Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools: More than One Way of Being Chinese? 9781788927239

Citation preview

Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

LANGUAGES FOR INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION Series Editors: Michael Byram, University of Durham, UK and Anthony J. Liddicoat, University of Warwick, UK The overall aim of this series is to publish books which will ultimately inform learning and teaching, but whose primary focus is on the analysis of intercultural relationships, whether in textual form or in people’s experience. There will also be books which deal directly with pedagogy, with the relationships between language learning and cultural learning, between processes inside the classroom and beyond. They will all have in common a concern with the relationship between language and culture, and the development of intercultural communicative competence. All books in this series are externally peer-reviewed. Full details of all the books in this series and of all our other publications can be found on http://www.multilingual-matters.com, or by writing to Multilingual Matters, St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK.

LANGUAGES FOR INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION: 35

Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools More than One Way of Being Chinese?

Sara Ganassin

MULTILINGUAL MATTERS Bristol • Blue Ridge Summit

DOI https://doi.org/10.21832/GANASS7222 Names: Ganassin, Sara, 1982, author. Title: Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools:   More than One Way of Being Chinese?/Sara Ganassin. Description: Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 2020. | Series:   Languages for Intercultural Communication and Education: 35 | Includes   bibliographical references and index. | Summary: ‘This book investigates   the social, political and educational role of community language   education in migratory contexts. It draws on an ethnographic study that   investigates the significance of Mandarin-Chinese community schooling in   Britain as an intercultural space for those involved’ – Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2019037514 (print) | LCCN 2019037515 (ebook) | ISBN   9781788927222 (hardback) | ISBN 9781788927239 (pdf) | ISBN 9781788927246   (epub) | ISBN 9781788927253 (kindle edition) Subjects: LCSH: Chinese language – Study and teaching – Great Britain. |   Chinese – Great Britain – Ethnic identity. | Heritage language   speakers – Great Britain. Classification: LCC PL1068.G7 G36 2020 (print) | LCC PL1068.G7 (ebook) |   DDC 495.180071 – dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019037514 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019037515 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue entry for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13: 978-1-78892-722-2 (hbk) Multilingual Matters UK: St Nicholas House, 31-34 High Street, Bristol BS1 2AW, UK. USA: NBN, Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA. Website: www.multilingual-matters.com Twitter: Multi_Ling_Mat Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/multilingualmatters Blog: www.channelviewpublications.wordpress.com Copyright © 2020 Sara Ganassin. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. The policy of Multilingual Matters/Channel View Publications is to use papers that are natural, renewable and recyclable products, made from wood grown in sustainable forests. In the manufacturing process of our books, and to further support our policy, preference is given to printers that have FSC and PEFC Chain of Custody certification. The FSC and/ or PEFC logos will appear on those books where full certification has been granted to the printer concerned. Typeset by Riverside Publishing Solutions Printed and bound in the UK by the CPI Books Group Ltd. Printed and bound in the US by NBN.

致我亲爱的刘敬峰： 谢谢你一路以来的支持！读博之路不易，在我悲观低落时，是你的鼓励陪伴着 我，让我走完了这段旅程。希望你以我为荣，为我骄傲，正如我为你自豪一样。

In memory of my dear friend and mentor Dr Jane Orton, 珍妮老师一路走好，天堂安息

Contents

Figuresix Acknowledgementsxi Prefacexiii 1 Introduction

1

Aims of the Book The Context of the Study A Contentious Definition Interculturality in this Study About this Book

1 2 4 6 7

2 Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’

10

Representing ‘Chineseness’ and its Complexity Chinese Languages in this Book Community Education and Chinese Migration

11 14 22

3 Research Design

30

The Schools The Participants Research Methods Researching Multilingually

30 32 34 37

4 Chinese Community Schools: ‘Spaces for People to Come Together and Learn from Each Other’

40

Understanding Chinese Community Education Pupils’ Perspectives Parents’ Perspectives School Staff Members’ Perspectives Conclusion

40 41 47 57 65

vii

viii Contents

5 One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages: ‘I Can’t Speak Mandarin but when I Speak Cantonese People Think that I am Local’

66

Understanding ‘Language’ One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages Teaching and Speaking the ‘Proper Chinese Language’ Conclusion

66 71 79 88

6 Teaching ‘Real’ Chinese Culture: The Fable of the Frog at the Bottom of the Well

90

Understanding ‘Culture’ Classroom Ecologies Parents and the Transmission of Chinese Culture Conclusion

90 93 107 112

7 Fluidity and Complexity in Pupils’ Chinese Identities: ‘I am Happy to be Chinese’

114

Understanding ‘Identity’ Pupils’ Constructions of Identity Adults Confirming and Contesting the Pupils’ Identities Conclusion

114 116 133 144

8 Conclusions

146

Summary of the Study Chinese Community Schools as Spaces for Intercultural Encounters A Framework for Researching Interculturality in Language Community Schooling Final Remarks

146 148 150 154

Appendices156 Appendix 1: Reflections on the Research Experience and Directions for Future Studies Appendix 2: Languages and Conventions of Data Analysis and Presentation Appendix 3: Materials used in Developing and Guiding the Study Appendix 4: Examples of the Data Set and Data Analysis

156 159 160 161

References166 Index178

Figures

4.1 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2

Cartoon storyboard created by Bojing Cartoon storyboard created by Emily Cartoon storyboard created by Kitty Cartoon storyboard created by Meili Cartoon storyboard created by Yang Cartoon storyboard created by Danny Cartoon storyboard created by Yvonne

ix

44 72 76 105 106 128 132

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the schools which were part of the study. The interest, engagement and time of head teachers, teachers, parents and pupils made this research possible. I hope that this book will support your hard work to maintain Chinese language and culture. I especially thank all the children who were part of the study and who shared their thoughts and experiences with me. I hope that your voices are accounted for in this book. Although I could not use your real names, as some of you wanted, you know who you are. My gratitude also goes to the various colleagues who kindly read and commented on the drafts of the manuscript. Thank you for your time, suggestions, and for encouraging my work. Chapter 5 is built on a previous publication: S. Ganassin, Chinese Community Schools in England as Intercultural Educational Spaces: Pupils’, Parents’ and Teachers’ Constructions of the Chinese Language, published in 2017 by Palgrave Macmillan, reproduced with permission of Springer Nature Customer Service Center. Chapter 6 is derived in part from Ganassin (2019), an article published in Language and Intercultural Communication, copyright Taylor and Francis, available online: http://tandfonline.com/10.1080/14708477.2018. 1504953

xi

Preface

This book is about Chinese migrants in the UK and their efforts to maintain their language(s) and culture(s) in a largely monolingual and monocultural context. It is also about intercultural encounters, the encounters that pupils, parents and teachers who were part of the two Chinese community schools where this study took place had with one another and with me, an Italian researcher based in North East England. This book has been written out of my own experience of migration and my interest in the ‘Chinese world(s)’, and in the belief that education and research should have the ultimate goal of promoting social justice and intercultural dialogue. A number of my participants asked me why ‘a Westerner’ would do research on Chinese people and why, for instance, I would not research Italians or Europeans as ‘my own community’. A number of Italians whom I encountered over the past seven years – within and outside academia – who were curious about my topic choice often asked the same question. At times, people praised the ‘exoticism’ of the research focus; at times they expressed scepticism, as I was undertaking research where ‘my’ language and culture would have no relevance. It is my own experience of study and work and interest in China that gave rise to this study. My relationship with Italy and my identity as an Italian national is somehow predetermined, as I was born and educated in Italy. By contrast, my interest in China and my affiliation with it comes from choice. Pursuing a childhood dream to live in China, I studied Mandarin and Chinese ‘culture’ and history in Venice. I then lived in Taiwan and China, where my professional experience in the Europe-based manufacturing and business sector made me realise that I wanted to pursue a career in the voluntary sector. Seeing the exploitative working conditions of Chinese employees, together with the desire to work in a socially meaningful sector, were the main factors that convinced me to accept a job with a British-based voluntary organisation. As a result, this study is also informed by my own experience as a practitioner in the NGO sector working with migrant communities in the UK. Prior to and during my doctorate, I worked as a researcher and development officer with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. I supported a number of projects xiii

