problems in China, perhaps due to a certain stage of the reform and wealth was not evenly distributed. So the most popular major in universities was business and commerce. Since 1978, there had been some progress with the reform. English was also very popular, although business and commerce as university majors were more popular. I chose to learn English because I wanted to know the world. One of my ideals was to be a journalist and to travel across the world. (XY-​F-​4) As an English and journalism double major student in a university in Beijing from the middle of the 1980s, XY-​F-​4 has good memories of how and what she

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  211 learned in and outside her English classes. She had native English-​speaking teachers (waijiao, literally foreign teachers) from England and America. She had formal English learning classes including listening, speaking, reading and writing as discrete language “skills”. Her exposures to the British and American cultures were limited to the exposure to the system-​world created by the “foreigner teachers” she had and the life-​world presented in the classics she could access and read, such as stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, Love Story and Jane Eyre. Chinese teachers of English also played a key role as role-​models or successful learners and users of English, particularly those teachers who came from the workplace or the professional field where English is used as a working language. In the university, I majored in both English and journalism. So I improved my English quite rapidly. In fact, my English wasn’t very good at the beginning. So I studied hard, particularly on listening. I watched movies, such as Love Story and Jane Eyre, and I listened to the movie recordings. I also focused on reading, particularly those colloquial expressions. We also had “native teachers” from England and America, so we were exposed to English speaking people and their cultures. We had a British teacher, and she taught us speaking. She would share with us British history stories, for example, King Arthur and the knights of the round table. So I was interested in British history. In our third year at the university, our learning of English became more systematic. We also had Chinese English teachers. There was one from the CCTV, and he came to our class to teach our news writing. He taught us to start from simple short sentences, and I benefited from his approach, and made progress. (XY-​F-​4) The transition from learning English to using English, for most Chinese speakers of English, is a gradual process, often without much awareness of the speakers themselves, as they always attempt to “improve” their English, even in the workplace, and they tend to have the mentality of a perpetual learner of English. Improving English is not exclusively about the speakers sharpening their language skills per se, but the transition in their learning and use of English from the system-​world of the language to their real life-​ world. XY-​F-​4 became aware of the differences between “news writing and fiction writing” while using English at her workplace, and the “incongruence between two news media and ideological systems” of China and the West. XY-​F-​4 said that she experienced the “fear of not speaking perfectly native English” when she was in China; however, while staying overseas, she said, “I became more comfortable with or accustomed to speaking my own English to interact with native speakers of English”. In terms of XY-​F-​4’s confidence in using English, she said that “Our Chinese culture has always co-existed with other cultures. It is the Chinese culture that we draw our confidence from.”

212  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives The most significant improvement of English took place in my workplace. There is a Chinese saying: 书到用时方恨少 (Books will never be enough when they are needed). I worked for a very professional radio station. There was much pressure at the beginning, because I worked for the English program, which means that I needed to “translate” Chinese news and articles into English. I realised that Chinese and English have different systems, not just linguistically, but culturally. News writing and fiction writing are different. We’d start the news about achievements and good news, but Western media would expose the most severe or serious issues and the most eye-​catching news. My work started from the adjustment and adaptation resulted from the incongruence between two news and ideological systems. We would also work in a team with English-​ speaking journalists, so there’s writing, editing, co-​editing and negotiation work and teamwork. There were also opportunities of travelling overseas, which could help me overcome my fear of not speaking perfectly “native” English. I became more comfortable with or accustomed to speaking my own English to interact with native speakers of English. In terms of translation between Chinese and English, I feel more comfortable with translating from English into Chinese, because I have cultural confidence. However, even though translating from Chinese into English is more challenging, I find that Chinese English translations have elements of “creativity”, which in a way has contributed to the multicultural richness of the English language. My understanding is that our strength does not lie in our “English” language in an English-​speaking country or environment, but our own Chinese culture. Our Chinese culture has always co-​existed with other cultures. It is the Chinese culture that we draw our confidence from. (XY-​F-​4) XY-​ F-​ 4 has translated two major works between English and Chinese. One was in early 2000s, for a commercial publisher in Shanghai, and it was from English to Chinese. The other was for a senior writer friend of hers in Australia, a novel written in Chinese, so the translation was from Chinese into English. When I asked her what she had experienced throughout her translation work between Chinese and English from the perspectives of language and culture, she responded: I think language reflects the issue of structure, and it also reflects culture. Culture also reflects different thought patterns. For literary writing, when people read the same work or expressions, they may have different interpretations. English may have a more salient logic, such as the clauses, but Chinese has multiple aspects, and it’s more holistic. For example, Chinese medicine would treat a human being as a whole. If you experience pain in the leg, there could be something wrong with your heart. But Western medicine may not operate in this way. For translation, I think it’s easier to

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  213 translate English into Chinese. I may comprehend the English text from a Chinese cultural perspective, so I have to conform to Chinese reading norms so that Chinese readers understand. Direct translation is impossible, so we may translate the meaning more holistically. Translating from Chinese to English is much more difficult. I kind of lack confidence, especially when translating literary works. There’s a lot of descriptive writing, and it’s difficult to translate to the extent that English readers may totally understand. On the other hand, English readers may find it creative, culturally speaking, e.g., the Chinese four-​character idioms. Chinese idioms have stories behind them, and they can be very interesting. For example, san ren cheng hu (三人成虎, three persons making a tiger) is a story in itself. Chinese language is imagery-​based, unlike English, because it is full of ideographs, using concrete images to express abstract ideas. I feel like, in general, when I translate from English to Chinese, I have this sort of “cultural confidence”, due to my native cultural confidence. (XY-​F-​4) Regarding XY-​F-​4’s learning and use of English associated with her translation work, I asked whether she felt that she had improved her English through translating. She responded: I feel like I don’t use English much. I feel that living in an English-​speaking country, my strength does not lie in my English, but my culture, my native culture. I’d rather write in Chinese, while downplaying the English language. I would use more English in China than here in Australia, as I would write in English professionally at work in China, but here I do not have to. Australia is a multilingual and multicultural society. As an individual, I don’t have to use a lot of English here. My strength lies in my Chinese culture. Chinese culture promotes the idea of multiplicity (多元 duoyuan) and co-​existence (共生 gongsheng), and harmony in diversity (和而不同 he er butong). Chinese culture is like a net, not a line or linear. I wouldn’t be restricted by language, and I’d rather move beyond language and focus more on culture. (XY-​F-​4) It can be summarised that participant XY-​F-​4 started learning English in the 1980s because she wanted to “see the world”. She wasn’t very confident with her English when she learned it in the university, and she developed her competence in English mostly through her professional work as a journalist in an English radio programme in China. Her later overseas experience in Australia has enabled her to realise that the strength of Chinese speakers of English does not lie in their English language, but their own Chinese culture. “It is the Chinese culture that we draw our confidence from”. Therefore, it makes sense to rectify the importance of the Chinese ti or essence when using English, rather than transform our own habitus to that of other speakers of the

214  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives so-​called “native” varieties of English, such as British English and American English. WG-​M-​4 recounts the popularity of English in China in the mid-​1990s when it was time for him to choose his majors for university. He chose English as his first preference, but he wasn’t admitted to the department or programme of his first preference, as the entry requirement was “unexpectedly high” in 1995. WG-​M-​4 was interested in learning English partly because he enjoyed listening to the radio programme “Nestle Coffee Music Time”, co-​hosted by a Chinese and a Scot in English. WG-​M-​4 realises that “the shift from exam English to ‘real’ English was a process”. Chinese speakers of English tend to know that their English learning is exam oriented, and that it is not necessarily “real” English, or life-​world English. To adopt Bourdieu’s “life-​world” and “system-​world” dichotomy (Robbins, 2005, p. 14), the English WG-​M-​4 learned was about the “system-​world” of the English language, and what he has experienced with the language in the real world from a yong perspective is about transitioning from the system-​world to the life-​world in the English-​ speaking world. Such a transition enables WG-​M-​4 to draw on the various forms of capital associated with his own habitus and the English language itself. When I was in high school, I enjoyed listening to the radio. One of the programs was “Nestle Coffee Music Time” (雀巢咖啡音乐时间). The two hosts were a local and a Scot. The local was a graduate of Huadong (East China) University of Science and Technology. Her English was very good. So the program impressed me a lot. I wanted to get enrolled in the major where the host graduated. Although I wasn’t admitted to this major in 1995, I had the opportunity to major in administrative management, which was affiliated to Cultural Research Institute (文化研究所). I actually learned a lot, including literature, administration and philosophy. My English was good, as I had a solid foundation. However, after graduation, my first job didn’t require much use of English, so my English proficiency dropped. After my first job, I decided to work in academia, so I wanted to further my studies in the United States or Australia. I eventually came to Australia. For the first year in Australia, I was very eager to improve my English. The shift from exam English to real English was a process. I’ve taken some strategies, for example, not sharing a house with Chinese, but with local English speakers. I would listen to radio broadcasts and interact with colleagues and fellow classmates in English. There was also a weekly English Connect program on campus, so there was an hour of English conversation with other people every week. I would come to Uni every day to interact with people. After a whole year of working on the English language, I started focusing on my research. (WG-​M-​4)

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  215 WG-​ M-​ 4 adopts strategies to learn and improve his English, including 1) socialising with local English speakers (while studying overseas); 2) listening to English radio broadcasts and participating in the weekly English Connect programme on campus; 3) integrating English learning with leisure time activities, such as watching English movies, and academic research, as WG-​M-​ 4 regards English as a major global language with its embedded economic, social, cultural and symbolic capital, and it has a “global reach”. I’d like to share with you something about my tips regarding learning and use of English. I’d call it “yi ji san chi” (one chicken, three ways of cooking or eating). You all know that we’re all very busy, and time is very precious. One cannot always work, non-​stop, otherwise, he or she would collapse. So, my leisure activities were watching films or American dramas. Watching English films is my exclusive leisure activity, and I feel relaxed, and in the meantime, I’ve also listened to English. I would strengthen my listening ability. The third way of cooking or eating is to express or reflect it in my academic research work. English is a major language. Like Slavoj Zizek, I’d like to watch English blockbuster movies, like Forest Gump, Minority Report, and other Hollywood movies, as they have a large audience. So, when I touch upon those movies as examples in my research, I find them relevant and insightful. English is a major language, so English movies have a global impact, as English itself has a global reach. So, my academic research, my English language practice and my entertainment are integrated in my daily life. So, watching English movies has been my habit and an effective way of enhancing my English ability and my academic research. (WG-​M-​4) This narrative of WG-​M-​4 shows that he is strategic about capitalising the cultural capital of English movies for the development of his personal and professional habitus in the field of English language and culture, in relation to his own ti (essence) and the yong (utility) of English in his life-​world, including his personal pastimes, academic research and professional work. The use of English for WG-​M-​4 is primarily work related, and he has mixed feelings about the English language. He said: “I have been using my English to the best of my capacity. English means a treasure but also a burden to me”. Regarding the use of English, you know that our universities are internationalised, so my first work assignment after I came back to China from Australia was closely related to English. That is to start an English journal. The university took me as an interdisciplinary talent. I’m currently the editor of the English edition of a journal of my university. … I’m also teaching courses in English in a joint-​program with a university in New York, for example, “Contemporary Philosophical Thoughts”. All the courses were in English. In addition, we also run a postgraduate

216  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives program open to English-​speaking world, so, I also supervise English-​ speaking Masters and doctoral students. These foreign students are also demanding, so I need to read and comment on their research writings etc. I have been using my English to the best of my capacity. English means a treasure but also a burden to me. (WG-​M-​4) WG-​M-​4 does not feel that he has “language barriers” in terms of expressing Chinese thoughts in English, because he thinks that “China has the soft power, and China has already been an indispensable part of the world. Whatever happens in China is related to the world, so corresponding English expressions of Chinese events arise naturally.” When I asked him whether he feels any “double-​difficulties” because he has to teach in English about Chinese thoughts, and whether he thinks he may use some Chinese English, he responded by saying that: I feel okay. Personally, I think I have no language barriers in terms of expressing Chinese thoughts in English, as China has the soft power, and China has already been an indispensable part of the English-​ speaking world. Whatever happens in China is relevant to the world, so corresponding English expressions of Chinese events arise naturally. (WG-​M-​4) Even though to WG-​M-​4 there may not be “language barriers” for expressing Chinese thoughts in English, as he has mentioned, there are indeed differences in “style” between Chinese and English, particularly in academic writing, and these style differences can be related to rhetorical traditions in the process of translating Chinese texts into English. However, in academic writing, sometimes when I translate directly from Chinese into English, it feels weird. Our use of metaphors, analogies, allusions or parallel expressions can be misunderstood by English speaking people, or misinterpreted as not constituting reasoning, argument or logic. Our genre can be mistaken as “non-​academic” from a Western perspective, as English has main clauses and subordinate clauses. Therefore, I sometimes have my academic work written in English, so that my work can resonate with a wider audience. (WG-​M-​4) WG-​M-​4’s narrative shows that his linguistic competence and cultural confidence are derived from his intricate relationships with the English language, from his favourite English radio programme, to his aspiration to major in English, to his determination to further his studies in an English-​speaking country. He has been using or capitalising on English, i.e., the yong aspect

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  217 of English, in Chinese and overseas contexts confidently in his daily life and academia in relation to his habitus, ti or essence, and field, due to his deep understanding of the two languages and cultural systems and academic traditions. The narratives derived from the focus group interview with XY-​F-​4 and WG-​M-​4 show that, as far as XY-​F-​4 is concerned, English is an “essential skill”, and it is a “global lingua franca”. It enables XY-​F-​4 to become connected with the outside world and to achieve her “ideals of seeing the world” and pursuing a career in journalism. To XY-​F-​4, the yong of English becomes apparent, and it serves multiple functions, but above all, it opens up a new world, both literary, via reading the Knights of the Round Table, Love Story and Jane Eyre, and professional for employment and career development. The narratives of XY-​F-​4 also show that the transition from English learning to the use of English may not always be apparent, as Chinese users of English seem to always attempt to “improve” their English, even in their workplace. In addition, the change of field or society, from China to Australia, has enabled XY-​F-​4 to overcome her “fear” of not speaking perfectly “native” English, as she has realised that her confidence comes from her Chinese culture, in that “our strength does not lie in the English language, but the Chinese culture”. To XY-​F-​4, the Chinese culture is embodied in the ti of Chinese speakers of English, and English language represents the yong of English. As far as WG-​M-​4 is concerned, the popularity of English in China in the 1990s had an impact on his disposition or choice of university major and his career development. This shows how the concept of field may influence one’s habitus and perceptions of capital, as well as ti and yong, of English in Chinese societies as far as individuals are involved. WG-​M-​4’s exposure to English was not limited to classrooms but also included media broadcasts, such as music and English radio programmes. He has been consciously developing strategies for improving his English, e.g., socialising with local English speakers while studying overseas and listening to English radio broadcasts. This shows that he is aware of the social and cultural capital associated with the use, or yong, of English. WG-​M-​4 also integrates English learning into his leisure time activities, such as watching English movies, and conducting academic research, as he regards English as a major global language, and it has a “global reach”. According to WG-​M-​4, Chinese English develops naturally because “whatever happens in China is relevant to the world”. However, he also holds the view that “language transfer between Chinese and English is not seamless, and it involves ‘damage’ in terms of reduction or addition of meanings”. In summary, the narratives of XY-​F-​4 and WG-​M-​4 provide insights for our understanding of how English can be learned and used by Chinese speakers and what functions English serves in the personal and professional lives of Chinese speakers in their changing life-​worlds.

218  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives “It’s natural and normal to learn English, because our country is part of the global village now” (EQ-​M-​5) EQ-​M-​5 is a professional journalist working in Beijing in one of the biggest Chinese government-​ run TV networks. It is also a global network with English as its main working language. EQ-​M-​5 started learning English in the late 1970s when China was opening up to the outside world in one of the Foreign Languages Schools directly under the Education Commission of China. At university, he majored in British and American Literature with a specialisation in international news and media studies. After graduation, he joined the English channel of China Central Television in 1988. Our interview took place in a café near his workplace in July 2018. EQ-​M-​5 is an exceptional case in terms of learning English in China, because he started learning English much earlier than his peers, in the late 1970s. EQ-​M-​5: 

We started learning English when we were in primary two, and it was relatively earlier than my peers across the country. I was the class English rep (英语课代表), so I was recommended by my teacher to sit the exams for the Foreign Languages School, among altogether 40 students from the district. It was one of the six or eight foreign languages schools directly under the Education Commission of China. The textbooks that we used were self-​compiled by one of our Chinese teachers. They were different from all other textbooks used elsewhere in China. He was educated in missionary schools. The books were mimeograph machine printed. He said they were compiled by him, and for the first two years, we used them for learning English. These books must be returned after two years of internal use. From the very beginning, I didn’t feel bored with English learning. It was to do with the teacher, because he didn’t ask us to do rote learning. He compiled his own English textbooks, which contained a lot of English nursery rhymes, some of which were very familiar, such as 伦 敦着火了, London’s burning, London’s burning (singing). The teacher was an old lady, and I was very impressed. She composed a lot of nursery rhymes, making us become interested in English. We didn’t think too much about whether we would make a living with English, or make a profession out of it. We simply had fun with it, and we felt learning English was interesting. I think interest is very important. R:  Was it in the 1970s? EQ-​M-​5:  It was 1978. We could learn English very quickly because the teacher had passed on her decades of experience to us. The learning and teaching were very targeted, unlike those “popular” textbooks that were used. R:  What about contents? Were they about cultures? EQ-​M-​5: They were about fundamentals or basics, about pronunciation, vocabulary, how to memorize English words, how to develop a sense or an intuitive feel of the language (语感), and the very basic stuff. We later

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  219 continued to learn English. After that, when I went to university, I majored in British and American Literature, and we focused on international news later. We had foreign teachers (外教, waijiao) who would teach us international news. Later we preferred media studies, and became media professionals. It was 1987, when the English news channel of CCTV was established, and it was in the following year, I joined this channel. In the 1970s and 1980s, English learning was indeed associated with a profession, but now perhaps it isn’t so much so. It is more like learning English plus another profession. Before, English was a pure major or profession. I think learning English was closely related to China’s overall development as well. Now English still plays a role but it isn’t as significant as it was before. Learning English, I think it could broaden one’s mind, and get to know the outside world. I think it’s very important. EQ-​M-​5’s experience of learning English has laid a solid foundation for him to take English-​related work as part of his career or professional development. This is also largely related to the ideologies in the 1980s and 1990s that English meant a promising profession in China, and English was associated with capital both for individual English learners and for the country as a whole. When I asked how we Chinese could express our cultural concepts, for example, Chinese lunar new year and Chinese zodiac animals, EQ-​M-​5 responded by saying: In the past, people would translate them directly into English, for example Chunjie is Spring Festival, and when foreigners don’t understand, we’d need to explain them. Now such concepts have gradually been accepted, for example, hukou. If you translate hukou, you may have to explain it in detail, for example, Chinese household registration system, but now, gradually, if you say hukou, some English speakers may have already known it, if they are familiar with China. And others, such as Dama, Tuhao, and they have been selected as entries for the Oxford English Dictionary. In such cases, we do not have to explain them. The acceptance takes a process. Some Chinese specific things could be better transliterated (用原 话) than translated. You could explain them, but when they have known them, you don’t have to explain them anymore. (EQ-​M-​5) EQ-​M-​5’s response here relates to the soft power statement made by WG-​M-​ 4 regarding Chinese culture and confidence. It also reflects the worldliness of world Englishes, with Chinese English as an integral part of the field. When I asked EQ-​M-​5 where his confidence in using English came from, he said: In terms of one’s self-​confidence, I think it does not have much to do with one’s language. Whatever language you speak, Arabic, English, or French, what matters the most is that it must be about your national

220  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives or ethnic essence, and it must have its national culture as its foundation （最主要的是你必须要有民族的东西，你要有民族的文化的根基). As a matter of fact, Chinese culture is deep and broad (博大精深), having developed over five thousand years. Even if you’ve grasped just some surface of it, you’ve got the first step on your way to confidence. Linguistic confidence comes from our national culture. You identify with your own national culture, you think it is excellent, and you’ve learned its essence, in such a case, in whatever language, you can express its beauty and your own confidence. I think this is very important, because language is a medium, and if you have the essence, the medium, whatever it is, may not matter that much. To put it simply, why are you confident? Because you well and truly understand, not necessarily very deeply, Chinese culture, and you love it, and identify with it, and you are a true Chinese, then you have your confidence (为什么你自信，因为你是一个地道的、真正 的，了解一些中国文化的，太深的也不用完全了解、完全掌握，但是 你对它热爱，你认同这个民族的，你认为自己是一个真正的中国人， 你的自信就有了). When you know all of these, and when you become very confident, you can use the most beautiful language, whatever it is, be it English or any other foreign languages, how you can use it more efficiently and effectively. But you have to have the contents, or the essence, even if you have the most beautiful language, you have to have something, some essence to express. (EQ-​M-​5) The interesting point that EQ-​M-​5 makes here is that one’s confidence in using English, or whatever language for that matter, is related to one’s identification of one’s culture or the essence, i.e., ti, of that culture. So, one’s habitus and cultural capital play a significant role in one’s use or yong of a language both competently and confidently. We often stay in touch with foreigners, and when we live overseas, we stay in touch even more. There’s a lot to talk about … about astronomy and geography, customs and conventions, history and culture (天文地 理，风土人情，历史文化), Chinese simply have a lot to talk about and share. We have a history of over five thousand years, so our history, our experiences and lessons, good or bad, our developments since the reform and opening up, our successes, or even our failures, all of these can be the source of our confidence. Many international discussions and forums involve China, so China is no doubt connected to the world. China has a significant influence on the world as well. (EQ-​M-​5) EQ-​M-​5’s narratives also touch upon the notion of capital, e.g., economic capital in language use and the “soft power” as symbolic capital, and “Confucianism” as the cultural capital.