xiv Preface

with and for women, young people, and children across a number of communities including Somali, Afghani, Indian and many others. When I enrolled in my PhD programme, I was working in a large project aimed at tackling cultural inequalities among vulnerable ethnic minority women’s groups where community researchers engaged with multilingual participants. In light of my own experience of study, work, and migration, I soon saw how academic research can represent a powerful way to promote dialogue between different communities in an attempt to connect the host with the ‘Other’. The research underpinning this book was developed in the hope of contributing to the literature on intercultural education and so it argues that community schools represent important sites where Chinese language, culture and identity are not only promoted, but also contested and reworked by adults and children who construct their own, individual sense of being Chinese. At the same time, I wanted to raise awareness about the situation of the Chinese communities in the UK and to challenge existing stereotypes. Often academic and media attention has depicted Chinese people in the UK as a successful, hardworking, but also conservative and ‘invisible’, ethnic minority enforcing stereotypical constructions of a collective British-Chinese identity. In contrast, this book draws on participants’ subjective constructions of Chinese language, culture, and identity negotiated in the context of their personal life experiences and their intercultural encounters within and outside their community schools, to account for the diversity and complexity to the Chinese community in the UK.

1 Introduction

Migrant and ethnic minority communities in different parts of the world have dedicated resources to setting up schools that, alongside mainstream ones, provide children with learning opportunities particularly designed to maintain diverse and often underrepresented heritages and languages. In the UK, as in other parts of the world, community schools are sites, not only where migrant and minority languages and cultures are taught to new generations, but where discourses of language and culture are used to preserve and foster a sense of identity. Previous studies have demonstrated how community language schools represent linguistically and culturally varied educational spaces, offering an alternative to the monolingual and monocultural orientation of the mainstream education system (Creese, 2009; Li & Wu, 2008), and how they also help pupils to resist ethnic categories and social stereotypes associated with static identity markers (Creese & Blackledge, 2012). They have also argued that these schools represent an important social context for developing the identities of the children attending them (e.g. Archer et al., 2010; He, 2006; Li & Wu, 2009). In proposing areas for further research, Li and Wu (2009: 196) suggested that ‘the impact this specific context has on the children’s identity development is an issue worth further investigation.’ Overall, community schooling is increasingly acknowledged as a resource for a whole society, in an increasingly globalised world (Wang, 2017). At the same time, although community schools have attracted public debate in the UK in relation to the government’s involvement in educational management, few studies have attempted to critique and examine these schools’ populations, policies and practices (Li & Wu, 2009; Li & Zhu, 2014). The value of these schools to the local community where they are situated is also largely unexplored. It is that lacuna that this study seeks to address.

Aims of the Book

Located in the field of intercultural studies, with a particular focus on interculturality and language education, this book investigates the social, political and educational role of community language education in migratory contexts. At the same time, the book is located more specifically within the growing international interest in Chinese language 1

2  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

education, ‘Chinese culture’, and Chinese people and communities including migrants. This book draws on an empirical study that investigated the significance of Mandarin-Chinese community schooling in England. The book has a strong ethnographic focus where personal experiences and participation of both researched and researcher shape the narrative. Pupils’ and adults’ perspectives are illustrated both in the context of the teaching and learning taking place in the classrooms and in the broader social context of the schools, as they interact with others in the schools and with me, the researcher. Overall, this book adopts a ‘bricolage’ approach – discussed in Chapter 8 – that brings together a range of theoretical perspectives including theories and literature in the areas of intercultural education, communication and socio- and applied linguistics to contribute to theoretical discussions in the areas of language, culture and identity and to the significance of these in relation to the phenomenon of intercultural language education. It also seeks to challenge homogeneous and stereotypical constructions of Chinese language, culture and identity – such as the image of Chinese pupils as conformist and deferent learners – that have often been supported by academic and media attention. The topics that the book explores are relevant to current debates – particularly in the UK and in the USA – on migration, and migrant and minority education and inclusion. Two main arguments are developed in the book. First, by providing an account of pupils’, parents’, and educators’ lived experiences of community schooling, it demonstrates how community schools are linguistically and culturally varied spaces where those involved construct concepts of language, culture and identity that are both informed by their life trajectories and ideologically charged. Such complexity needs to be dealt with in research in order to understand the importance of the schools, not only for the communities that are involved in them, but also for the wider host society. Second, by exploring the diversity of the school population, this book challenges the view of community schools as ‘ethnic enclaves’ (e.g. Francis et al., 2009) where migrant communities seek to isolate themselves. In contrast, the book demonstrates that these schools are sites for intercultural awareness and development and, as such, are examples of good practice in community inclusion as well as valuable learning spaces for the wider community. The Context of the Study

The phenomenon of community language education, the locus of this study, has emerged in the UK over the last 70 years as a result of collective efforts made by different migrant communities (e.g. Polish,

Introduction 3

Italian, Finnish, Greek, Somali, Iranian, Turkish and Chinese) (Li, 2006). Community schools are voluntary and self-funded organisations which usually run weekend classes or classes outside normal school hours (Li & Wu, 2008). They aim to fulfil a diverse range of purposes. Some schools have a strong orientation towards particular faiths or religions (e.g. Muslim and Jewish community schools), while others focus on supplementing the mainstream education curriculum by providing further opportunities for the exploration of culture and language-related topics (Arthur, 2003; Francis et al., 2008). In 2016, the National Resource Centre for Supplementary Education (NRCSE) – a national strategic and support organisation for communityled supplementary schools – estimated that there were 3,000 to 5,000 such schools in England. According to the NRCSE, these schools offer educational support on language, core curriculum taught in children’s mainstream schools, faith, culture and other out-of-school activities to children also attending mainstream schools. Because of their independence from the mainstream education system, it is difficult to provide an exact estimate of the number of these schools. The NRCSE suggests that with the drop in funding available from local authorities and changes in education policy, the number of community-led supplementary schools offering language would seem to have decreased. At the same time, there has been an increase in private tuition centres offering maths and/ or English, and an increase in community-led organisations offering faith tuition. In his review of the literature on community schooling in the UK, Li Wei (2006) divides the schools into three broad categories: (1) AfroCaribbean schools; (2) faith schools and, in particular, Muslim schools; and (3) language schools. The first category of schools emerged in the late 1960s in the London metropolitan area. They were set up and run primarily by women from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds to improve the academic progress of their children. The schools represented a response both to poor mainstream educational provision and to the racial and linguistic discrimination experienced by Afro-Caribbean children in mainstream schools (Reay & Mirza, 2000). Faith schools are dedicated to the transmission of particular faiths or religions with additional linguistic focus (e.g. on Arabic or Hebrew) (Hewer, 2001; Miller, 2001). In the UK, the most prevalent faith schools are Muslim and Jewish community schools (Li, 2006). Finally, the category of language schools, the focus of this book, embraces all the schools set up by migrant communities to maintain and transmit their languages and cultural heritages to the younger generations (Archer et al., 2010). Currently, language community schools in the UK outnumber faith and AfroCaribbean schools. It should be noted how the categorisation offered by Li Wei (2006) is based on the different socio-political contexts of the schools and on