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  221 Yes, economy has a lot to do with language use. It’s really about Chinese economy. Now many Chinese enterprises have gone overseas, and there is this “going overseas” strategy. Many countries are interested in Chinese economy and Chinese culture. There are many overseas students studying in China, and the number is up to 500,000 to 600,000. Some are interested in Chinese language and culture, and others feel the need to learn Chinese, because of the power of Chinese economy and the so-​called soft power. Chinese Confucianism may lead the cultural education across the world. Confucianism is part of the soft power. Chinese economy is also influenced by Confucianism. With the development of Chinese economy and the widespread revival of Chinese culture, our Chinese language, including Chinglish and Chinese English as you mentioned, would be more and more accepted. Some terms that Chinese use when they speak English will gradually be known and understood by a wider world. Among new entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, many are originated from China. (EQ-​M-​5) EQ-​ M-​ 5 and I have talked about our impressions of how normative and standard Chinese people’s English is, and how it is aligned with the original or the “standard” of English internationally. This shows that Chinese ti and yong contribute to and complement the field of the English-​ speaking world. EQ-​M-​5:  When

it comes to the international stage in terms of communicating with foreigners, my impression is that, many people accept Chinese English and they understand us. Our accents and pronunciations are acceptable and normative to a large extent. Some Chinese haven’t gone abroad, but their English is relatively standard, and even colloquial. Chinese are good at mimicking, and we have a natural talent in language. Such a talent in language is similar in our economic capacity. We mimic first and then re-​create. Some of my classmates, their English is relatively standard, compared with a lot of Southeast Asians. Our English is close to the original, or the standard. R:  This may have something to do with Confucianism, such as 名正言顺 (rectifying name and language is rectified). We also have 非礼勿视，非礼勿 听，非礼勿言，非礼勿动 (do not see what is not righteous, do not hear what is not righteous, do not say what is not righteous, and do not do what is not righteous). What we say by “righteous” is what is very normative, or what is right, so we respect and honour what is normative, and what is common. In terms of the transition from English learning to the use of English by Chinese speakers, I asked EQ-​M-​5 about the Chinese English learner’s mentality, e.g., the assumption that we learn English in order to use it in the future,

222  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives or when we go abroad or live overseas. “Do you think people have somewhat changed such a mentality?”, I asked. EQ-​M-​5 responded: Yes, I think a lot has changed. Previously when we learned English, we did it for the future profession. Our country needed it. Now, there are many people who know English. The primary reasons for learning English are not simply for speaking to foreigners or going abroad, although many people still learn English for such reasons. Many people now believe that it’s essential or a necessity to learn English. Learning English is part of their daily routine now, and it is normalised. It’s natural and normal to learn English, because our country is part of the global village now. Learning English is not something different or unique. Learning English is a normal activity. And it is not exclusively for the future or for going abroad. There are many circumstances where English is domestically used, such as in different media. It may not be that important whether there are foreigners around or involved. It’s an era of information. Self-​media have been going global. E-​commerce also requires English. For example, we visit local villages and each of them has an office of “e-​commerce”. Villagers can sell their products directly to consumers or buyers from different parts of the world. Those villagers may not encounter any foreigners. They may not come to big cities or go abroad. But they know that they have to make their products known in English so that their products sell well and widely. So it is very common for people to make use of English, and it is an integral part of their life now. (EQ-​M-​5) This narrative of EQ-​M-​5 shows that Chinese ti and the habitus of Chinese speakers of English are dynamic concepts. They change and evolve, and the current identity of Chinese speakers involves English as part of their daily routine and translanguaging practice. So, it may be said that Chinese essence as ti and Western learning as yong have become more integrated in contemporary China in the light of globalisation. China is an integral part of the field of the English-​speaking world, and English is not just used in relation to its yong aspect or its utility in the Chinese context, but has become an essential part of Chinese ti or essence, i.e., the Chineseness in the worldliness of world Englishes. On that note, I asked EQ-​M-​5 about his views on the process of “localisation” of English in Chinese contexts. R:  That

means English has entered into people’s lives, and English has been normalised in our daily life. However, English, nevertheless, is a foreign language, and it is not originally a local means of communication, do you think that there is a process of “localization” of English? Do you think we should rationalise and legalise the process of localisation so that localised English can be more and more accepted? Some Chinese people still think that we should learn the most colloquial or standard English, or pure

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  223 British English or pure American English. However, when English is localised, there can be some degree of denationalisation, that is, to get rid of some Englishness and Americanness in the language, so that English can enter into our Chinese people’s lives more naturally, smoothly and normally? Do you think people should realise and accept such a view? EQ-​M-​5:  I think we should look at this more objectively or critically. We may have to look at this case by case, or according to the real circumstances. For example, if we learn English in order to communicate with British people or the Americans, we should learn British English or American English. However, if we learn English and use it among our Chinese, then I think we should accept Chinese English in whatever shapes and forms, because we can understand, and we even think it is very interesting and colloquial. For example, when we say 好好学习, 天天向上，we’d say Good Good Study, Day Day Up. Then everybody understands, and they realise that English can be used like this in our own context. It is fun, isn’t it? I also think it depends on the circumstances and the people you interact with. We should know how to shift between the standardised English and localised English. For example, if we communicate with Americans, and if we use very localised English, they would have difficulties understanding us. So, we may have to be flexible and the goal is to communicate effectively and efficiently. Unless you’re a linguist or a writer, using pure standard English may not be that crucial, because the ultimate goal of language is communication. As long as they understand us, even if we may have a few grammatical mistakes, however, we may still actively engage in communication, and we can manage to understand each other. This is the most important. We can do business, and we can talk about politics. We may not speak very normalised or standard English, but we can understand. This narrative by EQ-​M-​5 shows the yong aspect of Chinese perspectives towards the use of Chinese English, and his views on the localisation of English in Chinese contexts. In this case, the ti and habitus of Chinese users of English can be adjusted so as to fulfil the function of communication in English. In summary, EQ-​M-​5 associates English closely with his profession as a journalist and TV programme producer. This association is shared also by XY-​F-​4 and WG-​M-​4, as evidenced earlier. To EQ-​M-​5, learning English can broaden his mind and help him get to know the outside world, or an extension of his own life-​world. One of the reasons put forward by EQ-​M-​5 was that “the few major languages used for the United Nations include English and Chinese. To many nations, English is the most frequently used language. English can facilitate communication”. EQ-​M-​5 thinks that social development plays a role in English learning: “I think learning English was closely related to China’s overall development”. Like XY-​F-​4, EQ-​M-​5 also holds the view that the confidence of Chinese speakers of English may not have much to do with their language but is, rather, about their national or ethnic essence,

224  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives or Chinese ti, and it must have the national and ethnic culture as its foundation. According to EQ-​M-​5, “China has its gene”. This is closely related to the essence or ti of being Chinese and the cultural confidence of Chinese speakers of English. EQ-​M-​5’s views, such as “economy has a lot to do with language use” and “English is one of the mainstream languages, because English used to be the language of economically developed countries”, reflect the intricate relationships among habitus, capital and field associated with the use of English (or yong) in China and the ti (or essence) of Chinese speakers of English. In a sense, the use of English by Chinese represents the “soft power” of China, and according to EQ-​M-​5, “many people now believe that it’s essential or a necessity to learn English”, and English is used for “local communication”, i.e., for intra-​cultural communication. “We use English not necessarily for travelling overseas or talking to foreigners”. In addition, EQ-​ M-​5 suggests that we should look at Chinese English more objectively. If we learn English in order to communicate with British people or the Americans, we should learn British English or American English. However, if we learn English and use it among our Chinese, then I think we should accept Chinese English in whatever shapes and forms, because we can understand, and we even think it is very interesting and colloquial. “I believe that Chinese English is a variety of English” (WD-​F-​4) WD-​F-​4 is a professor in the English department of a prestigious university in Beijing. She teaches English primarily to postgraduate students from both science and engineering faculties and the arts and humanities faculty, in other words, science and engineering major students and English and linguistics major students. The interview took place in a Chinese dumplings restaurant in Beijing on 9 July 2014, when I visited Beijing for research and fieldwork activities. When I asked how WD-​F-​4 started learning English and what she had learned, she responded: I learned English in class as a subject, and it was taught by Chinese teachers in my Junior high school. The textbooks were about words and sentence patterns, and there were drills throughout the books. I remember that there’s one text about Karl Marx, and we were asked to learn it by heart. So, we did a lot of rote learning, and we did a lot of drills or exercises. (WD-​F-​4) English language teaching and learning reflect the socio-​cultural developments of Chinese society; e.g., Karl Marx represented socialism and Chinese social ideologies at the time in China. When WD-​F-​4 started learning English in the 1980s, English was taught through grammar-​translation, and rote learning, which had traditionally been the main method for learning Chinese, was

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  225 adopted. WD-​F-​4 “fell in love with English”, and she enjoyed learning the foreign language due to her specific habitus, involving her English teacher being a colleague of her mum at school, and her good performance and achievement in this school subject, i.e., doing “all the exercises correctly”. I liked English, and my English teacher liked me too, as she’s also a colleague of my Mum in the school. I could do all the exercises correctly, and I fell in love with English. At university, I majored in American and British literature. Most of the foreign teachers were from the United States, and they taught us listening and speaking. They also taught us literary studies, and cultural studies. They taught us in English, but Chinese English teachers taught us in bilingual Chinese and English. (WD-​F-​4) English language learning at the university level, as far as English major students are concerned, involves learning English as a language, as well as literary and cultural studies. English is taught by both foreign teachers, normally native speakers from the UK and the US, and Chinese English bilingual teachers. Then I had my graduate study in teacher education and applied linguistics at my current university in 1987. English was very popular back then. When I learned English, I would always associate English with British and American cultures. I don’t think I would associate English with Chinese culture, or Thai, Japanese, or Vietnamese cultures. One of the reasons of me learning English is to become a teacher, or to communicate with English speakers. English is a tool to me. I also use it in my daily life often. (WD-​F-​4) WD-​F-​4 chose to learn English because English was popular in the 1980s in China, and she also wanted to become an English teacher and to communicate with English speakers. This coincides with the views of XY-​F-​4, WG-​ M-​4 and EQ-​M-​5, in that English learning was directly linked to their career and professional development. It is interesting to note that WD-​F-​4 did not associate English with her Chinese culture, or any cultures other than that of the English-​speaking countries. Her view of “English is a tool to me” shows the Chinese belief in Chinese learning as ti (essence) and Western learning as yong (utility). One of the benefits of using English is that I can know more about English speaking countries, for example, the US and the UK. I can know more about the cultures in English speaking countries. I can access Western culture. By “Western culture”, I mean British and American, not necessarily German or French. I focus on Western culture, not much Chinese

226  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives culture in my classroom. However, in the last few years, I have developed some increasing awareness of Chinese cultures in English. I’ve read some of the relevant literature regarding world Englishes. My understanding of Chinese English is that it is the English used by Chinese speakers. I believe that Chinese English is a variety of English. (WD-​F-​4) WD-​F-​4’s awareness of Chinese ti (or essence) has been evolving due to her increasing exposure to and knowledge of world Englishes. She has also developed an increasing awareness of Chinese English as a variety of English. This stands in contrast to her earlier views that English was merely a tool, as she used to associate English exclusively with British and American cultures. Her reading of relevant literature in world Englishes has helped her expand her awareness of the ti (essence) of Chinese speakers of English, and she manages to apply her knowledge of world Englishes to the specific field of her English classroom. In addition, she has also been exposed to world Englishes in the real world. When I went to Bali Indonesia last year, we had a driver, but he had very little training in English. He obviously spoke English, but he didn’t follow much grammar, so I didn’t follow much grammar either as long as the ideas were conveyed and we could understand each other. But when I spoke to native speakers, I would follow grammar strictly. When I was in the UK for the first week, I didn’t quite understand their English. When I went to Scotland, I found that they spoke English with a very different accent. (WD-​F-​4) WD-​F-​4’s overseas experience has broadened her experience and understanding of world Englishes, and she started noticing issues of intelligibility, comprehensibility and identity involved with speakers of different varieties of English, including Indonesian English and native speaker Englishes, such as British English and Scottish English. In this case, WD-​F-​4’s authentic experiences in the “field” of the English-​speaking world and the literature of world Englishes have expanded her habitus and perspectives. As a proficient and professional bilingual speaker of Chinese and English, WD-​F-​4 believes that both Chinese and English are gaining increasing popularity. In her own words, “in the future, English is still a lingua franca, and Chinese will be popular too. They will probably be the two major international languages. I’m very positive about the future of Chinese and English”. The popularity of English back in the late 1980s, as well as the common belief that English is associated with British and American cultures, has motivated millions of Chinese to learn English and pursue a profession of English-​related career options. Learning English is also a way to acquire new

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  227 cultural capital; in this case, capital associated with English-​speaking cultures. WD-​F-​4 mentions explicitly: One of the benefits of using English is that I can know more about English speaking countries, for example, the US and the UK. I can know more about the cultures in English speaking countries. I can access Western culture. In the meantime, WD-​F-​4 has also developed an increasing awareness of Chinese cultures in English due to her knowledge and first-​hand experiences of world Englishes. What is interesting is that she has changed from associating English with the UK and the US exclusively to her awareness and belief that “Chinese English is a variety of English”. Again, this shows the dynamic nature of the pentagram framework among Chinese speakers of English regarding their ti, yong, habitus, as well as capital and field associated with their use of English in the Chinese context. “And now, English is what I need to live and to make a living” (YJ-​F-​3) YJ-​F-​3 was the director of the English department in a university in an East China provincial city, and she was a visiting scholar in Australia for six months in 2018. We had the interview in my office in July 2018 before she left for China. YJ-​F-​3 started learning English in Grade 7, i.e., at middle school. English was taught by Chinese English teachers, and she “didn’t have foreign teachers until university time”. Unlike EQ-​M-​5, YJ-​F-​3’s English textbooks in her middle schools for both junior and senior grades were “almost universal, or unified versions all over China”; e.g., the English textbooks of renjiaoban (People’s Education Press edition) were used all over China in the 1990s. Regarding extracurricular class English learning materials, YJ-​ F-​ 3 mentioned New Concept English, which has been popular in China since the 1980s, or even earlier, till the present. YJ-​F-​3: 

New Concept English is still very popular in China, among young students and adult students. A lot of training institutions are still using it. I myself also use this to teach my son. R:  Is that because people think that this is “original” English? YJ-​F-​3:  Yes, and it’s classical and original. R:  Yes, it’s classical, and it’s original, and it’s zhengzong (正宗, authentic), and it’s also colloquial. The interaction here between YJ-​F-​3 and me shows that traditionally, Chinese speakers would not associate our Chinese ti and cultural capital with the English language. What is authentic about English is the “original”, “classical” and “colloquial” nature of English associated with the English-​speaking

228  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives world. This is aligned with the deep-​rooted belief of Chinese learning as ti and Western learning as yong. Regarding the textbooks used currently in China, YJ-​F-​3 is aware of the mixed nature of the cultural content. This shows that the field of English learning and teaching has been changing, and now Chinese culture and other “foreign cultures”, in YJ-​F-​3’s words, are also an integral part of the English textbooks in China. This may inadvertently give rise to the changing habitus and their perceptions of Chinese ti associated with the yong of English by Chinese learners and users of English. I know the textbooks used currently, because I’m using the middle school textbooks to teach my son. The textbooks … they have conversations, they have grammar, and they have reading passages. In the readings, they do have passages to introduce China, like Chinese festivals, and Chinese traditions. And they also have passages about foreign cultures. (YJ-​F-​3) YJ-​F-​3 learned English herself in a “traditional way” while she was in her junior and senior middle schools. However, while studying English as an English major student in university, YJ-​F-​3 engaged in a wide range of activities, such as reading English newspapers, listening to or watching English news, and talking with foreigners, all of which paved the foundation for a smooth transition from her learning English to her use of English in personal and professional contexts both in China and overseas. I think before university, I learned English almost in class from teachers. We had a lot of exercises, and tests, in a traditional way, but after graduating from high school, I started learning English as an English major student. Apart from attending lectures, we were encouraged to read, listen, speak and write as much as possible. So, I started reading English newspapers, listening to or watching English news, and talking with foreigners, and acquiring English in many other ways. (YJ-​F-​3) Recalling her actual use or yong of English, YJ-​F-​3 shared a story of her time at university: When I was in the first year or the second year at university, one of our foreign teachers had some friends coming to China from Australia, about four or five of her friends, and she invited some students, me and my classmates to join them. So we took them around the city and made friends with them, and we were together for about three to four days. One of her friends’ name is Jane. After Jane went back to Australia, we wrote letters and emails, for at least maybe two or three years, and altogether, we had about forty or fifty mails between us. (YJ-​F-​3)