4  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

their aims and objectives. In fact, Issa and Williams (2009) argue how the different categories of community schools have significant overlap. Although Afro-Caribbean, faith and language schools differ in terms of their aims and objectives, they share one common feature in that they represent a response to the failure of the mainstream education system to meet the needs of ethnic minority children and their communities (Li, 2006). An understanding of community schools as educational spaces aimed at providing for the needs of migrant and ethnic minority children (in the case of this study, the Chinese community) contributes to and informs the rationale for this book. Although it can be argued that migrant Chinese communities do not solely exist within their community schools, these schools represent unique settings where Chinese language, culture, and identity are actively and openly fostered. Different schools have different policies, textbooks and pedagogical approaches, but a common goal in their mission statements is to teach Chinese language (primarily Cantonese and Mandarin) and transmit Chinese culture to school-aged Chinese children (Wang, 2017). The missions of the schools define them not just as educational environments but, more importantly, as self-defined cultural agents, places where Chinese language is transmitted to the younger generations and culture is preserved and can be experienced (Li & Wu, 2009). With their explicit focus on maintenance and transmission of ‘traditional’ cultures and languages, Chinese community language schools therefore represent ideal sites to investigate Chinese culture, language and identity (Francis et al., 2010; Mau et al., 2009). Chapter 2 explores in further depth the context and features of Chinese community schooling in relation to the wider phenomenon of Chinese migration. A Contentious Definition

In the literature, community schools are also termed ‘supplementary schools’ (e.g. Reay & Mirza, 2000), or ‘complementary schools’ (e.g. Creese, 2009; Hancock, 2014; Li & Wu, 2009, 2010; Li, 2014; Li & Zhu, 2014; Martin et al., 2004), or ‘heritage language schools’ (Li & Wu, 2008). Such terminological choices not only imply a focus on different educational emphases within the schools, but also describe the nature of their relationship with the mainstream education system. Arguments stressing the ‘supplementarity’ of the schools emphasise that they were set up to supplement teaching provided within mainstream schooling in response to criticisms that mainstream education failed to support, and even excluded, heritage language acquisition (Reay & Mirza, 2000). The term supplementary is also often used in national government and local authority documentation in different parts of the world (Maylor et al., 2010), where the schools are seen as additional to

Introduction 5

the mainstream state education system and, perhaps, as such, subordinate to them. Studies which describe the schools as ‘complementary’ move away from the concept that the main function of the schools is supplementing educational gaps in the mainstream system (e.g. Creese et al., 2006; Hancock, 2014; Strand, 2007). They identify their main focus not only as providing additional learning opportunities for ethnic minority pupils, especially in terms of language acquisition (Martin et al., 2006), but also as having a concern for the educational and social importance of these schools in the lives of those who are involved in them (Creese et al., 2007; Martin et al., 2004; Mau et al., 2009). Overall, although notions of complementarity and supplementarity share similarities, such as the identification of a gap in the mainstream system, complementarity ‘evoke[s] a non-hierarchical relationship to mainstream schooling’ (Mau et al., 2009: 17). A third term found in the literature is ‘heritage language schools’. For example, Li and Wu (2008) draw on this term to present their work on language ideologies and practices in Chinese heritage language schools in England. The concept of ‘heritage language schools’ has also been adopted by some studies located in the United States. For example, Chan Lü links the concept of (Chinese) heritage language schools to the use of the term ‘heritage language’ as used in context in the USA, where it refers to ‘languages of immigrants, refugee and indigenous groups’ (2014: 82). The idea of heritage language – discussed in further detail in Chapter 2 – evokes family relevance as well as the emotional value of the language to the learners (Fishman, 2001). It refers more broadly to languages other than English spoken by linguistic minorities (e.g. Hornberger & Wang, 2008). Therefore, the term ‘heritage language schools’ implies that pupils are heritage language learners, and that they have a degree of proficiency in and an emotional relationship with the language of the schools through the presence of that language in their home and family life. Arguably, the idea of heritage language schools for heritage language speakers (or learners) also reinforces the idea that pupils and adults in the schools have the status of being a linguistic minority. However, the concept of heritage language schools does not reflect the complexity and diversity of the language backgrounds of pupils nor their relationship with, in the case in point, Chinese language(s). We shall see in Chapter 2 that the Chinese community in the UK is extremely diverse, and migrants from different parts of the Chinese world also called ‘Greater China’ (Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and, Singapore) or from areas where Chinese communities are strong (e.g. Malaysia and Vietnam), do not necessarily have Mandarin as their heritage language (Benton & Gomez, 2008). As other varieties

6  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

of Chinese are spoken (e.g. Hakka and Hokkien), the assumption of Mandarin as the universal Chinese heritage language does not take into consideration linguistic diversity. For these reasons, the adoption of the term ‘Chinese heritage language schools’ to define my two research sites is contentious and the construction of Chinese heritage language(s) is investigated as part of the research aims rather than being taken for granted. The term ‘community language schools’ is more applicable in this book for a number of reasons. First, the term acknowledges the importance of these schools to the communities that establish and run them, and their potential role in the political and social life of the wider context where they are located (Li, 1993; Martin et al., 2004). Further, the community dimension of the schools as spaces where not only pupils but also adults and teachers interact and negotiate their positions on language, culture, and identity is important in this study, which compares and contrasts participants’ perspectives. Finally, the concept of language community schooling focuses attention on the transmission of a language – in this book, Mandarin-Chinese – to the younger generations. At the same time, it leaves open for discussion how people involved in the schools – and especially pupils – understand and construct the language itself, for example, as a heritage, second, or even additional language. Interculturality in this Study

Zhu Hua (2014, 2016) defines interculturality in terms of how people exhibit their cultural identities in everyday social interaction in relationship to other people’s cultural identities. According to Borghetti et al. (2015: 31–32): ‘[interculturality] refers to potential dynamics associated with interactions, to their situated nature and to the discursive contingencies developing in/across them’. Interculturality is also a quality generally attributed to intercultural encounters, sites where people infused with different cultures and worldviews can negotiate cultural and social identifications and representations (Kramsch, 1998). In investigating the experiences of Chinese migrants in the UK and their efforts to maintain their language(s) and culture(s) through community education, this book uses ‘interculturality’ as a lens to interpret a multiplicity of positions concerning language, culture and identity at play in the context of the schools, as pupils and parents engage with one another and with me, the researcher. In this case, interculturality is concerned with interactions when social identities are salient and when different social identities are present. It entails recognition of multiplicity within ‘Chineseness’ in the perspective that ‘the Chinese’, as we shall see in the next Chapter, are not a homogenous group but they are characterised by inner heterogeneity routed in the historical and political complexity of the Chinese world.

Introduction 7

Here, the ‘inter’ dimension focuses on the exchanges and encounters that the schools enable among Chinese people – adults and children, long-term residents and recent migrants – who do not necessarily share common languages, family and personal trajectories or their sense of Chinese identity, yet are brought together by a desire to share and transmit what they perceive as a common ‘Chinese heritage’. In the context of this book, the lens of interculturality is used to analyse the ways in which participants construct the role of Chinese language, culture, and identity – through Chinese community education – in their lives and in the lives of their children. It is also used to make sense of the issues that emerge as adults’ and pupils’ constructions often clash as, in defining what ‘Chineseness’ is, they privilege different cultural, political and linguistic positions. As argued by Jin (2016), interculturality is a fluid process that implies a multiplicity and intersectionality of perspectives about culture and identity and, here it is argued, about language. It is this dimension of exchange and intersectionality that this book seeks to capture by investigating how pupils’ experiences of community schooling, including the intercultural encounters that the schools facilitate among Chinese people from different national, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds as well as the encounters they have with members of the local community, impact on their sense of identity. Pupils, parents, and teaching staff bring together their different experiences of life, migration, cultural and linguistic capitals, and different understandings of concepts of education, language and culture. How individuals negotiate their own identity positions and (cultural) representations in intercultural encounters lies at the centre of this book. About this Book

This book draws on a study that investigated the significance of Mandarin-Chinese community schooling in two locations in England for those involved. The overarching aim of the study was to understand the role of Chinese community schools as educational spaces where Chinese language, culture, and identity are promoted by the schools and, at the same time, constructed, negotiated and contested by pupils and adults. The study was conducted over 14 months as I carried out ethnographic observations, individual interviews with adults and group interviews with pupils, across two schools – named here Apple Valley and Deer River – situated in two different areas of England. Pupils’ and adults’ experiences of Chinese community schooling were understood through the lens of social constructionism (Berger & Luckmann, 1967, 1979; Gergen, 2009), the study’s overarching paradigm, and guided by its concern for human experience in social interaction (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). This approach allowed me to explore and understand

8  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

the shifting, contextual, and negotiable nature of individuals’ subjective constructions of language, culture, and identity. Key theoretical concepts of language, culture, and identity are discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 respectively. In this book, the perspectives of 23 pupils and 18 adults are investigated and illustrated both in the context of the teaching and learning taking place in the classrooms and in the broader social context of the schools, as they interact with others in the schools and with the researcher. The book draws on a wide range of data sources – such as visual artefacts produced by pupils, interviews with teachers and parents, and observations of classroom interactions – to offer a depiction of the practices and ideologies of the two schools. While the book is principally concerned with the experiences of pupils, parents, and educators, and with the importance of community education in their lives, the findings contribute to a wider discussion of identity negotiation in multilingual and migratory contexts. This book is organised around theory and empirical research throughout, as the theoretical underpinnings of this study are used to make sense of pupils’ and adults’ individual experiences of Chinese community schooling. Chapter 1 has stated the rationale, background and aims of the book. It has also presented Chinese community schooling as the topic of the book and it has discussed how interculturality is interpreted for the purpose of this study. Chapter 2 offers an explanation of the linguistic and historical background of this study. In order to support an understanding of the empirical chapters, it explores issues related to the multinational, multilingual and pluri-centric nature of the ‘Chinese world’, including a critique of the concept of Chinese as a heritage language. Chapter 3 introduces the two schools where this study took place and offers background information about pupil and adult participants. The research orientation and ethnographic design of the study are also presented to guide the reader through the data analysed in later chapters. It concludes with a discussion on the multilingual dimension of the study. Chapter 4 presents and compares pupils’ and adults’ perceived aims for and role of community language education. Although Chinese language learning emerges both as a key aim of the schools and a common concern for pupils and adults, their accounts reveal a multiplicity of other aims including the role of the schools as community spaces for families and the provision of support to migrant pupils’ learning of English. Chapter 5 examines the concept of language as a social construct and explores the language practices in the schools as multilingual and intercultural settings. It shows how the schools provide a context for

Introduction 9

pupils and adults to construct understandings of Chinese language as central both in the rhetoric of the schools and in the participants’ narratives. The findings are discussed in light of theories on heritage language teaching and learning – and in particular, Chinese heritage language – and in relation to concepts of native speaker, authenticity and legitimacy. Overall, this chapter unfolds layers of linguistic and ideological complexity in the construction of Chinese language(s). Chapter 6 investigates how pupils, parents and school staff construct Chinese culture vis-à-vis the key aim of the schools: the transmission of Chinese culture through formal teaching in the classrooms and informal teaching through a range of activities such as the celebration of festivals. Particular emphasis is given to the teaching and learning taking place in the classrooms, as pupils negotiate their understanding of Chinese culture with peers and teachers. The nature of pupils’ and adults’ constructions of Chinese culture are analysed through the lens of intercultural theory and, in particular, through the ‘small culture’ approach suggested by Adrian Holliday (1999) and his grammar of culture (2013, 2016). The overall purpose of this chapter is not to define Chinese culture, but rather, to understand how pupils and adults construct its complexity and significance in the context of schools. Chapter 7 draws on the discussion in the previous two chapters to examine how the pupils’ overall involvement at the schools, with a focus on their constructions of language and culture, play a role in shaping their self-representation. As I draw from the data to clarify the theory, the chapter takes a social constructionist approach to concepts of cultural and social identity. This chapter highlights the subjective and relational nature of identity by arguing that there is no unique way of constructing ‘Chineseness’, as examples of the complexity and diversity in Chinese identity emerge from participants’ accounts. Chapter 8 presents the overall conclusions from this study. The chapter stresses the need for greater understanding of the pedagogic and social significance of community schools as intercultural spaces both within the migrant communities who create them and in the wider society. It emphasises how an intercultural approach to the phenomenon can contribute to the challenging and resisting of stereotypes both in research and in the media, such as a supposed Chinese conformism, cultural insularity and unwillingness to integrate. I conclude by arguing how the intercultural dimension of community schooling is even more important in the current global political, economic, and social climate where increasing uncertainties risk fuelling tensions between migrant and host communities. Examples of materials used during the study are offered in the appendices.

2 Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’

Today, I am attending the AGM meeting at Apple Valley. The head teacher begins his welcome speech in Mandarin. A number of parents look puzzled, not only the two other non-Chinese people present but also some of the Chinese ones. There is an assumption that an English translation will follow at some point, but this does not happen for a couple of minutes. Somebody behind me whispers a translation from Mandarin into Hokkien. Sandy, one of the mothers, whose family comes from a rural area of the (Hong Kong) New Territories, nods and she asks me how much I can understand. ‘A bit, the general meaning of it, and you?’ She replies: ‘Probably less than you. I feel a bit ashamed that I probably understand less than my children’. She told me before that she can only speak Hakka, the Chinese variety she learnt at home and that she cannot write or read. ‘English! English!’ one of the Chinese fathers says from the back of the room. The head teacher switches to English apologizing for not being inclusive ‘Sorry, I forgot that not everybody here speaks Chinese!’ Forms are given out to parents. They are in English and simplified Chinese characters. A couple of people around me turn the form and read the English version. Albert, one of parent-participants, starts to fill out his form in traditional characters. One of the teaching assistants makes a comment (in Cantonese, so I grasp that it’s about the form, but I don’t fully understand the meaning).

This vignette is based on research field notes and observations made during the Annual General Meeting at Apple Valley School. The vignette focuses on language practices, i.e. how languages are used in interaction, in the everyday contexts of the school. It flags a number of issues related to Chinese language(s) as parents and teachers have problems in understanding each other. Why in a Chinese school for Chinese migrants does not everybody speak (or read) Chinese and people have to use English as a lingua franca? What does it mean being a speaker, and in particular, a heritage language speaker of Chinese? In order to understand what is happening here there is a need for an explanation of the linguistic and historical background to this study; since like any other national group 10

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  11

‘the Chinese’ seem homogeneous from the outside but are heterogeneous seen from within. Representing ‘Chineseness’ and its Complexity

The English word ‘Chinese’ used in this book can refer to different domains and issues: (i) to Chinese language(s), culture, community, people and identity; (ii) to the Chinese language, and (iii) to my positioning as researcher with respect to existing ideological debates, including the relations between the political entities of China and Taiwan. In English, the term ‘Chinese’ is generic and it can refer to ethnicity, culture, language or national community and identity (Huang, 2015; Li, 2014). When it is used to define people, it can refer either to nationals of China (People’s Republic of China) and Taiwan (Republic of China) or to members of overseas Chinese communities in Asia and in other parts of the world (e.g. British-Chinese, American-Chinese) (Huang, 2015). A further issue is related to the terminology available in Mandarin when defining Chinese people. Previous research has demonstrated that even when more specific Chinese definitions (e.g. 华人 huárén and 华侨 huáqiáo ‘overseas Chinese’, 大陆人 dàlùrén ‘Mainlanders’) are used, issues of ambiguity can persist. For example, in his work on community language education in the UK, Li (2014) emphasises how the Chinese term 中国人 zhōngguórén (Chinese people from 中国 Zhōngguó ‘China’) can be ambiguous as it potentially refers not only to a general ethnic category, but also to the whole group of its citizens regardless of their ethnic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. At the same time, two terms commonly used to define people of Chinese origin living outside of China – 华人 huárén and 华侨 huáqiáo – also present translation issues (Li, 2014) because the first refers to a person of Chinese ethnic origin, while the latter refers to a Chinese citizen living outside China. In fact, in English they both tend to be translated as ‘overseas Chinese’, a term that does not take into consideration the conceptual difference between 华人 huárén and 华侨 huáqiáo. In referring to people in the British-Chinese community or communities in this book, I subscribe to the concept of 华人 huárén which, in this book, is used to refer to the ‘Chinese community’ or ‘communities’, as it takes into account the point that people’s affiliation with the Chinese world can encompass many domains and that that affiliation is not linked to a particular citizenship. Overall, I have tried to maintain a degree of clarity throughout the chapters by using a terminology that accurately respected the participants’ subjective understandings of Chinese identity and culture. When I refer to the geo-political entities of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or 中华人民共和国 Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó, and to the Republic of China (ROC) or 中華民國 Zhōnghuá Mínguó, I term