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  229 From the narrative of YJ-​F-​3, we see not only the transition of YJ-​F-​3 from a learner of English to a competent user of English, but also the expansion of her “field” of English learning and use internationally. English serves as cultural capital and social capital as far as YJ-​F-​3 is concerned in her interactions with her Australian friends for intercultural exchanges. In addition, YJ-​F-​3 also uses English professionally for her work, as she currently teaches English at a university in China. I’m an English teacher, so I use English when I work, and I’m also tutoring in the English debating centre, so I use English for debate training and practice, and I was teaching my son English when he was at the age of four or five. I started using English to speak to him. So, I also use English at home. And I have many English-​speaking friends, because I’ve been to the United States, the UK, and also Australia, so I’ve got a lot of friends in other countries, who speak English, so I use English to communicate with them. I also use the Internet and access English contents, for example, reading English news, and preparing for the materials that I would use in my teaching. (YJ-​F-​3) This narrative by YJ-​F-​3 shows the expanding functionality of English by a professional user of English in China. This reflects the Western learning as yong (utility) and how this yong may interact with her Chinese ti or essence and habitus in the field, both physically in China and other countries, and also virtually on the Internet. During the interview, I also asked YJ-​F-​3 what English meant to her and whether her perceptions of English had changed over the years. She responded: When I was young, English was a school subject, just like Maths and Physics. So I had to study it well. Later English became a tool to me, so I could use it to communicate with others. And now, English is what I need to live and to make a living [laugh]. If I don’t know English, I lose my job! [laugh] (YJ-​F-​3) This narrative by YJ-​F-​3 shows the changing relationship between her life-​ world and the English system-​ world. This changing relationship reflects the changing Chinese society and the dynamic nature of Chinese ti and the yong of English in the Chinese context, as well as the dynamic nature of habitus, capital and field associated with Chinese speakers of English and their learning and use of English. In summary, YJ-​F-​3 is more aware of the textbooks that are used in China for English learning and teaching. According to YJ-​F-​3, English teachers and learners in China prefer “original” or “classical” textbooks, e.g., New Concept English. She is also aware that the current English textbooks in China have a mixture of Chinese cultures and

230  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives foreign cultures. In terms of the actual use or yong of English, YJ-​F-​3 has mentioned the following circumstances, including 1) at work; 2) tutoring in the English debating centre; 3) home use, teaching her son; 4) communicating with English-​speaking friends; 5) surfing on the Internet, i.e., “reading English news, preparing for the materials that I would use in my teaching”; and 6) international events and visits, such as attending international conferences and visiting English-​speaking countries. In addition, YJ-​F-​3’s perceptions of English have changed over time, as evidenced in YJ-​F-​3’s narrative regarding what English meant to her. YJ-​F-​3 is also aware of world Englishes, as she said during the interview: “In this globalised world, different versions or different varieties of English, they tend to influence one another”. “For international communication, we’d speak standard English, or more internationally common English” (EL-​F-​3) and “English helps us open our eyes, or broaden our horizon” (YX-​F-​2) EL-​F-​3 is a lecturer in the foreign languages department at a university in China, and at the time of the interview in 2015, she was a visiting scholar in Melbourne. She was in her mid-​thirties. YX-​F-​2 was an exchange student in her early or mid-​twenties. Both of them audited one of my English as an international language (EIL) units during one semester at Monash University. The interview took place in my office, towards the end of the first semester in 2015, and it was a focus group interview. As far as EL-​ F-​ 3 is concerned, English is important because “it’s associated with academia and high science and technology, popular culture and tourism”. EL-​F-​3’s understanding of English learning is aligned with a translanguaging perspective, as she says: “I think learning English is additive, not subtractive. For example, when I learn English as a skill, it’s not weakening my other skills”. Since the unit that EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 audited was about English as an international language and the globalisation of English, they were aware of world Englishes, so I asked a question regarding their preference for English varieties. R: What

English do you prefer to learn? Previously it’s a simple question: British English or American English? Now it’s a little bit more complicated. EL-​F-​3:  I think, many people, for example Indian speakers of English, their English can be difficult to understand. I think when we first learn English, there needs to be some fundamental standards, e.g., a blend of British English and American English. Later, when we go to universities, we can twist them and bend them. Like cooking, we have to make the rice cooked, and then we can cook it well. For domestic communication, like in India, Indian English is fine, but for international communication, we’d speak standard English, or more internationally common English. R:  I think we Chinese understand this very well. We’d always know when to speak Putonghua, and when to switch to dialects. Like me myself, when I

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  231 speak to someone from my hometown, I’d choose to sound like a dialect speaker, but when someone else joins us, we’d switch to Putonghua. It’s the same as Indian speakers. They may speak Indian English among two Indian speakers, but they may switch to more intelligible English when other speakers join them. EL-​F-​3:  Yes, not all of us speak standard Putonghua, but we all manage to understand one another, so we Chinese are indeed good at the switch between Putonghua and dialects and also between accented Putonghua and more standard Putonghua. The dialogue between me and EL-​F-​3 here shows that dialect or variety speakers have the natural instinct to “switch” between accented speech and more common or standard speech depending on the context of interaction. This natural instinct again shows the dynamic nature of people’s habitus and ti (essence), and how the tension between intelligibility and identity can be resolved among speakers of world Englishes, in this case, Chinese and Indian speakers of English. EL-​F-​3 prefers “standard English” or “more internationally common English” for international communication, as she is aware that “standard English” helps people understand one another across cultures. However, based on the focus group interview data, it can be observed that YX-​F-​2 associates English with cultures of not only English-​speaking countries but also non-​English-​speaking countries. I think learning English helps us open our eyes, or broaden our horizon. English now is a lingua franca, through English, I do not only know the cultures of English-​speaking countries, but other non-​English speaking countries as well. (YX-​F-​2) YX-​F-​2 makes the interesting point that she prefers British and American pronunciations, but readings by Chinese in English. This has a lot to do with her perception of Chinese ti (or essence) and yong (or utility), as well as field and her cultural capital. As the following interview excerpt shows, EL-​F-​3, YX-​F-​2 and I all prefer to read writings by Chinese authors, as we share “Chinese knowledge” and “cultural background”, and it’s easier for us to understand. We can draw upon our own respective Chinese cultural capital and ti, as well as our own habitus, to understand writings that are contextualised in the field of Chinese culture and tradition in relation to the yong (utility) of our English. YX-​F-​2:  I

think when it comes to phonology, I’d prefer to speak or listen to British or American English, but for writing, I’d prefer to read things written by Chinese in English. EL-​F-​3:  Because the writing is pretty much based on Chinese knowledge. R:  For example, the works of Ha Jin, I’d prefer to read them.

232  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives EL-​F-​3:  Yes,

there’s an issue of cultural background, like Wild Swans. It’s a story about three Chinese women of different generations. It’s easier to understand, as I didn’t have to read word-​for-​word.

EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 also point out that Chinese users of English tend to use English for “pragmatic” reasons, like avoiding sounding “too direct” (e.g., I love you), and avoiding taboo topics, such as sex and sexuality. This shows that English can also be used by Chinese speakers of English to alleviate the tension or conflict between their ti (essence) and yong (utility) due to their cultural traditions, e.g., touching upon taboo topics, swearing and expressing direct emotions, such as “I love you”. R:  In what circumstances would you speak English? EL-​F-​3:  First when I communicate with foreigners; by

foreigners, I mean non-​ Chinese. Secondly, sometimes using Chinese would make me feel too direct, like saying “I love you”. YX-​F-​2:  And some taboo topics, like talking about sex and sexuality. EL-​F-​3:  Or saying some swear words. When I asked EL-​ F-​ 3 and YX-​ F-​ 2 to share some anecdotes or stories regarding their English learning and use, EL-​F-​3 shared her experience of greetings in English: My story is about “how are you?” Actually in China, when we ask “how are you?”, we are actually curious or concerned about how you really are. And the common response is “Fine, or I’m fine, thank you! And you?” So, when I came here, someone asked me “how are you”? My first response was that I had to say fine thank you, and you? So, I would say fine, thank you, how about you? So, when my supervisor passed by my office, he would always ask me “how are you Emily”? The first time, I would say I’m fine, thank you, and the second time, I’d say fine, thank you, and the third time, I’d say fine, thank you. So, when it’s the fifth time, I’d still say fine, thank you, but I’d add a question: why do you always ask me the same question? He responded by asking: should I say have you eaten yet? A month later, he said to me, I’m not too concerned about your health or diet, I’m just saying hello to you. So, I just smiled. I know that. (EL-​F-​3) YX-​F-​2 shared a story that made her reflect on how she learned English. I came here and met a person from Italy. He’s been here for a long time. He used a lot of words that I don’t know. So I would look them up in a dictionary. One time, he used the word bubbly. I didn’t know this word. But when you know this word, it’s exactly like that, many bubbles. I just feel a little kind of sad, because, I’ve never learned English this way. I

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  233 thought about all the multiple-​choice questions I had done most of the time. That’s nothing. That’s not English. That’s not English culture, and I have never known English culture before. I know that a lot of Chinese students are so stressed with English learning, so perhaps we should have some interest in that, and know how to approach English culture, not just a thing for practical use or for our study. (YX-​F-​2) The two stories or anecdotes shared by EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2 show certain issues related to their English learning and their actual use of English across cultures. What they have learned in the classroom context in China could be idealised or even simplified expressions of English that are not authentically used in multicultural realities. Therefore, when they put what they have learned into actual use, they feel confused or “a little kind of sad”, according to YX-​F-​2, because Chinese students are so stressed with English learning, and they have not acquired the language in such a way that they can enact linguistic and cultural practices, such as greeting, in an English-​speaking environment. In summary, to both EL-​F-​3 and YX-​F-​2, the yong aspect of English in authentic intercultural contexts helps them know the cultures not only of English-​speaking countries, but of other non-​English speaking countries as well, because they understand that English is a lingua franca, and learning English helps them open their eyes and broaden their horizon. EL-​F-​3 thinks English is important because it’s associated with the “power of the United States and it’s associated with academia and high science and technology, popular culture and tourism”. In terms of what English to learn, EL-​F-​3 suggests that we should learn “some fundamental standards, e.g., a blend of British English and American English”, whereas YX-​F-​2 prefers to learn “English that can be used to communicate”. The mentality of learning English for “the future” and for “going abroad” still exists, according to EL-​ F-​3. “We shouldn’t impose our own culture on others, and we should respect other’s cultures when using English”, according to YX-​F-​2. “I’m very interested in explaining Chinese culture in English” (TC-​M-​2) TC-​M-​2 was a Chinese PhD candidate in a university in South Africa at the time of the interview. He was born and brought up in Beijing, and studied for his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees and worked in Hong Kong before going to South Africa to pursue his doctorate studies. Our interview took place at the Monash Matheson Library on 14 November 2018. TC-​M-​2 shared with me his very first experience of learning English from his grandma, and he was also fond of his school English teachers, who, according to him, were the “most liberal people in the school”. I think my first teacher was my grandma, who doesn’t speak any English today, but she just decided to teach me, so she picked some English from

234  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives a dictionary, and asked me to copy the letters. Yeah, so she was my first language teacher, or first English teacher. But at schools, in my primary school, I mean, I met very good English teachers. So, in the 90s, China was not that liberal, but my English teacher had blonde hair, and asked us to stand on the desk and shout out English. So, yeah, I very much enjoyed it. I have the feeling that throughout my experience with different teachers, the English teachers were the most liberal people in the school, so I always enjoyed learning from them. (TC-​M-​2) When I asked TC-​M-​2 whether he had any English L1 speakers as teachers, he said he had them “much later in secondary school”. TC-​M-​2:  It

was much later in secondary school, I was in a quite good school, and we had English lessons with native English speakers four times a week, or four lessons a week. Did they help much? Not really. It was still a superficial language class. I don’t think those people were trained to teach English. R:  Were they from the United States, or the Great Britain? TC-​M-​2: Australia, actually. My first foreign language teacher was from Australia, but I think it was more of a show really, like we had a foreign teacher, and we learned with a foreign teacher. It didn’t really help much. In terms of the textbooks for learning English, TC-​M-​2 noticed a transition in the early 2000s from traditional to the “new edition”, which were “original” and “quite interesting”. The first textbooks that we used were very traditional, but it was after the Li Lei, Han Meimei period. So I couldn’t recall what was exactly in the textbooks, but it was a very mechanical way of learning English, like we had text and vocabulary, and grammar, basically, that’s it. I came to high school in 2003, and we used a new edition of the textbook, and it’s still the Renjiao ban (People’s Education Press edition), but it was the new edition. I really enjoyed the textbook. I think the textbooks were even ahead of the teacher training. The textbooks were quite interesting, and the texts were original but the English teachers were still using a very traditional way to teach us. So, it’s still like we highlight the vocabulary items, you know, sentences, and learn their structures. (TC-​M-​2) When I asked TC-​M-​2 when and where he started realising he was a user of English rather than a learner of English, he responded: I definitely remember the moment vividly. I remember it was 2005, one year before I came to the university, it’s been a long time, and during

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  235 those years, I had an experience of going overseas, but it was still a language camp sort of experience. So, I didn’t feel like I was using English, even though I was actually using it. It was in Hong Kong, that year, I came to Hong Kong, just to see the universities, I remember just meeting a total stranger on the bus, and we used the same model of cameras, as she was taking the photos, so I just showed her my camera, and we had a chat, and realised, hey, this is the actual use of English, because outside the classroom, it’s not set up for learning or any other purpose, it’s just a chat, so I remember that very “moment”. And later on, coming to the university, there were more circumstances where I’d use English. (TC-​M-​2) I followed up by asking TC-​M-​2 in what circumstances he would use English. He responded: For communication, I think the academic part is mostly English. And I remember when I was at HKIEd, you know, the Education University of Hong Kong, as it’s called now, the EUHK, there were some courses in Cantonese, so I had to write papers in Chinese, I just, I was very lost. I just couldn’t handle writing academic texts in Chinese. So, that English part was there for the training, yeah, and my academic English is quite, quite up to standard, I think. And also in my daily life, you know, when I travel, go overseas, do my exchange program, or immersion program, and chat to International friends, then I use English. And … teaching. Yeah, that’s also an important part. English as a medium of instruction was quite useful. I had to use English a lot. (TC-​M-​2) While living overseas in Cape Town, TC-​M-​2 described that there were “two communities” or “two academic circles” that he would work with, where either Chinese or English was adopted as a means for communication. In this case, the field and habitus determine the language choice. There are two communities that I work with. One is the academic circle. Actually there are two academic circles. One is the fieldwork I actually do, that is with the Confucius Institute people. So, with them, I speak Chinese, because it’s just easy, and everybody speaks Chinese. And it just makes things easier, and everybody feels at home. The other group is the anthropology department. With everybody there, I speak English. But there is also an interesting scenario where maybe I would go with the Confucius Institute people to an event of the university that everybody speaks English. We would all speak English together. So, as far as I know, I think if people were comfortable with the English-​speaking environment, then I would try to encourage everybody to speak English, so that

236  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives other people might not feel that we have our own exclusive circles. So, they could join us at any time. (TC-​M-​2) As for using English in Beijing, TC-​M-​2 is aware of the linguistic situation, so he would be “careful, not to mix English” into his Chinese. Again, TC-​M-​2’s ti and the field he is in determine his choice of language for communication. I always try to be careful, not to mix English into my Chinese, especially when I’m in Beijing, with people that I know, because I don’t want people to feel that I’m showing off, that I know some English. [laugh] So I hardly use any English in Beijing. Of course, I did show friends around, when my US professors came to Beijing. So, for that part, it’s fine. And I’m very interested in explaining Chinese culture in English as well. (TC-​M-​2) TC-​M-​2 enjoyed learning English partly because his English teachers, while he was studying at his secondary school, were the “most liberal people” in the 1990s, when “China was not that liberal” yet. English had its “symbolic” capital here, as TC-​M-​2 said that having a “foreign” teacher in the school “was more of a show really, like we had a foreign teacher, and we learned with a foreign teacher”. As far as TC-​M-​2 is concerned, circumstances for using English include academic communication, daily activities and teaching. As a proficient speaker of Chinese and English, TC-​M-​2 is aware of the different norms associated with his choice of language. To a large extent, the yong of language is associated with his awareness of ti, as well as his changing habitus and the shifting field. “China’s English education generally takes the form of ‘rule-​memorization’ ” (TF-​M-​2) TF-​M-​2 was a Master’s student in Translation and Interpreting Studies when I first got to know him, and later we remained in touch via email and social media, i.e., WeChat. After his Master’s at Monash University in Melbourne, he went back to China and worked as a lecturer of English at a university in Tsingdao. TF-​M-​2 divided his English learning and use into two major stages: 1) learning English in primary, secondary and high schools; and 2) studying English at Monash University, which is characterised by “integrating linguistics and philosophy into the study”. This division implies that there is a shift from being a learner of English to becoming a user of English with agency. It also reflects how habitus may affect TF-​M-​2’s relationship with the English language, as habitus allows him to mediate between his agency as a learner and user of English and the changing field from primary and secondary

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  237 schools in China to university overseas, situating himself within a field of dynamic linguistic, social and cultural power relations. Since my interview of TF-​M-​2 was mainly conducted via written communication through WeChat and email, his responses are more elaborate. Sharing his English learning experiences, he wrote to me: My English education started when I was a primary school student at grade four in the early 2000s, when not many Chinese people were aware of the importance of learning English as a child. It was my parents who initiated me into the field of English. My parents, who were ambitious and far-​sighted, determined that it was time that I study English. At that time I got registered in a “少年宫” (Children’s Palace), where the agency hired a teacher whose last name was “杨” (Yang) and who had graduated from 沈阳师范 (Shenyang Teachers’ College), a tall and handsome young man (at least in my mind), to teach a group of students, doubtlessly including me, English. I learnt English with him for about two years, through the textbook “Cambridge Young Learner’s English”. Like all the beginners’, my journey of learning English started with alphabet, and then proceeded to some basic grammatical knowledge, e.g., the three variants of “be”: am, is, are, and finally to reading some simple texts. It is evident from the narrative of TF-​M-​2 that Chinese society in the early 2000s as a field values foreign language skills of the Chinese people, not just in the school system but also in the society at large. There has been increasing social awareness of the economic and symbolic capital associated with the English language despite its “foreign language” status among parents of school-​ age children. Therefore, they help their children to start learning English at a young age through extracurricular tutoring agencies. TF-​M-​2 continued in his written correspondence with me: During this period, the English education mainly took the form of applying the language in practice. Mostly, when clarifying a text (usually a chit-​chat between several figures with an illustration as the background), in accordance with the teaching outline, the teacher selected all the key points in the text, and encouraged the students to apply them in practice (usually in the form of listening practice, class discussion, raising questions if any). Consequently, there were speaking and listening skills training involved. After each class, the students were asked to create sentences with the learnt grammars and write the vocabulary repeatedly. During the period of secondary school and the period of college, we had a lot of grammar education, which was characterized with a large number of grammar exercises. Grammar, grammar, grammar, grammar every day. “Select one from the four choices and fill it in the blank”. The English education in the secondary school was typical of

238  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives large amount of grammar training as the most representative symbol of China’s “grammar education” pattern. In class, the teachers made a list of all the grammatical constituents on the blackboard for the students to record onto their notebooks in order to review and memorize afterwards, as the focus in China’s English examinations (“月考”, “中考” and “高 考”) was on grammar analysis basically –​education was aimed at serving the purpose, namely, success in reaping a higher score. Meanwhile, as a consequence, speaking and listening skills were completely excluded from English learning. In addition, workbooks as the homework, and regular quizzes (once or twice a week) constituted the daily exercises. The teacher supervised the completion of homework and preparation for the quizzes. In terms of the homework, the students were required to accomplish all the exercises in the workbooks (a range of workbooks) within the time limit. The workbook exercises included: Grammar clarification items; Grammar analysis (usually in the form of “one from four”); Cloze (one from four); Reading (a bunch of “one from four” questions with the article followed); Simple Writing exercises. It was also a part of daily exercises for the students to finish all the questions in a regular quiz (mostly concerning grammar) in a short time. It can be seen that grammar and reading constituted the majority of our daily tasks for learning English. TF-​M-​2’s narrative here shows that English language learning in China in schools focuses exclusively on “grammar”, so it is the system-​world rather than the life-​world of the learners that “constituted the majority of the daily tasks” of the Chinese students for learning English. In light of the pentagram framework, it can be noted that the Chinese ti and habitus of the students are kept in the background when the students learn English, and the yong aspect of English is restrictive, in the sense that English as a mere school subject serves as a tool or a benchmark for assessing students’ school performance and aptitude, along with other subjects, such as Maths and Chinese, for a pathway to education at a higher level, e.g., college and university. TF-​M-​2 mentioned explicitly the exam-​oriented nature of learning English in Chinese schools: Besides the homework and quizzes, the school also arranged for the students to attend a monthly examination with all the students in a grade involved. With the students’ capacity to analyze grammar increasing continuously and dramatically (the fruit of training!), a gap less than 30 points between the highest and the lowest score in a class (50 students) appeared, which means a gap less than 2 points between two successive students on the score list! That was why the teacher warned us continually to be careful and cautious enough so that we could survive every “slaughter”. At the university level, most of the students were busy preparing themselves for College English Test Band 4 (CET4) and College English Test Band 6 (CET6). Even though at university, it was preferred