12  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

them respectively China and Taiwan. These terms were also consistently used by my participants regardless of their provenance. The status of Hong Kong and Macao as Special Administrative Regions (SAR) – in Chinese 中華人民共和國香港特別行政 (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China), and 中華人民共和國澳門特別行政區 (Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China) – present a further issue in terms of terminology. Previous studies have argued that the communities of Hong Kong and Macao have diverged from Mainland China as a consequence of their long-term separation (Dong, 2014), and thus that the two SARs should not be included in the definition of China (Huang, 2015). Although this study acknowledges the complexity in the history of the two SARs, including their colonial past and transition respectively from British and Portuguese rule (Ngo, 1999), it considers both regions to now be under the sovereignty – although not under the direct jurisdiction – of the PRC and, consequently, as part of its territory. Unless otherwise stated, the term ‘China’ in this book refers, therefore, to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) including the two SARs of Hong Kong and Macao. The term Mainland China – in Chinese Zhōngguó dàlù  中国大陆 – is employed when the context required me to refer to the PRC, excluding the two SARs. This study is based on the view that constructions of Chinese culture and identity are not necessarily related to an affiliation with a particular political entity, but rather that they are related to the complex nature of the ‘Chinese world’ including its multinational dimension. At the same time, the concept of ‘Chinese’ is embedded in specific cultural, historical, and global geopolitical settings and sensitivity to such settings is needed in research (Jin & Dervin, 2017). Nowadays, the PRC officially recognises the existence of 56 ethnic groups (in Chinese 民族 mínzú) of which the Han (in Chinese 汉 hàn) is by far the largest, accounting for about 91% of the total population (Chinese census). The Han are also the largest ethnic group in Taiwan and in Singapore as well as the most represented ethnic group in the context of overseas Chinese migration. The majority of adult participants in this study identified themselves as Han-Chinese, whilst only one participant self-identified as ‘ethnic minority’. The two terms in current use 汉语 hànyŭ ‘Chinese language’ (language of the Han) and 汉字 hànzì  ‘Chinese characters’ (Han characters) are both related to the Han nation or ethnic group, the 汉族 hànzú. The term 汉语 hànyŭ, is generally translated into English as ‘Chinese language’. The term 中文 zhōngwén is also widely used although never in official contexts, and it was coined to indicate the Chinese language in its written form. Nowadays, it is almost a synonym of 汉语 hànyŭ (Abbiati, 1992). It should be noted that the two schools which participated in this study refer in their official documents to the

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  13

Chinese language – taught and learnt – as 中文 zhōngwén. The term 中文 zhōngwén is likely to be meant as a claim to scholarly status and to suggest that there is dedicated development of the students’ literacy in the courses offered by the schools. However, it is also difficult to ascertain whether the choice of a ‘neutral’ term is determined by a willingness to avoid any political conversation or to potentially reflect the polycentric and multinational origin of the local Chinese communities. The ‘Chinese world’ is not only polycentric but also multi-ethnic. In 2012, it was estimated that approximately 7 million Chinese ethnicminority people lived overseas including Tibetans and Uighurs from Xinjiang (To, 2012). It has been argued that ethnic minorities often do not see themselves as ‘Chinese’ (Li, 2004). Although many Chinese ethnic minorities held Chinese citizenship at some point in their lives, they do not seek affiliation with the government of the PRC and the sense of Chinese identity it promotes (To, 2012). The limited presence of Chinese ethnic-minorities in the UK and issues related to linguistic, cultural and political affiliation are possible explanations for the lack of representation of Chinese ethnic-minorities in this study and in the wider literature on Chinese community schooling. Although in conversation some informants disclosed their current national affiliation, which passport they carried was not relevant to this study as a great many purely expedient factors and issues outside their own preference in identity terms may go into that decision. Representations of ‘Chineseness’ can be diverse and exist at both the macro and the micro level, and such diversity can encompass language practices, individual experiences of life and migration (Ang, 1998). The conceptualisation of ‘the Chinese’ is also complex and politically charged within and beyond educational research. For example, in her work on Taiwanese national identity in study abroad contexts, Huang (2015) moves from her perspective as Taiwanese researcher, to argue that concepts of Chinese culture and identity are exclusive to neither China nor Taiwan. Issues concern, for example, the status of the two special administrative regions (SARs) of Hong Kong and Macao and the five autonomous regions (i.e. the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 新疆维吾尔自治区 Xīnjiāng Wéiwú’ěr Zìzhìqū; the Tibet Autonomous Region 西藏 Xīzàng Zìzhìqū; the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region 广西壮族自治区 Guǎngxī Zhuàngzú Zìzhìqū; the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region 内蒙古自治区 Nèi Měnggǔ Zìzhìqū; and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region 宁夏回族自治区  Níngxià Huízú Zìzhìqū) and their relationship with the PRC. Other controversial issues concern the difficult relationship between China and Taiwan, and the tense situation between the governments of the PRC and the ROC and their ethnic minorities. Such diversity is also reflected in the experiences of the overseas Chinese community, the focus of this book. In their work on Chinese

14  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

language learning and identity in overseas Chinese communities, CurdtChristiansen and Hancock (2014) argue that there are many pathways to learning the Chinese language and being ‘Chinese’ and that Chinese migrant communities are characterised by inner diversity and variety of provenance, languages and socio-economic backgrounds. The next part of this chapter explores the linguistic complexity of Chinese as a heritage language in relation to the wider historical and socio-political context sketched above. Chinese Languages in this Book

How participants construct the value of Chinese language(s) in their lives is one of the central issues investigated in this book. The transmission of Chinese – and particularly Chinese (generally Mandarin or Cantonese) as a heritage language – is a core concern of migrant communities in different parts of the world (Curdt-Christiansen & Hancock, 2014). Here, an overview of the Chinese linguistic landscape is offered as a point of reference for the following chapters. Chinese language as an umbrella term

In this book, the term ‘Chinese language’ is used as an umbrella term to capture the complexity of participants’ repertoires. In fact, the Chinese language is not a monolithic entity; rather, it subsumes at least seven (Abbiati, 1992; He, 2008) or eight mutually unintelligible varieties (Zhu & Li, 2014: 328) ‘based on historical connections and geographical distribution’. It should be noted that these varieties are often classified as ‘dialects’ in the Western literature. The debates on the classification of the Chinese languages and their varieties reflect a problem with the Chinese terminology and its translations. The English translation of 方言 fāngyán as ‘dialects’ is not entirely accurate. Sinologist Victor Mair (1991) argued how the exact Chinese word for dialect is 通言 tōngyán, and he suggested the use of the more neutral, mid-point term ‘topolect’ as a literal English translation of the word 方言 fāngyán. This study recommends the adoption of the term ‘variety’ as a more comprehensive term which does not stress the subordinate relationships of ‘local’ languages to a national standard (普通话 pǔtōnghuà in this case). Different varieties of Chinese languages were at play in the research sites. The two schools taught Mandarin-Chinese, using simplified Chinese characters – the writing system adopted in the PRC – and adopted the 拼音 pīnyīn, the PRC created, romanisation system. In English language scholarly publications and public discourse, the term Mandarin is widely used as a more convenient synonym for 普通话 pǔtōnghuà – which in Chinese means ‘common speech’ – when