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  239 for the college teachers to turn the class into a more active one with a range of new strategies involved such as class presentation, oral speaking exercises, etc., in comparison with the secondary school teachers, who are generally inclined to the rigid approaches, and the students were eventually forced to go through all the intensive training which acted as the key to passing the CET examinations. The common awareness of the importance of the role that CET played in finding a good position in the future was the motivation to practice. The good news for the students, in my view (probably not in their view I suppose), is that CET designers had incorporated listening, logical writing and translating skills into the examination. This strategy, to a greater extent, had made up for the deficiency in secondary school English education, as the students should have been comprehensively skilful in all the skills of English. According to TF-​M-​2, university education in China is also exam oriented. As far as English is concerned, it is about the College English Test (CET) system that the students have to go through during their university education. However, the “good news” to TF-​M-​2 is that the CET system has incorporated “listening, logical writing and translating skills into the examination”. This has enabled Chinese students to develop their comprehensive skills in English. In light of the pentagram framework, it can be noted from TF-​M-​2’s narrative here that there seems to be a shift from the system-​world of the English language with a focus on “grammar” to students’ own life-​world of developing comprehensive skills in English. As a result, students’ habitus becomes more salient, in the sense that students start internalising the system-​world of the English language and developing their habitus as part of the process of embodying the “social structures” (Bourdieu, 1989, p. 18). Students’ “internalised master dispositions” (Houston, 2002, p. 157) as a result of years of English language learning now have a channel via listening, speaking, writing and translating practices to be externalised and used from the yong perspective. This yong or practice perspective was also raised by TF-​M-​2 when he referenced the Confucian tradition of learning in the following narrative. Whether in secondary school or at university, China’s English education generally takes the form of “rule-​memorization”, which lays the emphasis on memorizing rules that the students are able to apply when confronted with questions. What they have done is concerned with “mechanical memory”. The most obvious evidence of mechanical memorization in the English education is that Chinese English teachers tend to encourage students to “practice”. Such a behaviour reminds me of an old proverb in China by Confucius: “学而时习之, 不亦说乎?” (To learn something and timely practice it, it is a pleasure, isn’t it?). The Chinese word, ‘学’ (learn), actually means “imitation” in this context rather than “study”, in relation to “习” (practice), which represents “practice”. (TF-​M-​2)

240  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives For those who learned English in the early 2000s, parental/​grandparental influence started playing an increasing role, as in the case of TC-​M-​2 and TF-​M-​2. This shows that English has its own economic and symbolic capital perceived by parents of school-​age children. TF-​M-​2 started learning English in a private tutoring class. In the formal classroom learning, there was an explicit focus on “grammar”, in TF-​M-​2’s words, “grammar education”: homework/​ workbooks, quizzes and monthly examinations, i.e., a “typical East Asian education pattern”. We can see a different picture of English learning and use from TF-​M-​2’s narratives here. This picture shows strong traces of the traditional Chinese learning in terms of imitation, copying, mechanical memorisation of words and grammar rules. Western learning, in this case English learning, is not inherently associated with Chinese ti (or essence) but mostly with yong (utility), i.e., serving the function of “purpose, namely, success in reaping a higher score”. TF-​M-​2’s narratives also show that the capital, e.g., the awareness of the importance of English, and field, i.e., English language education in China, may help explain the dispositions or habitus developed among Chinese learners of English in terms of perceiving themselves as perpetual learners in the system-​world rather than proficient users of English in their life-​world. “We could only speak English for communication, as a ‘third party language’ ” (GH-​M-​2) GH-​M-​2 was a Master’s student in Media Studies at Monash university in Australia at the time of the interview in May 2016. He is currently working in a top media corporation in Beijing. He speaks Chinese Putonghua and proficient English, and, as he said, also “the Northeast dialect, and a little Shanghainese”, as he was born and brought up in Liaoning province in Northeast China, and he did his Bachelor’s degree in Shanghai. I asked him what “English” meant to him, and who would generally use English. GH-​M-​2:  I

understand that, like Chinese, Japanese, and German, English is also a language. It’s only that it’s used more widely, so many people learn it. R:  Then who would use English generally? Americans and the British? GH-​M-​2:  Yes, but also Indians. If we speak to Thais, we’d also use English. We could only speak English for communication, as a “third party language” (第三方语言). English is also easier to learn and to write, and it’s more casual, unlike French and German with nouns having genders. Our interview then moved on to his perceptions of “Chinese English”. He said: For Chinese English, I think our Chinese are not very comfortable with it, and we can’t speak English much. For some Chinese words, we can’t even think of appropriate ways to express them in English. It can

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  241 be relatively easier for us to write in English, but speaking takes time, because we can’t think too much while speaking or there’s no time for processing English, so it’s difficult to communicate orally in English. For some simple sentences, like what’s your name, we can respond, but for longer sentences, with clauses, it would take longer time to process, and it makes interacting in English difficult, and then we become reluctant to speak in English. (GH-​M-​2) These narratives by GH-​M-​2 show the incongruence between the ti of Chinese speakers of English and their yong in the form of speaking and writing in English, as speaking English does not simultaneously correspond to our Chinese minds or subconsciousness, at least for most Chinese learners or users of various proficiency levels. As has been elaborated by TF-​M-​2 regarding the emphasis on grammar in English education in China, GH-​M-​2 also shared his observations and experiences of how Chinese speakers’ English is influenced by the English exams or tests they take. Because we’ve all taken IELTS tests, we tend to have certain structures, and some of which I like using as well, for example, not only, but also, more specifically. Some friends prefer to use but, and they never use however. However, for some words, I know what they mean, but I seldom use them, e.g., albeit, thereby, in case of. I don’t know how and where to use them. I’d mix up speaking with writing, because I seldom learn words purely for speaking. Some of the spoken English words are learned from TV shows, but I simply don’t know how to use them. (GH-​M-​2) I asked GH-​M-​2 about his attitudes towards English, and how important English is to Chinese people. He responded: It differs from person to person. To me, it’s very important. If it’s in China, and one is not involved in language studies, or one is in science, then it’s not that important. If one studies Chinese, or history, obviously, English is not absolutely essential. (GH-​M-​2) GH-​M-​2 and I also had an interesting discussion regarding Chinese English and “English with Chinese characteristics” (具有中国特色的英语). R:  Have

you thought about Chinese people learning English with Chinese characteristics, like Chinese expressions, to introduce our Spring Festival, and Chinese customs? GH-​M-​2:  I don’t think that’s Chinese English. We can use British English to introduce these, just as normal. For Spring Festival, we can say Chun Jie, and then Spring Festival, to sort of explain what it is.

242  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives R: 

How would you look at Chinese English? Do you like it? Do you think we should learn it? GH-​M-​2:  Pretty neutral, more of a helpless feeling, as what we say is “Chinese English” anyway. (很中性，更多是没有办法，说出来就是中国英语 很中性，更多是没有办法，说出来就是中国英语) R:  Indeed, nothing to blame, it’s not like Chinese English is full of errors, worth criticising. Right? GH-​M-​2:  Yes, like what I said, what matters is to make things clear, and to express what we intend to, so what English to speak doesn’t really matter. R:  What about Chinese culture? How would you describe Chinese culture? GH-​M-​2: Chinese culture is about describing what characteristics we have as Chinese. Chinese are a community full of contradictions. There are regional cultures, like Northeast culture, Shanghai culture. Chinese are like this: straightforward, but also pragmatic, honest but also experienced, doubtful, but can be easily cheated, economical but also loyal, courteous but lacking public morality; following the great Mean, but also going extremes, frugal but extravagant, following old traditions but also catching up with the trends, content but also chasing after sudden wealth, burning incense and telling fortunes, but without much religious beliefs. This is China, full of contradictions, and it’s just impossible to overgeneralise a particular model. (中国文化描述中国人的特点。中国 人更多是很矛盾的群体。还有地域文化，比如东北文化，上海文化。 中国人是这样的，耿直却又圆滑，坦诚却又世故，多疑却又轻信，讲 实惠却又重义气，尚礼仪却又少公德，主中庸却又走极端，美节俭却 又喜排场，守古法却又赶时髦，知足常乐却又梦想暴发，烧香算命却 又无宗教感。这就是中国，矛盾复杂，很难归纳成一个模式。) R:  Brilliant! This is how you understand Chinese regional cultures, a body of contradictions, following the crowd. If I ask you to name three things to represent Chinese culture, what would they be? GH-​M-​2:  The Great Wall, Tian’anmen Square, Confucius Temple. I also asked GH-​M-​2 to share an anecdote about learning English with me, and he said: Okay, I’d like to tell you a story, because my mom is a translator, she would teach me English when I was very little. As a result, I couldn’t say certain things in Chinese, for example pingguo, I could only say apple, not pingguo. Once I asked my grandpa for an apple, he was confused. (GH-​M-​2) GH-​M-​2 is aware of the English language as an international currency or its international capital, because “it’s used more widely, so many people learn it” and also because English is a “third party language”. “If we speak to Thais, we’d also use English. We could only speak English for communication, as a ‘third party’ language”. The perception of English being a “third party language” shows that English serves as a link language, or a lingua

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  243 franca, by Chinese speakers of English when they communicate with other non-​Chinese speakers. This shows the yong aspect of English to speakers of Chinese, and that English does not serve to represent Chinese ti from the perspective of Chinese speakers of English. GH-​M-​2 is also aware of the soft power associated with Chinese language and the essence embodied in Chinese “thought patterns”. He said, we speak English with our Chinese thought patterns, but foreigners may not have such thought patterns. However, nowadays even foreigners would say kung fu and miao zi, because China is gaining its international status, and foreigners know more about China, and they’d use some words with Chinese characteristics. GH-​M-​2 tends to conform to English norms, or aspire to English norms, such as request-​making, and the purpose is to “make ourselves understood by all those who speak English”. However, GH-​M-​2 is fully aware that there are Chinese “cultural habits”. He thinks speaking English is a “helpless” option, and he holds a “neutral” attitude to it, as according to him, “what we say is Chinese English anyway”. “I may not necessarily identify with English cultures, but I like them and they have a big impact on me” (TH-​M-​2) TH-​ M-​ 2 was finishing his Master’s in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Melbourne at the time of the interview on 5 January 2019, and he was about to go back to China for his new job in a private engineering and design company. Like most of the Chinese young adults born in the 1990s, TH-​M-​2 started learning English at Grade 3 in a primary school in China. He and his parents moved from the countryside to a small town. At the primary school there, he was taught English by Chinese teachers. So, our interview touched upon his English language learning in schools. R: So

you continued to learn English in your middle school as a subject, didn’t you? TH-​M-​2: Yes, actually I took English seriously from junior middle school Grade 2, because our class teacher was an English teacher. She was a bit strict with us and also pressured us to learn. So I learned English well. On the other hand, I also felt that learning English was interesting. R:  So you learned English listening, speaking, reading and writing? TH-​M-​2:  Yes and no. At that time, there wasn’t listening, and we learned little speaking. We focused on reading and writing. We learned reading a bit more than we did with writing. We didn’t pay much attention to listening and speaking. R:  So you took the college entrance exams, and took English as a subject, and then you went to university. What was it like to learn English in the university?

244  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives TH-​M-​2: The

most impression about learning English in the university was that I knew a professor, hahaha, I tended to acquaint myself with professors, with some kind of yuanfen (serendipity). She’s from the English department. She offered a course in the university, and it’s about English Songs. It was an elective course. She compiled her own textbook, containing different types of English songs, including popular, classical, and country. She also put together the lyrics and the backgrounds of the songs. So each of us had a textbook. When the class began, we’d start with learning an English song. And then she would teach us some cultural background and grammar. I became friends with her, and she’d invite me and my classmates to her house, as she had collected some records, so we’d come to her house and listen and sing songs. Many students chose to take her elective course. Apart from popular songs, she also played American country and rock’n’roll. Most of them were classics. The professor was about 35 to 36 years old. She might not have studied overseas, but she was very open-​minded. She was under pressure, because the course wasn’t a conventional course. Later, she also organised an English Corner on campus. So, these were the impressions of me learning English at university.

The preceding narratives by TH-​ M-​ 2 show that his interest in English, developed from junior middle school, his social capital of making the acquaintance of English professors, and more importantly, his passion for music as part of his intrinsic habitus, played an important role in his English learning and cultural understanding of the English language. He is a guitarist, and he sings English songs as a hobby. While he was in Melbourne, he won the second prize in a popular song competition among Chinese overseas university students. I asked TH-​M-​2 when he started realising that he was using English, in terms of listening and speaking, instead of “learning” English or becoming a “user” of English. He responded: I felt at the university, I started developing such a capacity of using English. I would go to the English corner, interacting with foreigners, without much difficulty. Before I went abroad, I had been subconsciously developing this capacity of using English. (TH-​M-​2) The narrative here shows that TH-​M-​2 was aware of the use or the yong aspect of English even if the local field or context was largely not an English-​ speaking environment. He was also subconsciously drawing upon his social and cultural capital to enrich his habitus and his multilingual and multicultural being, or ti, as a university student, even before going abroad to an English-​speaking environment. I also asked TH-​M-​2 why he chose an English-​speaking country, Australia, for his further studies. He responded:

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  245 I chose an English-​speaking country, because English is the language I have been learning all the time. I have no other option. English cultures also have a relatively big impact on me. I may not necessarily identify with English cultures, but I like them and they have a big impact on me. (TH-​M-​2) TH-​M-​2’s narrative here about English cultures having an impact on him shows that he has been integrating his Chinese ti (or essence) during the process of yong, or learning and using English, with his multilingual habitus development in a field that may not be considered as being conducive to the use of English. However, his yong or utility of capital, in various forms, has played a role in his natural transition from an English learner to a proficient and competent user of English. In terms of the circumstances in which TH-​ M-​2 would use English, he responded: I would watch English movies, and I would turn the subtitles on to notice the use of English in the movies. I actually used a lot of English when I was in Tsinghua university. I was in a lab, and there were two laowai (foreigners) there. Actually they were not exactly laowai, as they were from Pakistan, but they were non-​Chinese speakers, and they spoke very good English. I acquainted them, and got to know that their education was different from ours. They started using bilingual textbooks very early in their education, and they had bilingual education, so their English, apart from their very noticeable, sometimes heavy accents, their logic in English was stronger than that of our Chinese users of English. I could communicate with them well. Apart from academic communication, our topics of interaction also covered online shopping, or the Taobao stuff. They sometimes would need to buy things, such as milk et cetera and they didn’t know how to shop online, so I helped them. And also, I got to know a French exchange student, so when I played guitar, we would go to the Guitar Society to play guitar together. Yes, he was also an exchange student in Tsinghua, just like me. He also had some things in life that he didn’t know how to deal with, so we would use English to communicate. (TH-​M-​2) TH-​M-​2 also shared with me an episode he experienced while he was in Tsinghua university regarding his use of English and intra-​and intercultural communication. Actually, when I was in Tsinghua, I got to know a girl when we were learning street dance or break dancing. She was born in Hong Kong, but she was brought up in Canada, so she was sort of a person, like an American-​born Chinese or ABC. She would only speak English. At that time, I communicated with her a lot. What’s more interesting, I think, is the differences in culture. In terms of language use, we didn’t have much

246  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives misunderstanding. However, in terms of cultural differences, for example, orange juice, we’d go to a canteen in the morning to have breakfast, and there was hot orange juice there. She couldn’t really understand why we would have hot orange juice. It was in this sort of area that we would have some misunderstanding. I could understand it because growing up, we’ve seen it. (TH-​M-​2) It is clear from TH-​M-​2’s narratives that in Tsinghua university, as a field, where there were multilingual and multicultural exchange students, TH-​M-​2’s social and Chinese cultural capital, in terms of helping other non-​Chinese-​ speaking exchange students, played a significant role in creating opportunities for TH-​M-​2 to naturally and actively use (or yong) English. And this use of English may also affect his self-​perception of his ti (essence) and habitus as a proficient bilingual user of Chinese and English. When I asked whether he had experienced any difficulties in terms of language and culture while studying in Melbourne, he said: I feel there’s not much difficulty in daily living, because I have confidence in using English, but if you mean whether I have experienced difficulties engaging in more in-​depth communication, I do indeed. In terms of in-​ depth communication, I mean if you spend time with this person for an extensive period of time, you would experience some aspects in life where there might be difficulties in communication in English due to various linguistic and cultural differences and traditions. In terms of academic communication, I haven’t experienced any difficulty at all. The so-​called in-​depth communication also involves people’s willingness to communicate. For example, we might be willing to communicate with others, but they might not be as willing as we were. (TH-​M-​2) TH-​M-​2’s narrative here shows that people’s willingness to communicate can also be considered as part of their multilingual habitus in intercultural communication involving other speakers of English in both daily and academic contexts. In summary, TH-​M-​2’s narratives show that the social and cultural capital associated with the English language motivates Chinese learners to learn the language and to be aware of the cultural differences. Social capital was involved in relation to TH-​M-​2’s acquaintance with the English teacher who taught English songs and organised English corners. Cultural capital was explicitly utilised when TH-​M-​2 was helping Pakistani and French exchange students and interacting with the English-​speaking Hong Kong-​Canadian student at Tsinghua. TH-​M-​2 enjoys English-​speaking cultures even though, as he said, he might not identify with them. Reflecting on his ti or Chinese essence, after staying in Melbourne for over two years, he said: “I feel it’s getting a bit odd. The longer I stay here, the more Chinese I’ve become”.

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  247 “Then gradually, I would come to the stage where I know what to say in English, rather than translating Chinese into English” (LY-​F-​2) LY-​F-​2 is a graduate from the Linguistics and Applied Linguistics program with a Master’s degree from Monash University. We had this interview on 23 January 2019, around two years after she graduated. She was in her mid-​or late twenties at the time of the interview. LY-​F-​2 is well informed about linguistics, and she is aware of world Englishes and English as a lingua franca communication. When I asked her about her English learning experiences, she shared with me details about her learning and use of English at school and at work: I started learning English in Primary 1 when I was just slightly older than six years old. I was very confident with my English class performance in my primary school. However, when I went abroad later in my life, I realised that good performance in English at school does not mean that I could speak good English. Particularly when I started working for the airlines, I was no longer a “student” when flying abroad, so the role or identity (身份) has changed. People around me would have higher expectations on me, treating me as equal to them in terms of work performance and income or salaries. And also working for airlines was pretty fast-​paced. I would meet native speakers of English, some of whom may have very strong accents, and they may speak English very fast with me. In such circumstances, if I didn’t understand them, this was actually what happened when I first started my job, they would think why this Chinese crew could work here in the first place. I would feel a sense of failure (挫败感). I was a bit confused as I performed very well at school, and how could this be at work? So I experienced a sense of failure or setback for a short period of time. Later, when I regained my confidence, I realised that I needed to get to know how other people actually use English, or their norms of using English. For example, how to sustain a conversation with other English speakers, or what topics they would prefer when meeting someone for the first time, and what topics are taboo or to avoid, particularly after getting to know more about other people’s cultures. This may not be a progress in English itself, but it is about knowing how to use English. And then I feel that now I know how to use English. (LY-​F-​2) LY-​F-​2’s reflections here on her experiences of learning and using English can be interpreted, using the pentagram framework in terms of field, capital, habitus, ti and yong, in the sense that when the field changes from her school to her workplace for the airlines, her habitus changes accordingly, and so do her reflections of her own ti as well as the yong aspect of her English language practice, drawing upon various forms of capital, e.g., social, cultural, economic and symbolic capital. In addition, LY-​F-​2 also shared about her

248  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives actual translanguaging practice of English and the transition from translating what she knows in Chinese, pragmatically speaking, to her use of English. This transition signifies the embodiment of the English habitus into LY-​F-​2’s Chinese ti (or essence). Yes, and also what to say when you need to comfort other people. When I learned English in China at school, I had hardly come across such topics or scenarios. What we learned were simply grammar and vocabulary. Sometimes I’d reference what to say when I comfort people in Chinese, and I’d translate those words into English. There was once such a mindset for a period of time. Then gradually, I would come to the stage where I know what to say in English, rather than translating Chinese into English. There is such a transition. (LY-​F-​2) When I asked LY-​F-​2 specifically when the “transition” occurred, or when she started realising that she was an actual user of English rather than a learner, she responded: I think when I left China, or the Chinese-​speaking context, or when I actually communicate with foreigners freely, I’d think I would become a user of English. There were moments when I could understand or get the jokes by foreigners, and there were moments where I communicate with foreigners in English just like I communicate with Chinese in Chinese, and there were moments when I feel that we are equal in terms of communication in English. I have the confidence when using English. I think one’s confidence comes from the positive feedback or responses given by the people one interacts with. One’s confidence comes from uninhibited communication (无障碍地交流), or one cracks a joke and other people would laugh. This is some sort of positive interaction or exchange. (LY-​F-​2) Both ti and habitus are relative and dynamic concepts, and they develop and evolve. As far as LY-​F-​2 is concerned, the “moments” she mentioned, e.g., when she left the Chinese-​speaking context, when she actually communicated with foreigners freely, when she could understand the jokes by foreigners, or better still, when she could crack a joke and other people would laugh, when she felt she was communicating in English just like in Chinese, and ultimately when she developed a sense of equality and confidence when communicating with others in English, were indeed the moments when her habitus and ti (or essence) shifted to not just a bilingual but also a translanguaging self. During the interview, I asked LY-​F-​2 whether the use of English in China is generally associated with the domain or field of some kind of high-​end culture, or the symbolic capital of English. She responded:

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  249 I personally think, in the Chinese context, if one speaks very good English, this has already implied a lot, for example, one’s educational background. If one has a very good educational background, then he or she may come from a family where investing in education is prioritised, and it has such an economic capacity to do so. Previously when I did my thesis, I spoke with an informant, and she said, speaking English is a matter of forming social networking circles (其实讲英语是一个 圈子的问题), for example, overseas students form their own networks or circles, and this implies that they come from a good family, for example, that informant studied commerce, and she said that when she returned to China, she would socialise with the networks or circles consisting exclusively of overseas graduates, because these people could be her resources. We might not speak in English the whole time, but we could code-​mix and code-​switch, which may indicate that we have something in common in terms of overseas studies, and this can be the currency for our communication or interaction （这就是我们交流的货 币）, and this would also strengthen our networks or circles. What we have experienced overseas, such as where we’ve travelled to and what restaurants we’ve frequented, could all serve as networking topics or connections. So, I think, English itself is just a language, but in the economic and social context of China, it represents a lot behind what it appears to be. (LY-​F-​2) What LY-​F-​2 has shared here appears to be the pentagram framework of habitus, field, capital, ti and yong in operation. The conceptualisation of “networks or circles” is a reflection of social capital among people who share their overseas experiences so that they can capitalise on them in the field of certain Chinese domains in relation to their yong of English. Regarding norms, LY-​F-​2 says: “I feel that it has become pointless to intentionally mimic others”; however, LY-​F-​2 also points out: “I realised that I needed to get to know other people’s norms”. In terms of the yong aspect of English, LY-​F-​2 says: “This may not be a ‘progress’ in English itself, but it is about knowing how to use English. And then I feel that now I know how to use English”. In terms of the symbolic capital or implied value of speaking English in China, LY-​F-​2 points out explicitly that “I personally think, in the Chinese context, if one speaks very good English, this has already implied a lot, for example, one’s educational background. … So, I think, English itself is just a language, but in the economic and social context of China, it represents a lot behind what it appears to be”. Towards the end of the interview, LY-​F-​2 also shared some of her peers’ experiences of giving their children English names. This shows the changing nature of Chinese society, where the habitus and the ti (or essence) of the current and future generations are being transformed.

250  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives I’d also like to share with you an example. My peers who are of similar age to me have become parents, and I’d often have classmates who’d ask me to give English names to their children. They haven’t been abroad, and they are not planning to live overseas, and their children are so little, however, they’d like to have their little babies, or even unborn babies, to have English names. (LY-​F-​2) “When they talk about Chinese current affairs or Chinese politics, there is this Chineseness that no other Western languages may correspond to” (CY-​F-​4) CY-​F-​4 is a migrant from Beijing, currently living in Melbourne. She was in her late forties at the time of the interview in October 2014. She used to work as a TV producer, mainly on documentaries, when she was in Beijing. She was educated both in Beijing, i.e., Beijing Broadcasting Institute, and in Australia, in a TAFE business course and a Chinese–​English translation course. When she was asked to rate her English proficiency from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most proficient, she responded with “5 to 6”. When the interviewer, i.e., her daughter, who was also our research assistant at the time, said, “You’re modest”, she said “Yes, Chinese are modest”. At the time of the interview, CY-​F-​4 had been in Melbourne for about nine years. However, she had been in Australia for more than 20 years, and she had stayed in Adelaide, South Australia before she and her family moved to Melbourne. Talking about “hometown” or “old home”, CY-​F-​4 shared what it meant to her as a Chinese migrant in Australia. I was born and brought up in Beijing, so my childhood, my youth years, were all in Beijing, all the culture formation, all those formative years were in Beijing. I mean, all of those cultures, ideologies and impressions were formulated in Beijing. Although I’ve lived overseas for over twenty years, my Chinese cultures and ideologies are still deep-​rooted, engrained in my thought patterns, so my familiarity and emotional involvement with Beijing are still there. That is to say, for example, when someone mentions Beijing, or when I hear some Beijing accent on the street, I’d feel very familiar or close. I wouldn’t specifically greet them, but subconsciously, I’d say to myself, I know you are from Beijing. There is an inexplicable familiarity or closeness (有一种莫名其妙的亲近感), because Beijing is really a special place, and it has its own culture, and its own humanity. Beijing is my hometown, and it’s a memory. One’s memory is important. (CY-​F-​4) The narrative of CY-​F-​4 here reveals much about her Chinese habitus and ti (or essence), even though she has been living overseas for over 20 years. In addition, throughout the narrative, CY-​F-​4’s hometown discourse also

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  251 stands out. Her hometown has obviously been an essential part of her ti (or essence) and habitus. Wherever she is and whatever language she speaks, the “Chinese cultures and ideologies are still deep-​rooted”, including her thought patterns and her “memory” of Beijing, which CY-​F-​4 regarded forever as her “hometown” or “old home”. CY-​F-​4 also shared her understanding of the cultural differences between Chinese and English in terms of the common topics people talk about across cultures. I’m in touch with many Chinese, as I’m a TV producer. Chinese, particularly Chinese from Beijing, they’d be more concerned of politics, Chinese politics, and current affairs, world politics, news, and other big topics. They’d chat about international situations and current affairs. They’d chat about something deeper, something cultural, like Chinese Central Politburo, the US, and the Soviet Union. But as far as I know, Aussies don’t talk about these things. (CY-​F-​4) CY-​F-​4 here is aware of the collective habitus and ti among Chinese and Australians. During the interview, CY-​F-​4 also shared her understanding of Chinese English and Chinglish. According to CY-​F-​4, “Chinglish is how Chinese speak English”, and the word Chinglish is “a blend of Chinese and English”, i.e., “two words are blended into a new word”. CY-​F-​4 believes that Chinese English and Chinglish are the same, or they “should be” the same. M:  What is Chinglish CY-​F-​4: The so-​ called

then? Chinglish is derogatory, and I think Chinglish is an expression used to look down upon the English spoken by Chinese. So, in this sense, there’s this funny word of “Chinglish”. It means that Chinese people do not speak standard English. First, their pronunciation is not standard; second, their use of vocabulary is not standard; and third, their spellings are full of mistakes. I notice that some foreigners make fun of some wrong translations from Chinese into English, and they include them in a booklet, and they show them to the British, to laugh at them! They make fun of such “translated” English expressions. So, Chinglish, as such, is a bit of a sarcastic word (所以就变成了一种讽刺的用词，叫 Chinglish). M: What about the English spoken by English teachers, journalists, and translators in China, those Chinese professionals in China? CY-​F-​4:  Ok, there’s a lot of difference here. M: What’s the difference here then? CY-​F-​4:  Ok, first of all, English teachers might not have left their native countries, and their English was textbook English. It’s also possible that their English teachers haven’t left China either, so they were not taught by

252  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives native speakers, so their pronunciations and grammar may be problematic or non-​standard. When I was learning English, my teachers told us that they had never been to English-​speaking countries, so they didn’t have the living or immersion experiences in those countries. And their English was pretty much textbook English. What they could teach us was largely grammar. I think for real life English, people have to learn it in those English-​speaking countries or environments. But I think Chinese English translators are different. Based on my experiences as a producer and often times as a translator, I think Chinese English translators, they would need a lot of knowledge or understanding of foreign countries when they translate English articles and books into Chinese and introduce them to China. There are a lot of things that cannot be learned through textbooks, so they have to learn them by staying in touch with the outside world. Translators have opportunities to stay in touch with the original or the source language and culture. If they interpret, they stay in touch with the English speakers, or if they translate, they stay in touch with real original English. They are a medium or mediators, and they stay in touch with the original. CY-​F-​4’s narrative here about Chinese English teachers and Chinese English translators shows that she dissociates the “original” or “standard” English with Chinese speakers in general. To CY-​F-​4, in order to speak proper English, or real English, Chinese speakers have to learn English in English-​speaking countries, and to use it in the real world. So, the actual yong of English, or the immersion experience in English-​speaking environments here, is essential to speaking good English, given that the Chinese ti and habitus are relatively deep-​rooted, and what they learn is primarily “textbook English”. CY-​F-​4 elaborates further on the style of Chinese speakers’ English. This is my understanding. By Chinese style, I mean Chinese people know the deep structure of Chinese culture, which is different from Western culture. What these people say or convey is of a Chinese style. For example, when they talk about Chinese current affairs or Chinese politics, there is this Chineseness that no other Western languages may correspond to. This Chinese style English can be a bit complicated, and it may have traces of Chinese grammar, and it may not even make sense, but it has a Chinese meaning in it. I’ve been a translator for a number of years in South Australia, and I’ve had first hand impressions of the official talks of those Chinese officials and delegates. Like they won’t speak like those of the British. The British would say, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is what I’d want us to do, and this is what I represent etc.” It’s clear and straightforward. While those Chinese officials, they may beat around the bush. As a translator, being aware of the contrastive norms, I sometimes couldn’t follow the English norm, and what I could do was

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  253 to translate or interpret whatever our Chinese officials and delegates had said. (CY-​F-​4) The habitus of CY-​F-​4 as a TV producer, a migrant and a translator enables her to have a unique understanding of how English can be used in authentic contexts, in the sense of Chinese yong or utility. CY-​F-​4 has a unique perception of the style of Chinese speakers’ English, which reflects the Chinese ti (or essence) at various levels for intercultural communication with English speakers. In terms of ti and yong, CY-​F-​4 is aware of different norms between Chinese and Australians, such as the use of address terms in workplaces and schemas of celebrating birthdays, what “hometown” or “old home” means to Chinese, and certain common topics as far as Chinese speakers are concerned. Commenting on the importance of English in China, CY-​F-​4 says: “I think China wants to establish an ‘international’ image, making it an international country, meaning that someone who doesn’t speak Chinese, but only English, can still live in China. I think this is what the Government wishes to achieve”. “Overcoming the language barrier, I can become part of the mainstream society” (LQ-​F-​4) LQ-​F-​4 is a Chinese migrant in Melbourne. She came to Melbourne in 2011 from Singapore, and prior to Singapore, she lived in China. She “migrated” a number of times, first from her hometown in Hubei province to Shanghai, then from Shanghai to Singapore in 2000, and afterwards from Singapore to Melbourne in 2011. The interview took place in my office when she visited me in August 2014. It can be noted that the many places LQ-​F-​4 has migrated to and lived in have had an impact on her habitus formation and the language awareness that she has developed. During our interview, I asked her how she would use her languages, i.e., Chinese and English, in various places, and what she would use her languages for. She responded: In Singapore, I needed to use both English and Chinese. I majored in Chinese studies while I was in China during my university education, and my job was Chinese related. I worked in both the Chinese department and the translation department in a higher institution in Singapore. Although I worked in their translation department, I would still read and write in Chinese, so my working language while in Singapore was Chinese. However, Singapore is obviously a multilingual country, with English being predominantly used, so administratively English is pretty much spoken everywhere. English is an institutional language there. For example, having meetings among colleagues, doing administrative work, filling in forms and writing emails, all of these are in English. Their

254  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives English, as far as I know, is Singlish, or Singapore English, with local characteristics. (LQ-​F-​4) I asked LQ-​ F-​ 4 to share her main challenges or issues of living in an English-​speaking country as a bilingual speaker of Chinese and English. She responded that “overcoming the language barrier” and becoming “part of the mainstream society” were the main challenges. One of my biggest challenges is to adapt to its language, because coming to a country where the language is different, I have to master the language in order to survive. Overcoming the language barrier, I can become part of the mainstream society. Here, the mainstream language is English, so one has to master it, so as to live in this society well, like fish in water (如鱼得水). In fact, I’ve overcome the language barrier in Singapore, however, the accents of the English in Singapore and those in Australia are so different, so I have to listen more so that I can get used to the Australians speaking English, just like when I first arrived in Singapore, I needed to understand their English or Singlish. (LQ-​F-​4) This narrative by LQ-​F-​4 shows that she is aware of the different Englishes people speak, and that she regards the use of English with the locals as a means to access the mainstream society. So here, the notions of field and capital have an impact on LQ-​F-​4’s bilingual habitus and her use or the yong aspect of English. During the interview, we also talked about our experiences of intercultural communication in English. LQ-​F-​4 said she would aim to “understand native English speakers, and express in a way that they could accept, and to use appropriate or colloquial English”. R:  Interesting.

Do you mean the way they could accept, or what they would expect? LQ-​F-​4:  Yes, to know what they want. As far as I’m concerned, I do translation, indeed, this is one of the important reasons, that is, through translation, I train and practice my language skills; secondly, the writer for whom I do my translation work is a local, and through interacting with him, we could understand each other, between two cultures, between two individual professionals, interacting. We’d know each other more, and I would like to know more about the locals, as they are born and brought up here, and how they see us, and what they expect from us, or what they hope we can bring to them, or what they can bring us. LQ-​F-​4’s narrative here shows that she is eager to interact with the locals and put the yong of English into its context so as to “train and practice” her

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  255 language skills. Regarding how she communicated with the locals and what they would normally talk about, LQ-​F-​4 responded: LQ-​F-​4: We

have much fewer face to face interactions than email correspondences. Our emails are all in English, and there’s no problem with that. We have monthly face to face interactions. We’d mainly talk about translations and publications, and then we have a plan to publish a bilingual collection of poetry. R:  I see, you’d stay in touch with the locals through such professional activities, at a much higher level of interaction, such as talking about poems and translations, making use of your professional knowledge. LQ-​F-​4: That’s right. Then he’d tell me how he would like me to translate his poems, and I’d share with him how I could use Chinese to present his poems. I’d say “I try my best to match your writing styles”. I’d say that I’d like to adopt a Chinese style to match his original style. And he thinks it’s alright. He would also know the feedback from readers that I share with him. I’d share his poems online and share feedback with him from my penfriends, students, colleagues, friends and classmates. We’d use English to talk a lot about his poetry and my translations. It has now become an international project, or an intercultural project. LQ-​F-​4’s use of English links her bilingual Chinese and English professional translator’s habitus and the two different ti, i.e., an Australian local poet and a Chinese translator, as well as their intercultural experiences together, utilising the many forms of linguistic, social, cultural, economic and symbolic capital of English and Chinese as international languages in the field of “interculturality” (Hlavac & Xu, 2020). Every time LQ-​F-​4 migrates to a new environment, she finds it challenging to adapt to its mainstream languages. “My biggest challenge is to adapt to its language”, as she said. Realising the capital of language in a society, LQ-​F-​4 said that “overcoming the language barrier, I can become part of the mainstream society”. In terms of the yong aspect of English, LQ-​F-​4 interacts with a local poet and translates his poetry as a means of authentic use of English through face to face interactions, email correspondences, working on joint publications, and attending book launches and other events. “I felt like I knew a much bigger world, and then that empowered me a lot” (HW-​M-​3) HW-​M-​3 is a promising young Chinese entrepreneur. I first got to know him in around 2006 and 2007 when he came to Hong Kong to study. I was an assistant professor there, and he was in one of my modules for the first-​year cohort. A few months later, we had a chat, and he said that he was going to quit his studies in Hong Kong and move somewhere else to pursue his studies and career. Since then, we have been in touch through email or social media

256  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives on and off for a number of years. At the time of the interview, he was in the US, and we had this interview via Zoom on 3 May 2019. In response to my question regarding why he chose to study in a business school in the US, HW-​M-​3 recounted a number of reasons: One is, as I said, my family is from Wenzhou, as you may know, people from Wenzhou are very entrepreneurial, and I grew up in an entrepreneurial family. All of my uncles and my parents, they started not big businesses, but small and medium-​sized businesses multiple times. So, when I was growing up, I didn’t know what the other career choices were for me. I thought that everybody would do business. So, that’s one. And when I was up to my sophomore year, I still had that concept in my mind that, oh, business was the only thing I should go and pursue, but around my sophomore and junior years, I encountered a professor in college who was a senior diplomat from the US to China to re-​open up the trade relationship between China and the US. So, that just opened up a totally new world for me, and so, that’s how I later went to Washington D. C., and attended the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States and everything related. And even in private sectors, afterwards, all of the jobs were somehow related to the public policy sector. It was during my time to work in the public policy think-​tanks in D. C., that I realized that these two industries or sectors do not divide each other, or they are not divided into two separate worlds. I feel even more strongly after I spent time in D. C. about the significance of the private sector, and the society, and the significance of capital, money, that is, how these areas influence public discourse, and whatever the government wants to do. So, because of these two phases of life, I guess, one is my experience in D. C. and the public sector with think-​tanks, and the other is the entrepreneurial environment I grew up in when I was a kid, so I thought I’d need something that could tie all these things into. Back then, I was actually considering doing a dual degree in Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School, but I missed the deadline for Kennedy School, so I didn’t apply for Kennedy School, but it turned out to be fine, as I realized that the Business School is a lot harder to get in than Kennedy School, and also, it’s actually not exactly that the business school only builds your business skills, but it’s more that they teach you how to manage difficult situations, how to manage people, and all that. All those skills and experiences are very relevant to whatever profession I choose to go forward for, as long as I work with people. (HW-​M-​3) HW-​M-​3’s narrative shows his evolving habitus associated with his family background, learning journeys, life experiences and projected career trajectories, throughout which English naturally plays an integral part. From his upbringing to his early views of the world, HW-​M-​3 has been transforming

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  257 his social and cultural capital and building up his competence and confidence in his personal and professional lives, involving interactions with other people in both the worlds of Chinese and English that he has been shuttling between. I asked HW-​M-​3 whether he sometimes would feel disadvantaged when he interacted with other people, particularly with English L1 speakers, as English is not his first language. He responded: HW-​M-​3: 