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  15

referring to the standard language spoken in China, Singapore, and Taiwan (Zhu & Li, 2014). However, the languages used in the PRC (普通话 pǔtōnghuà), Taiwan (國語 guóyǔ ‘national language’) and Singapore (华语 huáyǔ literally ‘Chinese language’, the term also used in Malaysia) vary, for instance, in terms of phonetics and discourse norms (He, 2008). Following Zhu and Li (2014), I use the term Mandarin for consistency with the literature (e.g. He, 2008; Jin & Dervin, 2017; Zhu & Li, 2014) and because that is the English term used in the governing documents of the two research sites. While this study uses the English term Mandarin to refer to the variety of Chinese taught and learnt in the schools studied, the terms 普通话 pǔtōnghuà and 國語 guóyǔ are employed when the context requires me to refer respectively to the geopolitical entities of China and Taiwan. Consequently, in this book there is some overlapping of terminology. It is also important to signal the historical and ideological differences between Mandarin and 普通话 pǔtōnghuà in defining the standard variety of Chinese language. According to Zhu and Li (2014: 328): ‘Mandarin is the English name for the northern variety of Chinese’. Historically, the term Mandarin was coined in the 18th century by Europeans, and in particular Portuguese, to refer to 官话 guānhuà ‘language of the officials’, the language spoken at the Chinese imperial court and by the higher civil servants and military officers, or ‘Mandarins’, of the imperial regime (Sabattini & Santangelo, 2005). Structurally, 普通话 pǔtōnghuà is based on Mandarin, but retains some differences, as it is based on the pronunciation and vocabulary of the Beijing variety, on the lexicon adopted by the northern varieties, and on the grammatical structures adopted in the literary production in 白话文 báihuàwén, a vernacular northern language originally used for drama and narrative production (Abbiati, 1992; Chen, 1999). Upon its establishment in 1949, the Chinese government chose 普通话 pǔtōnghuà as the official national language of the People’s Republic of China (Abbiati, 1992). According to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (1982) ‘the State promotes the nationwide use of Putonghua’. Nowadays, 普通话 pǔtōnghuà is widely promoted across the society: it is legally compulsory for all public services, and it is used in the media and as a primary medium of instruction (Jin & Dervin, 2017). The effectiveness of the promotion of 普通话 pǔtōnghuà can be attributed to a range of sociolinguistic factors (e.g. the lack of a highprestige competing local variety, a high percentage of local people receiving formal education), as well as to psychological and acquisitional factors (Chen, 1999; Li, 2006). What is also important beside language promotion and usage, is how the idea of a common language is ideologically significant, as throughout the post-war and post-Liberation period, it signified the political emphasis of the founders of the PRC (Jin & Dervin, 2017). The term 普通话 pǔtōnghuà is also currently

16  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

adopted by the Confucius Institute and its 汉办 Hanban (the abbreviation of the Office of Chinese Language Council International) branches to promote teaching and learning of Chinese language outside China. However, in English language publications and speeches, Hanban officials often use the term Mandarin in place of 普通话 pǔtōnghuà (Zhu & Li, 2014) thus contributing to a nuanced ideological distinction between the two terms. As far as language practices are concerned, it should be noted how 普通话 pǔtōnghuà in its pure form is rarely spoken outside official contexts, and away from Beijing and its region. Instead, a linguistic compromise between 普通话 pǔtōnghuà and local varieties is more commonly used (Abbiati, 1992). Northern varieties of Chinese (北方方言 běifāng fāngyán) – also known as Mandarin dialects – are spoken in northern, northwestern and southwestern parts of China and are largely mutually intelligible (Li, 2006; Ramsey, 1987). The other groups fall under the category of southern varieties, and are generally unintelligible to one another. Elsewhere, such varieties would be recognised as distinct languages, albeit with significant influence from 普通话 pǔtōnghuà, which itself exists with regional variants (Jin & Dervin, 2017). On this point, Erbaugh (2001: 121) notes that ‘[s]poken Chinese dialects, from Cantonese through Hakka to Mandarin, vary as much as do the Germanic languages English, German and Swedish.’ The southern varieties are classified along geographical and linguistic-structural characteristics; they are: 吴语 wúyǔ (including Shanghainese), 赣语 gànyǔ (spoken in Jiangxi province), 湘语 xiāngyǔ (spoken in Hunan), 闽语 mǐnyǔ (including Hokkien and other subvarieties originally spoken in Fujian province and in the southern part of Taiwan), 客家语 kèjiāyǔ (Hakka, mainly found in small enclaves in different provinces in southern China, notably Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, Sichuan) and in Taiwan, and 粤语 yuèyǔ (including Cantonese, spoken mainly in the provinces Guangdong and Guangxi) (Abbiati, 1992; Li, 2006). Alongside Mandarin, three southern varieties (Cantonese, Hakka and Hokkien) are particularly important in this study as they were spoken in informal situations in the schools and, as presented in Chapter 3, they were the first languages of a number of participants as well as the languages of others in the schools. Predominantly used in Hong Kong, Macao, and in different areas of the Guangdong and Guangxi provinces of the PRC, Cantonese is the second most spoken variety of Chinese in the world with an estimate of 73 million first language speakers (Ethnologue, 2019a). Considered the prestige variety of the Yue group, Cantonese differs significantly from Mandarin with respect to phonology, lexicon, and syntax (Wong et al., 2005). Cantonese is also the only Chinese variety other than Mandarin

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  17

with a highly developed written language (Chen, 1999) and a rich literary tradition spanning the centuries including Cantonese opera, poetry, as well as the more written genres of print media (Snow, 2004). Although 普通话 pǔtōnghuà is gradually penetrating Hong Kong and the Guangdong region (Jin & Dervin, 2017), Cantonese still dominates public and private settings, including the education sector, and it rivals the national standard. For example, in a student-led debate on the value of 普通话 pǔtōnghuà as a medium of instruction for children in Hong Kong, the blog Young Post (19 January 2016) reports that ‘Hongkongers’ proficiency in Putonghua is still poor, with Putonghua speakers making up only 1.4% of the population’. In the two schools in this study, Cantonese was spoken as a first or second language by a number of adults. It was widely used in informal conversations between adults in the schools and often used as a lingua franca in conversation between speakers of different varieties. Cantonese was also spoken or at least understood by a number of children. The Cantonese word ‘Hakka’ (in Mandarin 客家人 kèjiārén) means ‘guest families’ as the Hakka people migrated from the Northern Plains of China and settled in the Guangdong and Fujian regions in a series of migration waves (Ramsey, 1987). With over 48 million users, Hakka is spoken in Southeastern Mainland China, Taiwan and other part of South East Asia including Malaysia (Ethnologue, 2019b). Nowadays, the Hakka language is on the decline in a number of settings, its value having been undercut by the dominance of Cantonese and, more recently, by the diffusion of Mandarin (Constable, 1996). Hakka was spoken by two parent-participants in this study, as well as by several other parents I encountered in the schools. It was also the heritage language, together with Cantonese, of three of the pupil-participants who could understand it and referred to it in their interviews but could not speak it. Finally, Hokkien is a variety belonging to the Southern Min group (Ding, 2015). Originally spoken in the Fujian province of China, in the northeast tip of Guangdong, Hokkien is also a major migrating language and Hokkien speaking communities are found in Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Burma. Hokkien has over 50 million total users (Ethnologue, 2019c), although in China, similarly to Hakka, its use is in decline (Ding, 2015). Penang Hokkien, a variety spoken in Malaysia, was the first language of one of the parent-participants in this study whilst a teacher-participant spoke Taiwanese-Hokkien. Hokkien was also the heritage language of a number of pupils in the schools whose parents migrated from Fujian and Malaysia. This book focuses on the maintenance of Han-Chinese languages, and particularly on Mandarin. Such a focus is primarily due to the overwhelming prominence of Han-languages in the two research sites and on their pedagogical focus on Mandarin as the language of education. It

18  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

also reflects the linguistic landscape of the Chinese migrant communities around the world. In fact, the vast majority of Chinese migrants, including the communities in Europe, USA and Australia, had traditionally migrated from the coastal provinces of southern China (e.g. Guangdong, Fujian and Zhejiang), as well as from the former colonies of Hong Kong and Macao. These areas are traditionally non-Mandarin dominant, and other varieties of Chinese including Cantonese, Hakka and Hokkien are spoken with Cantonese often acting as a lingua franca (Li & Zhu, 2010). Overall, the use and maintenance of different varieties of Chinese within Chinese overseas communities (also termed ‘the Chinese diasporas’), as well as language shift, vary from community to community and are determined by a variety of factors. These include: the impact of the language policies in the country of migration, and the patterns of migration and assimilation through generational changes (Li & Zhu, 2011). Hakka, Hokkien and Cantonese people belong to the Han ethnic group and their languages are varieties of Chinese, hence they are included in the study. As far as the non-Han or minority languages are concerned, the PRC includes three main linguistic areas: (1) A northern area where Altaic languages are largely spoken. This group includes Turkic, Tungus and Mongolian languages. Korean and Japanese speaking minorities also live in this area. (2) The area of Tibet and its eastern neighbouring regions where Birmanic languages are spoken. (3) The south western area of China where a variety of languages closely related to the linguistic families of South Asia are spoken (Abbiati, 1992; Ramsey, 1987). The 25 native languages spoken in Taiwan, where Mandarin-國語 guóyǔ acts as a de facto official language, and Hakka and 閩南語 mǐnnányǔ (Southern Min or Taiwanese-Hokkien) are spoken in the south of the island, all belong to the Austronesian family and are largely extinct or endangered (Li, 2006; Zeitoun, 2004). Minority language policies and how these have been implemented by the Chinese government, and, it should be added, by the government of Taiwan, are the object of ongoing debates both in the Western world and in China. Issues related to ‘overseas ethnic minorities’ and language maintenance in diasporic contexts have only recently entered policy discussions and academic research (see, for example, Barabantseva, 2012) but they remain largely unproblematised. A deeper critical discussion of language planning and policy, and related issues in China and in Taiwan, goes beyond the scope of this book. There is not enough known and not enough data in the ethnographic study in this book to contribute to the discussion of how ethnic minorities of China (and Taiwan) educate their children and maintain their languages in contexts of migration.

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  19

As detailed in Chapter 3, one adult participant in the study identified as a first language speaker of a non-Han minority language, but non-Han languages of China are not otherwise present in the study. Chinese heritage language(s)

Chinese community schools are often referred to in the literature as ‘heritage language schools’ (e.g. Li & Wu, 2008; Lü, 2014; Lü & Koda, 2017). As anticipated in Chapter 1, this book argues that such a definition is contentious. It is in fact predicated on an assumption that pupils are all heritage language learners/speakers of Mandarin and in so doing it does not take account of linguistic diversity and language minority status (Ganassin, 2017). As discussed in the previous section, a multiplicity of varieties of Chinese was at play in the two schools, and a number of pupils and adults were only exposed to Mandarin through community education. There are many definitions of heritage or community language. Van Deusen-Scholl (2003) uses the term to define those languages other than English that are associated with the cultural background of minority groups or communities including immigrant and indigenous ones. Heritage language learners speak, or at least understand, the language and they have some degree of multilingualism (Valdés, 2001). Furthermore, learners see their heritage language as having a ‘particular family relevance’ (Fishman, 2001: 169) and emotional value. According to Campbell (2000), heritage language speakers typically have the following attributes: native pronunciation and fluency; command of between 80% and 90% of the syntactic structures; extensive vocabulary; and familiarity with implicit cultural norms essential for language rules. At the same time, heritage language speakers also show some gaps in their knowledge such as: lack of formal registers in the language; poor literacy and use of ‘nonstandard’/vernacular varieties (that is to say, varieties that lack institutional sanction). Campbell’s (2000) definition is only partially applicable to Chinese as a heritage language. In fact, we have seen that Chinese language is actually an umbrella term which encompasses Mandarin and at least six or seven classified varieties. While the northern varieties of Chinese – defined as Mandarin dialects – are largely mutually intelligible, the other groups – which fall under the category of southern varieties and that include the languages used in the schools, Cantonese, Hakka and Hokkien – are generally unintelligible to one another (Li, 2006; Ramsey, 1987). In their critiques of Campbell’s theorisation of heritage language, Li and Duff (2008) discuss why Campbell’s model is only partially applicable to Chinese heritage language. For instance, Cantonese and Hakka speakers are unlikely to have a ‘native’ pronunciation and, as we have

20  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

seen, like Sandy in the vignette at the start of this chapter, often might not even understand Mandarin. As far as the teaching of Mandarin-Chinese in community schooling is concerned, He (2008) suggests the existence of a number of different scenarios in a typical Chinese heritage language classroom, for example: Mandarin is the learner’s home language; Mandarin is comprehensible in relation to the learner’s language; or Mandarin is unintelligible in relation to the learner’s home language. The unintelligibility between northern and southern varieties of Chinese explains Sandy’s comment in the vignette. Sandy was born in the New Territories (one of the three main regions of Hong Kong), where Cantonese is the dominant language, and migrated to the UK as a young child. Having mostly been exposed to Hakka at home and, to a lesser extent, to Cantonese, Sandy never really had the chance to engage with Mandarin before enrolling her children at Apple Valley. Literacy as an intercultural and ideological problem

The Chinese writing system has represented a marker of common identity for Chinese communities around the world throughout the centuries (He, 2008). As Li and Zhu (2013: 46) argue, the written language is a shared symbol of traditional culture and ‘in the Chinese diaspora, a reduction or loss of ability to read and write their heritage language, perceived or actual, may take on particular social significance for its members’. Literacy-related issues are particularly relevant in the case of Chinese community schooling and will be examined as part of this book. As is evident from some of the parents in the vignette reported earlier choosing to read the English version of the school form, literacy can be an issue in the context of Chinese community education and, more generally, in contexts of migration where Chinese communities bring with them a complex linguistic capital (Li & Zhu, 2010). In China, the written language has played a unifying role for thousands of years and despite the controversies related to the adoption of a simplified character system in the PRC to make literacy more attainable, the written language still gives a sense of historical continuity to Chinese people all over the world (Sabattini & Santangelo, 2005; Wiley, 2001). The  汉语大词典 Hànyǔ Dà Cídiǎn (Comprehensive Chinese Word Dictionary), the Chinese equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary, lists approximately 23,000 head characters. An educated Chinese person will know between 6,000 and 8,000 characters but the knowledge of 2,500–3,000 characters is generally sufficient to understand a Chinese newspaper or a non-specialised publication (Abbiati, 1992). Although the different varieties of Chinese are often not mutually intelligible, the written standard (i.e. traditional or simplified characters1) is largely universal (Handel, 2015).

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  21

This means that, although Chinese speakers do not necessarily understand each other when they use local varieties of language, it is possible for someone with Chinese literacy to read, for example, a magazine produced in any part of Greater China or to follow a TV programme in a local variety (e.g. a movie in Cantonese) by reading the Chinese subtitles. In the context of Chinese community education, literate parents and teachers who may not have a spoken command of Mandarin can access written documents and communicate with each other through web interfaces. At the same time, Chinese scripts can be problematic, particularly for learners, because two forms of characters are currently used, simplified (jiǎntizì 简体字) and complex, also called traditional, (繁体字 fántǐzì). In the context of Chinese community schooling, controversies over languages (Mandarin and Cantonese) and writing systems (simplified and traditional) also involve issues that go beyond mere practicalities. There are cultural, social, and political implications arising from matters such as political affiliation with the PRC-China and the ROC-Taiwan (Mau et al., 2009). As far as language pedagogies are concerned, the script – traditional or simplified characters – used in the classroom and at home may differ, or the learner may have no home literacy in Chinese. Such a variety of learning scenarios contrasts with the idea of Mandarin community schools as a homogeneous group of Chinese heritage language learners. It also raises a number of questions around how Chinese speakers construct their Chinese heritage language as we shall see in more detail in Chapter 5. Other issues concern literacy acquisition in contexts of migration. Literacy studies of Chinese heritage learners show that the varieties that learners speak or are exposed to at home, and even their status as ‘heritage language learners’, do not have a particular impact on their literacy development (He, 2008; Xiao, 2006). As a result, Chinese heritage students do not generally acquire reading and writing skills more quickly than non-heritage language learners (Xiao, 2006). As Xiao (2006: 54) argues ‘reading and writing [Chinese script] require not only oral exposure but also print experience and mapping between speech and print’. In Chapters 4 and 5, we shall see how a number of pupils perceived oracy and literacy as two totally separated abilities. We shall also see that even pupils who had recently migrated from China and were proficient Mandarin speakers perceived the need to maintain their ability to write Chinese characters. Throughout the centuries, a number of systems have been developed to convert, or Romanise, Chinese characters into Latin (or Roman) script. Two romanisation systems are relevant in this book: 拼音 pīnyīn and 注音 zhùyīn. The 拼音 pīnyīn (or 拼音字母 pīnyīn zìmǔ) – which literally refers to ‘spelling’ or ‘spelled sounds’ – is the official romanisation system currently adopted in Mainland China and, more recently,