Yes, I do, I still feel that from time to time, and, but what I feel … the moment I feel the occasion slash moment actually I was disadvantaged, the moments are the casual moments … people wanna speak about … I guess it’s less about the language, it’s more about the cultural part, say, for example, friends of my age, they grew up with similarities, the cartoon, animation, so they would talk about a joke and all of that. My impression is everyone, it’s almost like in my generation, if you do not watch Ultraman, you are a weird kid. And in their generation, just everybody does that. Therefore, there are a lot of little stories they refer to in this kind of cultural context, or media context, so that’s one. The second occasion is sports. So, people watch football and what else, baseball. Football, I can get it, like in my college, we have a football team. I go to football games like if I’m free on weekends, like every weekend, but I don’t follow it closely. But people are crazy about football here. And the second is baseball. I’ve been to baseball games, like twice, or maybe three times. I never find it enjoyable at all. I still don’t quite understand why people like it that much, but even sometimes in a business setting, people from particular regions would ask: oh you’re from Boston, did you watch the game last week? R:  What about formal situations, like when you make a presentation in a professional context? HW-​M-​3:  No, no problems. I think the most difficult time was when I was in college, because the way people connect to each other among the peers is all through small talks, now, I guess also because of like the surroundings here involving MIT, Harvard, the good schools, so-​called the intellectual elites, and the kind of talks. I don’t do small talks as often as before. And I guess, my classmates, my peers, they tend to be more, much more intellectually curious about, you know, things outside the world in politics, in society whatever, arts, all of this stuff. So, during my work, one of my jobs was with an American manufacturer in Minnesota, and I would have to … I would go to a factory, and a lot of workers on the factory line, say, probably about high-​school graduates, and sometimes junior high, so for them, football is a big deal, a big thing to talk about. I think the more educated the surrounding or the community is, the less difficult it gets for me in a social setting. HW-​M-​3’s narrative here shows that the concept of field is related to yong (or utility) of English, and the habitus and ti may be adjusted according to

258  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives formal or informal fields, or “occasions/​moments” in HW-​M-​3’s own terms, in relation to language as capital for sustaining interpersonal and intercultural relationships. Small talk and other cultural aspects are embodied in people’s habitus and ti (or essence), so HW-​M-​3 feels the tension or the gap between his own ti (or essence) and habitus associated with his upbringing in China and those of the people he interacts with in the US. I also asked HW-​M-​3 whether coming from China and being a Chinese speaker of English gave him some advantage or added something to his confidence. He responded: It may not be so much about me coming from China, and actually when I moved from Shanghai to the Mid-​West in the US, I had this impression that everything in the States was better, and I had that impression up to my sophomore and junior years. I got to know the Mid-​West culture and how the majority of the Americans live, and then in junior year I went to D. C. and then I came back. I did … I did feel different. I became a much more confident person. And in a sense that the reason is being the majority of the Mid-​West Americans, they actually never want to leave where they live. And so, when I moved back, I felt like I knew a much bigger world, and then that empowered me a lot. It’s not so much about my Chinese identity, I guess, in general, it’s the personal identity which I develop and shape along the way when I grow up and when I encounter or when I experience a different world or environment. In a Chinese way or a Chinese expression, it’s just about 见没见过世面 (whether or not you’ve seen the real world). (HW-​M-​3) I have noticed that HW-​M-​3 would occasionally share some photos of himself social networking with other elites, classmates and business partners, full of passion and energy, on social media, such as Facebook or WeChat, and I asked him to share his tips for effective and successful social networking. He responded: Ah … ah, I read a lot actually. I read a wide range of books from philosophy to Chinese history to art and I immerse myself with very different groups. The reason why I read a lot is, okay, the logic is that first of all I think when I was little, I had this tremendous curiosity about what I do not know. And I remember when I was little, my dad would … my most enjoyable moment when I was little, was when some of the guests from outside the family visited my dad, and I would take a little chair and just sit nearby them and listen. I would do nothing but listen, because I was so curious what’s going on like in their world which I … which did not exist in my world, and that’s some kind of the beginning. And after that I think as I start to go around the world, I still have that curiosity about the world, and about the people. I’m very very … I’m genuinely curious about people. And I guess that ties into one of my key early

Reconstructing Chinese English narratives  259 realisations that everyone will die and everyone can only live once in one type of life. So, but the way I can enrich my experience is by listening to people’s stories: what’s their suffering, what’s their achievement and all that. So, by listening to these people’s stories, I learn a lot on the one hand. On the other hand, I gradually realise particularly successful people and particularly old successful people, they love sharing their stories. And they sometimes love people asking them not necessarily how to make money type of questions, and I never ask about these questions, or how to better our company. Of course at some point of time, I do. I do ask these questions. I’d always start with non-​business related questions. That curiosity, genuine curiosity which I had since I was little, I carry that over throughout I’d say really like in the past close to a decade whenever I encounter some people. Genuine curiosity serves me in two ways: the reading part, reading and writing, I do reading and writing every day, and I keep a journal and I write journal every day, and I make sure I have probably at least 15 minutes to half an hour to read something that is not related to my work. I’m gonna meet Hemingway’s granddaughter next month, so I started to read a lot of Hemingway recently. So, I guess the reading part really serves me on the one hand again to understand different types of life perspectives, on the other hand, when I meet new people, it’s not so much of their personality, of course personality matters, but how to engage in a meaningful conversation. Yeah. And I think that’s really something that keeps the relationship going. (HW-​M-​3) HW-​M-​3 is well aware of the norm differences between Chinese and English, and he practices his norms in both Chinese and English according to the context. HW-​M-​3 thinks that as a Chinese speaker of English, what may disadvantage him is not the language but the cultural part, or more specifically the lack of common growing up experiences, and the “small talks”, e.g., the cartoons kids watch, the jokes peers share, and the sports people play or talk about. The “small talks” may reflect the cultural essence of the speakers involved. HW-​M-​3’s confidence while living primarily in an English-​speaking society comes from his realisation that he has experienced and known “a much bigger world”, and that has “empowered” him. HW-​M-​3 has also shared his success tips as a Chinese learner and user of English, including 1) reading a lot and widely; 2) sustaining a “tremendous curiosity” since childhood; 3) travelling around the world; 4) being genuinely curious about people; 5) believing the philosophy that everyone can only live once in one type of life; 6) enriching one’s own experience by listening to people’s stories; 7) associating with “successful” people; 8) reading and writing every day, i.e., keeping a journal; 9) understanding different life perspectives; and 10) engaging in meaningful conversations with people. The narratives of HW-​M-​3 may be an exemplary case of a Chinese speaker of English shuttling between the Chinese-​and English-​ speaking system-​ worlds, communicating and negotiating a space

260  Reconstructing Chinese English narratives where one’s habitus and ti (or essence) are aligned with social and cultural capital in a changing world as a field full of interpersonal relations among people of different life-​world attitudes, mannerisms and dispositions. To summarise the chapter, I have reconstructed the narratives of 16 Chinese speakers of English regarding their learning and use of English in different contexts and societies. These narratives involve broadly how the participants have learned or acquired English, how they use English for intra-​and international communication, and what their perceptions and attitudes towards English are. I have also unpacked their translanguaging practices involving Chinese English both as individuals and more broadly as Chinese speakers of English adopting the pentagram framework consisting of habitus, capital, field, ti (essence) and yong (utility). This chapter concludes my journey of exploring the names, norms and narratives of Chinese English and its speakers. The Epilogue that follows this chapter is an extension of my own narratives as a Chinese English learner, user and researcher.

Epilogue

I consider this book as my third milestone research output on Chinese English. The first two milestones are Chinese English: Features and Implications (Xu, 2010) and Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art (Xu, He, & Deterding, 2017). Over the past decade, I have been doing fieldwork with data collection and teaching relevant courses on world Englishes. Having researched the features and implications of Chinese English, I have shifted my research focus from the system-​world of Chinese English as a variety of English to the life-​world of the speakers of Chinese English as an embodied translanguaging practice. Through exploring the names and norms associated with Chinese English and the narratives of Chinese speakers of English, I have been engaging in a journey of finding out what Chinese English is, and what it means to me and to broader Chinese English and world Englishes communities. Throughout the journey, or a Long March I would call it, I have been chatting with people about Chinese English and what it means to them. I have also been reflecting on it, reading and writing about it, and sharing what I know about it. For many years, I have been obsessed with this book project, alongside my personal and academic Journey to the West from my hometown Fushun in the northeast of China to Beijing in the mid-​1980s, to Perth in Western Australia in 2000, up north to Hong Kong in 2006, and then down south again, back to Australia in Melbourne from 2011 onwards. To adopt Kachruvian terms, my journey with English started from the Expanding Circle, moving inwards to the Inner Circle, then outwards to the Outer Circle, and inwards again to the Inner Circle, although the Circles have merged and expanded to a broader transcultural, translanguaging and trans-​mediated world. Shuttling across the Circles over the past two decades and immersing myself in the trans-​mediated world of Chinese and English has enabled me to ponder who I am as a translanguaging speaker of Chinese and English, often in the form of Chinese English and Englishised Chinese, and to reflect on the collective experiences of millions of Chinese speakers of English both in China and in the Chinese diasporas around the world. Throughout this journey, I have been deconstructing theoretical concepts and reconstructing

262 Epilogue narratives of Chinese speakers of English, including my own micro-​narratives as a Chinese speaker of English. To quote Proshina (2019, p. 233), while the Inner and Outer Circle varieties of English are recognised by the majority of linguists and educationists, at least in the field of World Englishes, the status of any Expanding Circle English as a variety per se is still a “thorny subject of incessant metalinguistic and sociolinguistic discussions”. Having been in the field for over two decades, engaging in the metalinguistic and sociolinguistic discussions, I have now started questioning whether Chinese English is indeed a “variety” of English, or whether it has been or will ever be a “variety” of English. At the time of writing this Epilogue, I have received an email informing me that my manuscript entitled Chinese English(es) has been accepted for The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of World Englishes. In that Encyclopedia entry, I have unpacked the title of “Chinese English(es)” with a plural marker -​ es in brackets, suggesting that it is “a true reflection of the complexity and sociolinguistic realities of English in China and Chinese diasporas around the world” and that it is “an evolving concept encompassing Chinese Pidgin English (CPE), Chinglish, China English as a variety, and current Chinese English(es) as a translanguaging practice”. This shows my shifting stance that Chinese English, rather than being perceived as a “variety” per se, can be understood as a translanguaging practice among bilingual and/​or multilingual speakers of Chinese and English in China and diasporic Chinese communities worldwide. In light of the shifting stance, I would say that this book should be read not as an attempt to seek recognition of Chinese English as a “variety” of English, but as an ongoing narrative inquiry into Chinese speakers of English regarding their use of English as a translanguaging practice across an increasingly globalised and meshed world of Englishes, including Chinese English. As such, this book, particularly the pentagram framework and its application throughout the data analysis chapters, may contribute to our further understanding of the “emancipatory (liberty/​freedom) practice” (Houston, 2002, p. 150) of Chinese speakers of English, or to some extent, the practice of a greater number of speakers associated with the Expanding Circle in the field of world Englishes, filled with not only inclusivity and creativity, but also inequality and alienation. This “emancipatory” practice is characterised by their daily translanguaging acts in a liminal space. The word liminal is derived from the Latin word lī men, meaning “threshold”. It indicates a beginning point or a place of entering a space, full of anticipation, ambiguity, disorientation, uncertainty and sometimes discomfort. As far as Chinese speakers of English are concerned, this liminal space is a changing linguistic and cultural landscape characterised by ongoing transcultural and translanguaging practices. Immersed in such a liminal space, I am reminded of the analogy proposed by Bourdieu in his Outline of a Theory of Practice regarding “culture”:

Epilogue  263 It is significant that “culture” is sometimes described as a map; it is the analogy which occurs to an outsider who has to find his way around in a foreign landscape and who compensates for his lack of practical mastery, the prerogative of the native, by the use of a model of all possible routes. (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 2) From a cognitive anthropological perspective, the question of what one needs to know in order to behave as a functioning member of one’s society is highly relevant to the concept of culture. Culture can be understood as “shared knowledge –​not a people’s customs and artifacts and oral traditions, but what they must know in order to act as they do, make the things they make, and interpret their experience in the distinctive way they do” (Holland & Quinn, 1987, p. 4). In the context of world Englishes, Y. Kachru (1992, pp. 340–​341) re-​interprets the definition of culture, suggesting that the first part in this definition, i.e., “act as they do”, refers to behaviour in general, including verbal behaviour; the second part, i.e., “make the things they make”, refers to cultural artefacts; and the third part, i.e., “interpret their experience”, refers to the structure of knowledge. The pentagram framework that I have developed and applied throughout the book may serve as a map by which all the possible “routes” of Chinese speakers of English across the Circles are signposted and narrated in their own voices and emic perspectives. The use of English by Chinese speakers in its various forms and for its wide-​ranging functions can be characterised as an embodied translanguaging practice. Canagarajah (2018, p. 32) points out that the prefix trans-​ indexes “communicative practices as transcending autonomous languages”, with a number of ramifications, including the “need to transcend verbal resources and consider how other semiotic resources and modalities also participate in communication”; “transcending the text/​context distinction and analysing how diverse semiotic features previously relegated

Micro-​narrative 22:  A WeChat conversation on the prefix trans-​ I was in a WeChat social media group with a number of my colleagues, who were bilingual Chinese and English speakers. On one occasion (30 April 2020), I had a “chat” within the WeChat group with one of my colleagues, in English. The “chat” was triggered by an interesting meme, in which there were two Asian-​looking characters: a young lady and a young man. The lady was saying to the young man: Water it diligently, and say ten nice words to it everyday. The next image was the young man saying earnestly to a tiny plant: Boba. Pho. Ramen. Hotpot. Sushi. Durian. Actually I take the durian back. Dumplings. KBBQ. Soju. Dimsum. Rice. I shared the meme in the WeChat group. And here is the “chat” about the meme:

264 Epilogue to spatiotemporal context actively participate in communication”; and “how semiotic resources transform social structures” in the sense of trans-​indexing transformation, and challenging understandings of language as regulated or determined by existing contexts of power relations. In the context of social media and trans-​mediated communication, it becomes increasingly common for Chinese speakers of English to interact creatively even among themselves in circumstances where they use English as a translanguaging practice. Micro-​ narrative 22 is a case in point. CS-​M-​5:  shall we call it “trans-​watering”? ME:  yes indeed, a super trans-​ watering

pic: translanguaging, transcultural, transmedia and trans-​whatever except gender. CS:  The latter may well be leading the trend. ME:  btw, I’d just be politically correct … trans-​gender is absolutely fine but I just couldn’t see it in the pic … or perhaps the little plant is transformed and transgendered and trendier …? CS:  That’s trans-​trans-​languishing in your thought. ME:  I am trans-​ed!!! CS:  Did I say “languishing”? I meant to say “languaging”. ME:  as long as there’s a trans there, you are well translated/​ interpreted and understood @CS. CS:  I feel much trans-​relieved. ME:  we are all trans-​happy people so no trans-​worries! CS:  Trans-​cheers! ME:  I’m hoping you wouldn’t mind me transferring this little trans conversation to the Epilogue of my book manuscript on the names, norms and narratives of Chinese English (anonymously) … as I define Chinese English, indeed, not so much as a “variety” of English but as an ongoing and dynamic “translanguaging” practice, precisely like what we’ve been doing here … trans-​seriously. CS:  I feel honoured and delighted. (Why do I refrain from “trans-​ing” in here?!) ME:  I am well and truly trans humbled … CS:  from your brief intro to your book, I can see what you are doing in trans … no, revolutionary! Good on you! ME:  Hahaha, what a trans-​revolutionary day! CS:  And trans-​fruitful! ME:  indeed, one of those COVID days, when we look back, perhaps in ten years’ time, to see what a Transworld we’ve been living through … CS:  and what trans-​dialoguing we have engaged in. ME:  yes, couldn’t have enjoyed it more! But I’m aware that we’re bending one of the trans-​media-​norms … So hope to catch up properly when the world becomes less iso-​ed … I then shared another meme: a man holding a poster: Stop having 1 on 1 Convos in the Group Chat! So the chat on trans-​came to an end. As I reflect

Epilogue  265 on this “chat”, I find it interesting to see how Chinese speakers working overseas chose to chat in English in a social media space or field, and how such a trendy topic on the prefix trans-​in English could be tied up with our language choice, habitus development, and ti–​yong dichotomy as a case in point for our translanguaging practice in Chinese English. Towards the end of this book project, I would consider the project, in retrospect, as a journey of discovery, ongoing conversation, self-​ understanding and recovery. It is a journey of discovery in the sense that throughout this book project, I have discovered who I was and who I am (to be) as a Chinese speaker of English in terms of the ti–​yong dichotomy and my own habitus in relation to capital and field while communicating in English as a translanguaging practice. It is a journey of ongoing conversation, because I have been engaging in many interesting conversations with people who share my passion and interest in Chinese English, including Prof. Wang Rongpei, Prof. Jia Guanjie and Prof. Du Zhengming, with whom I had my very first dinner conversation in 2014 for this book project, and my interview participants as well as many researchers and scholars in the field. It is a journey of self-​understanding, in the sense that I have been reflecting on my own shuttling across the Kachruvian “Circles” experiences as a Chinese speaker of English in a translanguaging space; and I have developed a pentagram framework to understand my own translanguaging use of English as well as that of many millions of Chinese speakers of English like me; and I have been having conversations with myself also in the form of micro-​ narratives throughout this book. It is ultimately a journey of recovery, in the sense that I have been recovering from the many symptoms of my own Expanding Circle syndrome as a Chinese speaker of English. At times I feel that my English is less proficient, or not colloquial and authentic enough, only to find that, as far as Chinese English is concerned, I couldn’t be more proficient, colloquial and authentic. This book is also a journey of “expanding noetics”, in Yamuna Kachru’s terms (Y. Kachru, 1992, p. 340), of English in general, and Chinese English in particular. Noetics is derived from a Greek word noētikos, meaning intellectual, and it contains noein (to think), from nous (mind). Noetics is related to noesis, which refers to the action of perceiving or thinking from a metaphysical perspective. In the context of world Englishes, the notion of noetics reflects “the role of language in shaping, storage, retrieval, and communication of knowledge” and “culture meaning is expressed in the cognitive structures as well as norms of behaviour people utilize when using language” (Y. Kachru, 1992, p. 341). Nelson (2015, p. 88) has reflected on Yamuna Kachru’s “expanding noetics”, suggesting that “we can expand the noetics of our own Englishes, and thereby our minds’ capacities to see the world in various ways, indeed, perhaps, even to see other worlds”. So, this book is ultimately a journey of an intellectual inquiry into the deep-​rooted cultural and metaphysical meaning of Chinese English, questioning the many fallacies and exploring the names, norms and narratives surrounding Chinese English in line with my pentagram

266 Epilogue framework to gain a better understanding of Chinese speakers of English. Through decoding Chinese English names, unpacking Chinese English norms and reconstructing Chinese English narratives, I have been creating Chinese noetics in English and contributing to the noetics between the two languages in world Englishes. Creating Chinese noetics in English is indeed aligned with the need for “further research to investigate the breadth and depth of Chinese English use across China” and for “more research into who is using Chinese English with whom, when and why” (Kirkpatrick, 2017, p. 288). Looking at the future of Chinese English research, Kirkpatrick (2017, p. 288) points out that the most important question is to investigate “the extent to which Chinese English is, in addition to fulfilling an instrumental function of practical use or yong, is also providing Chinese English speakers with some ti or essence as an integral part of their developing identity as multilinguals”. I would end the book with this “most important question” here and continue my journey of exploring what Chinese English is, what it means to us, and what it is to become in the foreseeable future.

References

Adamson, B., Bolton, K., Lam, A., & Tong, Q. S. (2002). English in China: A preliminary bibliography. World Englishes, 21(2), 349–​355. Ai, B. (2016). Experiencing different identity prototypes in learning and teaching English: A Chinese learner’s autoethnography. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 23(3), 280–​291. Alvaro, J. J. (2013). Political discourse in China’s English language press. World Englishes, 32(2), 147–​168. Alvaro, J. J. (2015). Analysing China’s English-​language media. World Englishes, 34(2), 260–​277. An, X. (2013). An empirical research on Chinese-​English bilinguals’ compliment responses –​a cross-​cultural perspective. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(5), 1053–​1062. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th edition). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Bamgbose, A. (1998). Torn between the norms: Innovations in world Englishes. World Englishes, 17(1), 1–​14. Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 45(3), 391–​414. Barkhuizen, G. (2013). Maintenance, identity and social inclusion narratives of an Afrikaans speaker living in New Zealand. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2013(222), 77–​100. Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A. (2013). Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research. New York and London: Routledge. Bartsch, R. (1987). Norms of language: Theoretical and practical aspects. London: Longman. Bennett, T., Frow, J., Hage, G., & Noble, G. (2013). Antipodean fields: Working with Bourdieu. Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 129–​150. Bolton, K. (2003a). Chinese Englishes: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bolton, K. (2003b). Lexical innovations in Hong Kong English and Chinese Englishes. In P. Peters (Ed.), From local to global English: Proceedings of style council 2001/​2 (pp. 81–​97). Sydney: Macquarie University Dictionary Research Centre. Bolton, K. (2017). Preface: English in China and the continuing story of Chinese Englishes. In Z. Xu, D. He, & D. Deterding (Eds.), Researching Chinese English: The state of the art (pp. v–​viii). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

268 References Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2015a). English in China’s universities: Past and present. World Englishes, 34(2), 190–​210. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2015b). Researching English in contemporary China. World Englishes, 34(2), 169–​174. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Zhang, W. (2015). English in China: A contemporary bibliography. World Englishes, 34(2), 282–​292. Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Zhang, W. (2020). English in China. In K. Bolton, W. Botha, & A. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The handbook of Asian Englishes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-​Blackwell. Bolton, K., & Davis, D. R. (2006). A content analysis of World Englishes. World Englishes, 25(1), 5–​6. Bös, B., & Claridge, C. (2019). Linguistic norms and conventions: Past and present. In B. Bös & C. Claridge (Eds.), Norms and conventions in the history of English (pp. 1–​6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Botha, W. (2017). The use of English in the social network of a student in South China. English Today, 33, 19–​29). Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans., Vol. 16). Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–​258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7, 14–​25. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159–​178. Butler, S. (1997). Corpus of English in Southeast Asia: Implications for a regional dictionary. In M. L. S. Bautista (Ed.), English is an Asian language: The Philippine context (pp. 103–​124). Manila: The Macquarie Library. Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Reconstructing local knowledge, reconfiguring language studies. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice (pp. 3–​24). Mahwah, NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Canagarajah, A. S. (2013a). Theorizing a competence for translingual practice at the contact zone. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 78–​102). New York and London: Routledge. Canagarajah, A. S. (2013b). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London and New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, A. S. (2017). The nexus of migration and language: The emergence of a disciplinary space. In A. S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 1–​28). London and New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, A. S. (2018). Translingual practice as spatial repertoires: Expanding the paradigm beyond structuralist orientations. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 31–​54. Chen, X. (2009). Lun Yingyu bentuhua ji Zhongguo Yingyu de yanjiu he yiyi [On localization of English and studies on China English]. Guangxi minzu daxue xuebao [Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities], 31(5), 163–​168. Cheng, C.-​C. (1992). Chinese varieties of English. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongues: English across cultures (pp. 162–​177). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

References  269 Cheng, C.-​Y. (2002). On the metaphysical significance of ti (body-​embodiment) in Chinese philosophy: Benti (origin-​substance) and ti-​yong (substance and function). Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 29(2), 145–​161. Cua, A. S. (2002). On the ethical significance of the ti-​yong distinction. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 29(2), 163–​170. Dai, F. (2010). English-​language creative writing in mainland China. World Englishes, 29(4), 546–​556. Dai, F. (2012). English-​ language creative writing by Chinese university students. English Today, 28(3), 21–​26. Dai, F. (2015). Teaching creative writing in English in the Chinese context. World Englishes, 34(2), 247–​259. Dai, F., & Zheng, W. (2019). Self-​translation and English-​language creative writing in China. World Englishes, 38(4), 659–​670. D’Angelo, J. (2018). Editorial. Asian Englishes, 20(3), 191. Derrida, J. (1967, 1997). Of grammatology (G. Chakravorty Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Diao, W. (2014). Between ethnic and English names: Name choice for transnational Chinese students in a US academic community. Journal of International Students, 4(3), 205–​222. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Du, R., & Jiang, Y. (2001). Jin ershinian “Zhongguo yingyu” yanjiu shuping [“China English” in the past 20 years]. Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research], 33(1), 37–​41. Du, Z. (1998). Zhongguo yingyu wenti ji qita [Issues of Chinese English and others]. Waiyu jiaoxue [Foreign Language Education], 19(3), 6–​14. Edwards, J. G. H. (2017). China English: Attitudes, legitimacy, and the native speaker construct. English Today, 33(2), 38–​45. Evans, B. E. (2010). Chinese perceptions of Inner Circle varieties of English. World Englishes, 29(2), 270–​280. Fang, F. (2006). My experience of learning languages and teaching English in China. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(2), 117–​129. Fang, F. (G.), & Baker, W. (2018). “A more inclusive mind towards the world”: English language teaching and study abroad in China from intercultural citizenship and English as a lingua franca perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 22(5), 608–​624. Feng, Y. (1998). Zhongguo Zhexueshi Xinbian [History of Chinese philosophy: A new edition]. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press). Fong, T. Y. E. (2017). Through English as a window: Defining “being Chinese” in the 21st century. In Z. Xu, D. He, & D. Deterding (Eds.), Researching Chinese English: The state of the art (pp. 219–​231). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Fu, N. (2007). Zhongshi Yingyu de zhexue shuyuan [On the philosophical origin of Chinglish]. Shanxi shida xuebao [Journal of Shanxi Normal University], 34, 112–​113. Gao, X. (A). (2010). To be or not to be “part of them”: Micropolitical challenges in mainland Chinese students’ learning of English in a multilingual university. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 274–​294. Gao, X. (A). (2012). The study of English in China as a patriotic enterprise. World Englishes, 31(3), 351–​365.

270 References Gao, Y. (2009a). Language and identity: State of the art and a debate of legitimacy. In J. Lo Bianco, J. Orton, & Y. Gao (Eds.), China and English: Globalisation and the dilemmas of identity (pp. 101–​119). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Gao, Y. (2009b). Sociocultural contexts and English in China: Retaining and reforming the cultural habitus. In J. Lo Bianco, J. Orton, & Y. Gao (Eds.), China and English: Globalisation and the dilemmas of identity (pp. 56–​78). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Gao, Y. (2014). Faithful imitator, legitimate speaker, playful creator and dialogical communicator: Shift in English learners’ identity prototypes. Language and Intercultural Communication, 14, 59–​75. Gao, Y.-​H., & Xu, H.-​C. (2015). World Englishes and China English research: Challenges and future directions of the new century. Journal of Xinjiang Normal University, 36(5), 122–​129. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-​Blackwell. Garrison, J. (2012). On Cheng Chung-​Ying’s Bentiyong Onto-​hermeneutics. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 7(3): 471–​480. Ge, C. (1980). Mantan you han yi ying wenti [Talking about some issues in Chinese-​ English translation]. Fanyi tongxun [Translator’s Notes], 2, 1–​8. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Görlach, M. (1988). The development of Standard Englishes. In M. Görlach (Ed.), Studies in the history of the English language (pp. 9–​64). Heidelberg: Winter. Graham, A. C. (1958). Two Chinese philosophers: Ch’eng Ming-​tao and Ch’eng Yi-​ ch’uan. London: Lund Humphries. Grenfell, M. (1996). Bourdieu and initial teacher education: A post-​ structuralist approach. British Educational Research Journal, 22(3), 287–​303. Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–​257. Han, L. (2007). “Zhongguo yingyu” yanjiu xianzhuang fenxi [Analysis of the status quo of China English research]. Waiyu yu waiyu jiaoxue [Foreign languages and Foreign-​Language Teaching], 223(10), 28–​32. He, D. (2009). Zhongguo Yingyu de shehui yuyanxue liju [The sociolinguistic foundation of Chinese English]. Lilun yu shijian [Theory and Practice], 3, 111–​113. He, D. (2017). The use of English in the professional world in China. World Englishes, 36(4), 571–​590. He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspective of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 44(4), 769–​789. Heffernan, K. (2010). English name use by East Asians in Canada: Linguistic pragmatics or cultural identity? Names, 58(1), 24–​36. Hlavac, J., & Xu, Z. (2020). Chinese-​English interpreting and intercultural communication. London and New York: Routledge. Holland, D. C., & Quinn, N. (1987). Cultural models in language and thought. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Houston, S. (2002). Reflecting on habitus, field and capital: Towards a culturally sensitive social work. Journal of Social Work, 2(2), 149–​167. Hu, X. (2004). Why China English should stand alongside British, American, and the other “world Englishes”. English Today, 20(2), 26–​33. Hu, X. (2005). China English, at home and in the world. English Today, 21(3), 27–​38.

References  271 Hu, X. (2008). Zhongguo yingyu bianti yanjiu xianzhuang ji qianjing [Studies of China English: Review and prospects]. Zhongguo waiyu [Foreign Languages in China], 5(2), 27–​35. Huang, J. (1991). Zailun “Yingdang kending ‘xi yi han hua’ xianxiang de jiji mian” [Revisiting “the positive role of ‘sinicism’ in the English-​translated version”]. Waiyu jiaoxue [Foreign Language Education], 12(3), 87–​90. Jenkins, J. (2014). English as a Lingua Franca in the International University: The politics of academic English language policy. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes: A resource book for students (3rd edition). London and New York: Routledge. Jia, G. (2013). Zhongguo yingyu zai yanjiu [A re-​study of China English]. Dangdai waiyu yanjiu [Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies], 3, 8–​13. Jia, G., & Xiang, M. (1997). Wei Zhongguo yingyu yi bian [In defence of China English]. Waiyu yu waiyu jiaoxue [Foreign Languages and Foreign-​Language Teaching], 101(5), 11–​12. Jiang, Y., & Du, R. (2003). Youguan “Zhongguo yingyu” de wenti: dui “zhongguo yingyu zhiyi” yiwen de huiying [Issues of China English: Responding to “Challenging China English”]. Foreign Language Education, 24(1), 27–​35. Kachru, B. B. (1982a). Models for non-​native Englishes. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 31–​57). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B. (Ed.) (1982b). The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. 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 language and literatures (pp. 11–​30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions and models of non-​native Englishes. Oxford, New York, Toronto, Sydney, Frankfurt: Pergamon Institute of English. Kachru, B. B. (1992). Teaching world Englishes. In The other tongue: English across cultures (pp. 355–​365). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B. B., & Smith, L. (1985). Editorial, World Englishes, 4(2), 209–​212. Kachru, Y. (1992). Culture, style, and discourse: Expanding noetics of English. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd edition, pp. 340–​ 352). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for intercultural communication and English language teaching. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A. (2010). Introduction. In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of world Englishes (pp. 1–​14). London and New York: Routledge. Kirkpatrick, A. (2017). Future directions for researching Chinese English. In Z. Xu, D. He, & D. Deterding (Eds.), Researching Chinese English: The state of the art (pp. 267–​279). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Kirkpatrick, A., & Xu, Z. (2002). Chinese pragmatic norms and “China English”. World Englishes, 21(2), 269–​279.

272 References Kirkpatrick, A., & Xu, Z. (2012). Chinese rhetoric and writing: An introduction for language teachers. Anderson, SC and Fort Collins, CO: Parlor Press and the WAC Clearinghouse. Kramsch, C. (2015). Applied linguistics: A theory of the practice. Applied Linguistics, 36(4), 454–​465. Legge, J. (1861). The Chinese classics –​Vol 1: Confucius Analects, The Great Learning, and The Doctrine of the Mean. Hong Kong and London: Trübner & Co. Li, C. (2008). “China English”: Facts, fantasies, and fallacies. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 5(3), 55–​75. Li, D. C. S. (2002). Pragmatic dissonance: The ecstasy and agony of speaking like a native speaker of English. In D. C. S. Li (Ed.), Discourses in Search of Members: In Honor of Ron Scollon (pp. 559–​593). Lanham, New York, Oxford: University Press of America, Inc. Li, W. (1993). Zhongguo yingyu yu Zhongguo shi yingyu [China English and Chinglish]. Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research], 96(4), 18–​24. Li, W. (2006). Yingyu quanqiuhua ji qi zai Zhongguo bentuhua de renwen yingxiang [The humanistic effects of the globalization of English and its nativization in China]. Henan shifan daxue xuebao [Journal of Henan Normal University], 33(3), 131–​134. Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–​1235. Li, W. (2016). New Chinglish and the post-​multilingualism challenge: Translanguaging ELF in China. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 5(1), 1–​25. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–​30. Li, W. (2022). Translanguaging as a political stance: implications for English language education. ELT Journal, 76(2),172–​182. Li, Y. (2019). China English or Chinese English. English Today, 35(2), 3–​12. Liu, B. (2012). Effect of first language on the use of English discourse markers by L1 Chinese speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 45, 149–​172. Liu, G. (2009). Zhongguo yingyu yanjiu de shengtai yuyanxue shijiao [Ecological perspectives on China English research]. Xi’an waiguoyu daxue xuebao [Journal of Xi’an International Studies University], 17(3), 6–​10. Lo Bianco, J. (2009). Being Chinese, speaking English. In J. Lo Bianco, J. Orton, & Y. Gao (Eds.), China and English: Globalisation and the dilemmas of identity (pp. 294–​309). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Low, E. L., & Pakir, A. (2018). Introduction: World Englishes –​rethinking paradigms. In E. L. Low & A. Pakir (Eds.), World Englishes: Rethinking paradigms (pp. 1–​11). London and New York: Routledge. Mahboob, A. (2015). Identity management, language variation and English language textbooks: focus on Pakistan. In D. N. Djenar, A. Mahboob, & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Language and identity across modes of communication (pp. 153–​ 177). Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Makeham, J. (1994). Name and actuality in early Chinese thought 名實. New York: State University of New York Press. Maraceni, M. (2015). World Englishes: A critical analysis. London, New Delhi, New York, Sydney: Bloomsbury Academic.

References  273 Martin, J. R. (2000). Design and practice: Enacting functional linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 116–​126. May, S. (2014a). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 7–​31). New York and London: Routledge. May, S. (2014b). The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education. New York: Routledge. McArthur, T. (1998). The English languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. McKay, S. L. (2018). English as an international language: What it is and what it means for pedagogy. RELC Journal, 49(1), 9–​23. Mencken, H. L. (1965). The American language: An inquiry into the development of English in the United States (4th edition). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Miller, R. A. (1993). Shih Ming. In M. Loewe (Ed.), Early Chinese texts: A bibliographical guide (pp. 424–​ 428). Berkeley, CA: Society for the Study of Early China: Institute of East Asian Studies, University of California. Moag, R. F. (1992). The life cycle of non-​native Englishes: A case study. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd edition, pp. 233–​252). Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Modiano, M. (1999). International English in the global village. English Today, 15(2), 22–​28. Mufwene, S. S. (1997). The legitimate and illegitimate offspring of English. In L. E. Smith & M. L. Forman (Eds), World Englishes 2000 (pp. 182–​ 203). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. Mufwene, S. (2001). The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mufwene, S. S. (2009). “Kituba, Kileta, or Kikonko? What’s in a name?” In C. de Feral (Ed.), Naming languages in Sub-​Saharan Africa: Practices, names, categorisations (pp. 211–​222). Louvain-​la-​Neuve: Peeters. Muller, A. C. (2016). The emergence of essence-​function (ti-​yong) 體用 hermeneutics in the sinification of Indic Buddhism: An overview. Critical Review for Buddhist Studies, 19, 111–​152. Nelson, C. L. (2015). Creativity and “expanding noetics” in world Englishes. World Englishes, 34(1), 88–​95. Orton, J. (2006). Responses to Chinese speakers of English. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 44(3), 287–​309. Otsuji, E., & Pennycook, A. (2010). Metrolingualism: Fixity, fluidity and language in flux. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(3), 240–​254. Pakir, A., Hung, T., Tan, C., & Chan, S. (1993). Panel discussion 1: The question of standards and norms in English. In A. Pakir (Ed.), The English Language in Singapore (pp. 79–​102). Singapore: UniPress: The Centre for the Arts, National University of Singapore. Pan, W. (2007). Zhongwai mingming yishu [The Art of Chinese and Foreign Naming]. Beijing: Xin shijie chubanshe [New World Press]. Pan, Z. (2002). Zhongguo yingyu bianti de yanjiu: huigu yu zhanwang [Researching China English as a variety: Reflections and expectations]. Waiyu yanjiu [Foreign Languages Research], 76(6), 24–​27.

274 References Park, G., Rinke, C., & Mawhinney, L. (2016). Exploring the interplay of cultural capital, habitus, and field in the life stories of two West African teacher candidates. Teacher Development, 20(5), 648–​666. Pass, G., & Woods, D. (Eds.). (2004). Alchemies: Community exChange. Perth: Black Swan Press. Peillon, M. (1998). Bourdieu’s field and the sociology of welfare. Journal of Social Policy, 27(2), 213–​229. Pennycook, A. (2009). Plurilithic Englishes: Towards a 3D model. In K. Murata & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Global Englishes in Asian contexts (pp. 194–​207). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social injustice: An introduction to applied sociolinguistics. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Pinkham, J., & Jiang, G. (2000). The translator’s guide to Chinglish. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Prabhu, N. S. (1993). Descriptive and prescriptive approaches to the norms of English in Singapore. In A. Pakir (Ed.), The English language in Singapore: Standards and norms (pp. 1–​5). Singapore: UniPress: The Centre for the Arts, National University of Singapore. Proshina, Z. G. (2014). Language revolution behind the cultural curtain. World Englishes, 33(1), 1–​8. Proshina, Z. G. (2019). Elaborating on the Expanding Circle. World Englishes, 38(1–​2 Special Issue: Honoring the life and work of Braj B. Kachru), 233–​244. Ritzer, G. (1996). Sociological theory. New York and Singapore: McGraw-​Hill. Robbins, D. (2005). The origins, early development and status of Bourdieu’s concept of “cultural capital”. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(1), 13–​30. Schneider, E. (2003). The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language, 79(2), 233–​281. Schneider, E. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, E. (2009). New Englishes, new norms: Growth and maturity in languages. In C. Ward (Ed.), Language teaching in a multilingual world: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 191–​214). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Schneider, E. (2014). New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Englishes. World Englishes, 33(1), 9–​32. Seargeant, P. (2010). Naming and defining in world Englishes. World Englishes, 29(1), 97–​113. Seargeant, P. (2012). Exploring World Englishes: Language in a global context. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Seargeant, P., & Tagg, C. (2011). English on the internet and a “post-​varieties” approach to language. World Englishes, 30(4), 496–​514. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seidlhofer, B. (2012). Anglophone-​centric attitudes and the globalization of English. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(2), 393–​407. Sridhar, S. N., & Sridhar, K. K. (2018). Coda 2 A bridge half-​built: Toward a holistic theory of second language acquisition and world Englishes. World Englishes, 37(1), 127–​139.

References  275 Strevens, P. (1992). English as an international language: Directions in the 1990s. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.), The other tongue: English across cultures. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Sui, G. (2015). Bilingual creativity: University-​ level poetry writing workshops in English in China: How is “contact literature” created? English Today, 31(3), 40–​45. Sun, H., & Johnson, D. (1990). From ti-​ yong to gaige to democracy and back again: Education’s struggle in communist China. Contemporary Education, 61, 209–​214. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–​108). London: Continuum. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wang, H. (2018). The white horse is not a horse: A critical analysis of Gongsun Longzi from logic, philosophie, and linguistic perspectives. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press (China). Wang, H., & Yao, M. (2017). The discursive construction of English naming practice in Mainland China: A nationalism and authenticity perspective. English Today, 34(2), 39–​45. Wang, R. (1991). Zhongguo Yingyu shi keguan cunzai [China English is an objective existence]. Jiefangjun waiguoyu xueyuan xuebao [Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages], 1(1), 1–​8. Wang, V. X. (2012). Negotiating identity in situ: Chinese EFL learners’ responses to native-​speaker norms. In R. Jackson (Ed.), TESOL as a global trade: Ethics, equity and ecology: Papers from the 2012 ACTA International Conference (Vol. TESOL in Context: Special Edition S3, pp. 1–​8). Cairns Convention Centre: Australian Council of TESOL Associations. Wang, W. (2015). Teaching English as an international language in China: Investigating university teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards China English. System, 53, 60–​72. Wang, W., & Fang, F. (G.). (2018). Chinese netizens’ reactions to the use of English as a lingua franca. English Today, 35(4), 3–​12. Wang, Y. (2013). Non-​conformity to ENL norms: A perspective from Chinese English users. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 2(2), 255–​282. Wang, Y. (2016). Native English speakers’ authority in English: Do Chinese speakers of English care about native English speakers’ judgments? English Today, 32(1), 35–​40. Wei, R., & Su, J. (2015). Surveying the English language across China. World Englishes, 34(2), 175–​189. Widdowson, H. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16(1), 135–​146. Widdowson, H. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. (2008). Language creativity and the poetic function. A response to Swann and Maybin (2007). Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 503–​508. Wu, Y. (2012). On the English version of Chinese personal names. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 20(2), 139–​149. Xia, L., Xiao, Y., Zhang, Y., & Nesi, H. (2016). The corpora of China English: Implications for an EFL dictionary for Chinese learners of English. Lexikos, 26, 416–​435.

276 References Xu, S., & Connelly, F. M. (2009). Narrative inquiry for teacher education and development: Focus on English as a foreign language in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 219–​227. Xu, W., Wang, Y., & Case, R. E. (2010). Chinese attitudes towards varieties of English: A pre-​Olympic examination. Language Awareness, 19(4), 249–​260. Xu, Z. (2004). From “recessive” to “dominant” linguistic and cultural norms: Moving out of the comfort zone. In G. Pass & D. Woods (Eds.), Alchemies: Community exChange (pp. 287–​300). Perth: Black Swan Press. Xu, Z. (2006). Rectifying “Chinese English”. In A. Hashim & N. Hassan (Eds.), Varieties of English in Southeast Asia and beyond (pp. 283–​291). Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. Xu, Z. (2009). Linguistic, cultural and identity issues in Englishization of Putonghua. In K.-​k. Tam (Ed.), Englishization in Asia: Language and cultural issues (pp. 119–​ 139). Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press. Xu, Z. (2010a). Chinese English: A future power? In A. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of World Englishes (pp. 282–​298). London and New York: Routledge. Xu, Z. (2010b). Chinese English: Features and implications. Hong Kong: Open University of Hong Kong Press. Xu, Z. (2014). A cultural linguistics approach to Asian Englishes. Asian Englishes, 16(2), 173–​179. Xu, Z. (2017). Researching Chinese English: A meta-​analysis of Chinese scholarship on Chinese English research. In Z. Xu, D. He, & D. Deterding (Eds.), Researching Chinese English: The state of the art (pp. 235–​266). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Xu, Z. (2022). Unpacking pragmatic norms of Chinese speakers of English for English as a lingua franca (ELF) communication. In I. Walkinshaw (Ed.), Pragmatics in English as a lingua franca: Findings and developments (pp. 203–​220). Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, Inc. Xu, Z., & Deterding, D. (2017). The playfulness of “new” Chinglish. Asian Englishes, 19(2), 116–​127. Xu, Z., Deterding, D., & He, D. (2017). What we know about Chinese English: Status, issues and trends. In Z. Xu, D. He, & D. Deterding (Eds.), Researching Chinese English: The state of the art (pp. 1–​ 14). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Xu, Z., & Fang, N. (2020). Re-​schematization of Chinese xiao (filial piety) across cultures and generations In M. Sadegh Pour & F. Sharifian (Eds.), Cultural linguistics and World Englishes. Switzerland: Springer. Xu, Z., He, D., & Deterding, D. (Eds.). (2017). Researching Chinese English: The state of the art. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Xu, Z., & Sharifian, F. (2017). Unpacking cultural conceptualizations in Chinese English. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 27(1), 65–​84. Xu, Z., & Sharifian, F. (2018). Cultural conceptualizations of Chinese zodiac animals in Chinese English. World Englishes, 37(4), 590–​606. Xu, Z., & Zhang, D. (2020). Exploring the functionality of English in China: A tale of two cities. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(3), 559–​611. Yang, C., & Zhang, L. J. (2015). China English in trouble: Evidence from dyadic teacher talk. System, 51, 39–​50. Yano, Y. (2003). World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes, 20(2), 119–​132.

References  277 Ye, L., & Edwards, V. (2015). Chinese overseas doctoral student narratives of intercultural adaptation. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(3), 228–​241. You, X. (2008). Rhetorical strategies, electronic media, and China English. World Englishes, 27(2), 233–​249. You, X. (2011). Chinese white-​collar workers and multilingual creativity in the diaspora. World Englishes, 30(3), 409–​427. Yuan, B. (2014). “Wh-​on-​earth” in Chinese speakers’ L2 English: Evidence of dormant features. Second Language Research, 30(4), 515–​549. Zhang, L. (2015). Writing in English in China: An autobiographical essay. World Englishes, 34(2), 278–​281. Zhang, P. (1995). Shiyong mudi yu guobie bianti [The international or intranational use of English and its national varieties]. Xiandai waiyu [Modern Foreign Languages], 69(3), 16–​21. Zhang, W. (2012). Chinese-​English code-​mixing among China’s netizens. English Today, 28(3), 40–​52. Zhou, S., & Moody, A. (2017). English in The Voice of China. World Englishes, 36(4), 554–​570. Zhu, H., Li, W., & Jankowicz-​Pytel, D. (2020). Translanguaging and embodied teaching and learning: Lessons from a multilingual karate club in London. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(1), 65–​80. Zhu, W. (2017). How do Chinese speakers of English manage rapport in extended concurrent speech? Multilingua, 36(2), 181–​204.

Appendix

Appendix 1 Questionnaire survey on Chinese English English

Chinese

Do you have an English name? Why or why not? What is your preferred name among your friends and/​or colleagues? For example, your Chinese given name, your surname, your full name, or your nickname, if you have one? I know that Chinese use a lot of different address terms, for example xiao (little) Li and lao (old) Wang, Zhang xiansheng, Liu xiaojie, Chen nűshi, Ma taitai? In the workplace, we also use Jingli 经理, 经理 Zhuren 主任, 主任 Kezhang 科长 科长, Chuzhang 处长, 处长 Professor 教授, 教授 and Doctor 博 士／或者医生. 士／或者医生 Can you explain some of these address terms? Culture can be many different things. What would you say about “Chinese culture”? How would you usually celebrate your birthdays?

您有英文名字吗？平常用英文名字 吗？为什么？ 平时朋友都叫您什么名字呢？同事都 叫您什么名字？是用名字还是姓比 较多？还是您有特别的昵称呢？

Where is your hometown? What are your feelings towards your hometown?

What are the main things Chinese people usually talk about currently among their friends? How would you usually greet people in English?

中文里面各种各样的称呼很多，比如 说“小”张，“ 小”张，“老”王，还有先生、 女士、小姐等等。要是在单位里各 种称呼就更热闹了，比如说经理、 主任、科长、教授等等。您能给我 解释一下您对这些称呼都是怎么理 解的呢？

文化是一个非常广泛的概念，您觉得 文化是一个非常广泛的概念，您觉得““ 中国文化”该怎么定义呢？ 比如说，身为一个中国人，您每年都 怎么庆祝您的生日呢？ 您觉得这和别的国家、别的文化的人 过生日的方法有区别吗？ 对您来说，您的老家对您有什么意义 呢？ 您觉得老家对别的文化的人意义也如 此吗？ 那比如说日常聊天呢？中国人都会选 择一些什么话题呢？您觉得这些话 题和别的文化会一样吗？ 您平时用英文怎么跟人打招呼呢？跟 讲英语的人怎么打招呼？跟中国人 呢？

Appendix 279 English

Chinese

If I say to you, “Your English is very good”, 如果我对您说“ 如果我对您说“您的英文讲的真好”， how would you respond to me? 您会怎么回应呢？如果是一个讲英 语的人这样和您说，您的回答会一 样吗？ How would you make an apology in 如果您要用英语向某人道歉，您会怎 English, for example, if you’ve lost the 么说呢？如果是用中文道歉，您会 book you borrowed from your English-​ 怎么说呢？这两者有区别吗？ speaking friend? It may be an obvious question, but what is 您觉得英语是什么呢？都有谁讲英 “English”? Who speaks it, and what are 语？您觉得大家讲的都是同一种英 the different Englishes you are aware of? 语吗？ How important is it to learn English? 您觉得学习英语很重要吗？ What English do you think people should 您觉得大家学英语的时候应该学哪种 learn and speak? American English? 英语呢？美式？英式？自己国家讲 British English? People’s own national 的英语（比如新加坡）？还是应该 Englishes, or an International English of 有一种统一的国际英语呢？ some kind? Have you ever heard of names such 您听说过““中国英语”、“ 您听说过 中国英语”、“中式英语” as “China English”, “Chinese style 、“中国特色的英语”这类词吗？ English” and “English with Chinese characteristics”? What is “Chinese English”? Is it the same 您知道Chinese English是什么吗？您觉 是什么吗？您觉 您知道 or different from “Chinglish”? 得这个和Chinglish有区别吗？ 有区别吗？ 得这个和 Can you think of some examples of Chinese 您能想出一些中式英语的例子吗？什 English? 么是中式英语？ What about the “good” English used by 那您觉得在中国的那些英语老师、英 Chinese professionals, such as English 语记者、英语翻译这些人讲的所 teachers, professors, journalists, news 谓的““好英语”，也是归在 好英语”，也是归在Chinese 谓的 editors, and translators? What name English的范畴之内吗？还是应该给 的范畴之内吗？还是应该给 should we give to the English they speak? 这种英语起一个不同的名字？ What’s your attitude towards Chinese 您对Chinese English有什么看法吗？ 有什么看法吗？ 您对 English? Do you think Chinese have a special kind of 您觉得中国人讲英文的时候有特殊的 pronunciation when they speak English? 发音或者口音吗？ What are the main characteristics of the 您认为中国人讲英文都有什么特点 English spoken by Chinese people, in 呢？ your opinion? Can you recognise whether people are 您觉得光听一个人讲英文您能听出来 Chinese or not when they speak English? 他或者她是中国人吗？为什么呢？ 他或者她 是中国人吗？为什么呢？ Why or why not? Are there any particular stories, past 您可以跟我讲讲您的一些故事吗，过 experiences, current thoughts or future 去的经历，目前的想法，或者未来 plans you’d like to share? They can be 的计划什么的？任何事情都可以， about anything. E.g., your language 比如您的语言学习和使用经历，您 learning/​use experiences, your previous 上次来中国，或者回中国的经历， visit to China, your next holiday plan, 或者您有什么旅行度假计划，或者 your hobbies, how you spent your last 您有什么业余爱好，或者您上一个 weekend? 周末是怎么度过的？（用英语讲， 如果可以的话）

280 Appendix Appendix 2 Information on the demographics of the participants and their respective interviews Participants (Codes)

Gender/​age (approx.) at the time of the interviews/​profession

Time/​venue/​medium of Length of interviews interviews

WG-​M-​4

November 2016/​ Melbourne/​ Face to face

1 hour 16 minutes

EQ-​M-​5

M/​40/​professor in philosophy F/​48/​freelance writer/​ translator M/​52/​journalist

50 minutes

WD-​F-​4

F/​46/​professor

YJ-​F-​3

F/​40/​Lecturer/​visiting scholar F/​36/​Lecturer/​visiting scholar F/​26/​Exchange student M/​26/​PhD student (anthropology)

July 2018/​ Beijing/​ Face to face July 2014/​ Beijing/​ Face to face July 2018/​ Melbourne/​ Face to face 2015/​ Melbourne/​ Face to face

ZX-​F-​4

EL-​F-​3 YX-​F-​2 TC-​M-​2

TF-​M-​2

GH-​M-​2

TH-​M-​2

LY-​F-​2

CY-​F-​4

M/​29/​Masters’student; currently professional in Language Education M/​25/​Master’s student, currently working in Media M/​24/​ Master’s student, currently working in engineering F/​27/​ Master’s student, currently working in a company M/​48/​Used to be a journalist and translator

LQ-​F-​4

F/​47/​Translator

HW-​M-​3

M/​30/​business and entrepreneur

DY-​F-​3

F/​35/​Lecturer

16 minutes 27 minutes 1 hour 23 minutes

May 2017/​ 38 minutes Melbourne/​Face to face (studio) 2018/​ Qingdao/​ via Email email and social correspondence media May 2016/​ 27 minutes Melbourne/​ Face to face November 2018/​ 33 minutes Melbourne/​ Face to face July 2017/​ Melbourne/​ 26 minutes Face to face October 2014/​ Melbourne/​Face to face (interviewed by CY-​F-​4’s daughter as a RA) August 2014/​ Melbourne/​ Face to face September 2019/​ Washington DC/​ via Zoom June 2020/​ Melbourne/​ via email

35 minutes

25 minutes

45 minutes

Email correspondence

Index

ancestral hometown discourse 189 autobiographical narrative inquiry 54 autoethnography 56 borrowed identity 142 capital: cultural capital 86–​87; definitions 86; economic capital 86; forms of capital 87–​88; social capital 86–​87; symbolic capital 86 categorical identity 54 China English: as a variety 34, 70, 74; as academic discourse 122, 132, 137; debate 21, 121; definitions, 19, 20; proposal 18, 120, 123 China English movement 34 China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) 16–​17 Chinese cosmopolitan English 47 Chinese English: awareness and attitudes 21, 40; definitions 1, 3–​4, 7, 13, 26, 33, 73, 122; dictionary research 36; imaginary function 47; linguistic features 22; meta-​analysis 11, 16–​17, 27; nexus function 5; as a translanguaging practice 122 Chinese English(es) 262 Chinese speakers of English 8–​9 Chinglish 20, 108, 119, 125 Classic of Filial Piety see Xiao Jing communicative appropriacy 179 Confucius (551-​479BC) 193 Confucius Analects 119 cosmopolitan English 47 cultural arbitrary 84 culturally constructed concepts 192 culture: an analogy 80, 263; cultural and geography 88; definition 263

dao 100 deconstructionism 75 deconstructionist approach 14, 74–​75 Derrida, Jacques 75–​76 developmental cycles model 66 digital virtual reality 4 discursive consciousness 82–​83 distribution of English 66 diversity discourses 92 Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong) 97 dynamic (interactive) turn 60 English Corners 42 emancipatory (liberty/​freedom) practice 262 embodied capital 87 embodied practice 83 endonormative norms 202 Expanding Circle syndrome 265 exploitation colonies 65 field: definitions 88–​89, 90; as battleground 90–​91 functional turn 59 Fu Jen University (Beijing Catholic University, or Catholic University of Peking) 144 Gongsun Long (325-​250BC) 73 Great Ultimate 100 guanxi 88 gyoza see jiaozi habitus: definitions 81, 83, 85; as embodiment 82; as generative matrix of practices 84; as social alignment of the body 83 Han dynasty 78

282 Index he yi (unity): tian-​ren he yi, ti-​yong he yi, and zhi-​xing he yi 102 Hu Shih 10 hybrid Englishes 119 identity prototypes 38, 56–​57, 84 indexicality 193 institutionalised capital 87 interlanguage pragmatics 51 jiaozi (Chinese dumplings) 198, 202 Kachruvian Three Circles model 67–​68 Kanji (written characters in Japanese) 198 knowledging 61 language norm 173 languaging 60–​61 Laoshi (teacher) 107 Laowai (foreigner) 108, 111 life-​world 79 liminal space 262 linguistic imperialism 92 linguistic norm see language norm linguistic schizophrenia 121 Liu Xi 138 Long March 11, 71–​72, 261 metaphysics 13–​14 Metrolingualism 103–​104 micro-​narratives 7 monolingual bias 203 monolingual habitus 86 monolingual mindset see monolingual habitus monolingual norms 203 multilingual creativity 45 multilingual turn 59–​60 naming practice in Chinese culture 48–​50 naming practices: categories 140–​141 naming the English language: six categories 70 narratives 53, 206–​207 narrative analysis approach 54 narrative inquiry 53, 206: data analysis strategies 206–​207; strengths 206 narrative knowledging 207–​208 narrative turn 206 native speaker norms 174, 202 new Chinglish 46; definition 46; playfulness function 28, 46, 62

noetics 3, 265 normalising agents 90 norms, approaches to: behavioural norm 173, 179; code norm 173; conforming, challenging and paradigm-​shifting, 171, 174, 197; definitions 172–​173, 178; as entailing prescriptivism and conformity 173; feature norm 173 objectified capital 87 ontological identity 54 osechi (food for the New Year's day in Japan) 198 overseas Chinese 8 paradigm shift 13, 72–​73 pentagram framework 14, 74, 77–​78 Peter Mundy 10 Pierre Felix Bourdieu 79 post-​varieties approach 68–​69 post-​varieties era 59 post-​varieties framework 71 practical consciousness 82–​83 pragmatic dissonance 175 pragmatic norms 179 pre-​emptive obedience 174 prefix trans-​ 62, 263–​264 reflexive sociology 208 researching Chinese English: distinct periods 11–​12, 17–​18, 24–​25; the future 4–​5; interdisciplinary approaches 12, 13, 18, 26, 42–​43; large-​scale surveys 35–​36; methods 25–​26; overview 28–​30; phases and stages 24–​25, 30 see also distinct periods; themes self-​denigration maxim 6 settlement colonies 65 Shih Ming (Explanation of Names) 138, 140 Six-​States (Warring-​States) period 73 small talks 259 Southern Song Dynasty 95 spread of English 66 star pentagon framework see pentagram framework system-​world 79 taiji see Great Ultimate Three Kingdoms period 95

Index  283 ti 4; definition 96, 98; as essence or embodiment 98; as zhuti, keti and benti 99–​100 ti-​yong: conceptualisation 5; debate 95; dichotomy 5, 95, 98; disctinction 95, 96; relationship 101–​102; tension 5 Tong Wen Guan 94 trade colonies 65 translanguaging: as a concept 75; as creativity 62; as a practical theory 61; translanguaging competence 60–​62 translanguaging practice 3 translanguaging space 46, 61–​62 transnational social fields 90 trans-​normativity 204 variety of English: criteria 66–​67; as a sociolinguistic construct 69

waijiao (foreign teachers) 12, 211 Wang Bi 95 world Englishes: common trends 2; definitions 1–​2; as a discipline 62–​63; models 62–​65; as a paradigm 3, 67; speakers 2; study of world Englishes 2; taxonomy 2–​3, 70–​71 worldliness of world Englishes (WE-​ness) 9 wu xing (five elements) 78 xiao (filial piety) 193–​195 Xiao Jing (Classic of Filial Piety) 193 yin and yang 100, 201 yong: as application or function 101 Zengzi (505-​435BC) 193 Zhang Zhidong 94–​95 Zhu Xi 95