22  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

in Taiwan. It includes 26 Latin letters and four tone marks. Introduced as part of the ‘Pinyin scheme’ in 1958, the system was originally created as a form of didactic support to aid alphabetisation (Abbiati, 1992). Nowadays, 拼音 pīnyīn is used in Mainland China to support children’s learning, on public signs such as street names and railways stations, and as an electronic input method. It is also widely used in the context of Chinese language education around the world, including community schooling, to develop the literacy skills of heritage and second language learners. The 注音符號 zhùyīn fúhào ‘phonetic symbols’, or 注音 zhùyīn, was introduced in China by the Republican government in the 1910s. At the end of the civil war, the defeated nationalist government fled to the island of Taiwan and adopted the 注音符號 zhùyīn fúhào as the romanisation system for 國語 guóyǔ, the de facto official language of the Republic of China. While the 拼音 pīnyīn system was recognised internationally in 1982, it was not until 2009 that a similar level of official recognition arose in Taiwan (Jin & Dervin, 2017) where the 注音符號 zhùyīn fúhào – colloquially defined by its first four syllables, bopomofo  ㄅㄆㄇㄈ – is still widely used both for transliteration purposes and as an electronic input method. Although this book largely focuses on the teaching and learning of 拼音 pīnyīn as the ‘official’ system adopted in the two schools, the 注音 zhùyīn is also present in the study as it was used, although not for teaching purposes, by two Taiwanese teachers, and it became a topic of debate among parents. Community Education and Chinese Migration

The last part of this chapter focuses on Chinese language community education as part of the wider experience of Chinese overseas migration. Particular attention is dedicated to the shift from Cantonese to Mandarin schools in the UK that reflects not only the new demographics of the Chinese population, but also the increased social and economic value of Mandarin as the official language of the People’s Republic of China (Mau et al., 2009). Chinese community schooling

Chinese community schools are voluntary organisations with a curriculum centred on the teaching of Chinese language (generally Mandarin or Cantonese) and the transmission of ‘traditional’ and contemporary Chinese culture (Wang, 2017). In the classroom, language teaching is intertwined with the teaching of Chinese cultural values and ideologies (e.g. Li & Zhu, 2014; Wang, 2017). Policies, pedagogical approaches, curriculum, and textbooks vary from school to school. However, the planned curriculum tends to be delivered in Chinese

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  23

(Mandarin or Cantonese) (Wang, 2017). Furthermore, a number of schools try to implement a ‘speak Chinese only policy’ in the classroom (Li & Wu, 2008) and discourage the use of English and other languages. Because of the schools’ independence from the mainstream schooling system, the school committees and, to some extent teachers, can make core decisions on the curricula, including choice of textbooks, and languages of instruction (Ganassin, 2019). In the UK, Chinese community language schools largely resulted from the efforts of post-war migrants to provide formal Chinese language education in collective settings (Li, 2014) to children who were previously educated by parents at home. In England, the first schools were set up in the late 1960s in large metropolitan areas such as London, Liverpool and Manchester, where there were significant numbers of Chinese residents (Li & Wu, 2009). As, at the time, the vast majority of Chinese migrants were Cantonese and/or Hakka speakers from Hong Kong and the New Territories, the first schools focused on the teaching of Cantonese (Li, 2014). From the late 1980s, schools began to teach Mandarin to children whose families had migrated from Mainland China (Wang, 2017). In Scotland, where the history of Chinese migration is more recent, the first schools were established in Edinburgh and Glasgow in the early 1970s and other schools were set up later in other urban areas (Aberdeen, and Dundee) where there was a significant Chinese presence. The Chinese population in Scotland is scattered across the country, and has a heterogeneous composition which includes more ‘established’ communities of Hakka and Cantonese speaking migrants from Hong Kong and ‘new’ Mandarin-speaking migrants from Mainland China and Taiwan (Hancock, 2014). The first schools taught Cantonese as they primarily catered for the needs of migrants from Hong Kong. However, Mandarin is increasingly popular also as result of the demographic changes (e.g. the presence of professionals and university students from Mainland China). It should be noted that Chinese community schooling in the UK is a relatively recent phenomenon compared to other countries (e.g. USA, Australia, Canada and a number of Asian countries) where Chinese migration has a longer history. In the USA, the first documented cases of home-schooling date back to the 1870s when teachers delivered classes of Chinese language and arithmetic to small groups of children (Lai, 2004. At the time and up until the end of World War II, Chinese in the USA were heavily discriminated against and denied access to a number of public services including mainstream education (Lü, 2014). The first community school was established in San Francisco in 1886, the year after public education reopened for the Chinese communities (Lü, 2014; Pan, 1997). The school focused on the teaching of Cantonese – the variety spoken by the majority of Chinese migrants – and on the transmission of the Chinese classics as a way of instilling a sense of pride in Chinese identity (Pan, 1997).

24  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

In Australia, Chinese community language education has existed for over 100 years as the first Chinese school was set up in 1909 (Chen & Zhang, 2014). Similar to what happened in other countries, the first Chinese schools were set up and run by parents and community leaders, relied on limited resources, and were generally small in size. Nowadays, Chinese community education is widespread in Australia where the majority of the Chinese schools currently in existence teach Mandarin. The schools are generally affiliated with Community Languages Australia (Australian Federation of Ethnic Schools Associations) an organisational banner created to unite and support the over 1400 community language (termed ‘ethnic’) schools of Australia and the state-based bodies which serve as their administrators (Community Languages Australia, 2019), although fully independent schools also exist. The first Chinese community school in Canada dates back to the late 19th century. It was established by the local Presbyterian Church to teach Chinese to Canadian-born Chinese children and English to Chinese migrants in French-speaking Quebec (Wang, 2003). At the time, Chinese migrants faced discrimination and exclusion from mainstream society, including the education system, and Chinese language schools were gradually set up alongside ethnic churches (Sun & Braeye, 2012). It was only in the 1980s, with China’s Reform and Opening-Up Policy, that a number of Chinese schools were set up in Montreal. The schools currently in existence focus on language education for children from Chinese ethnic backgrounds but they also provide assistance to adult migrants and offer classes on ‘Western’ and ‘Chinese’ culture for Chinese and local people (Sun & Braeye, 2012). Chinese community schools are also present in Asian countries where Chinese people migrated in large numbers. For example, in Malaysia, where the Chinese are the second largest ethnic group, Chinese language education was managed by the local communities between 1786 and 1920. These early Chinese schools used a curriculum based on classical texts imported from China and taught the languages most widely spoken in the local communities: Hokkien, Cantonese and Hakka, but also Teochew and Hainanese (Wang, 2014). In 2017, the UK Federation of Chinese Schools (UKFCS) – the largest UK-based charity aimed at promoting Chinese language and culture – had about 80 member schools, representing over 10,000 pupils (Member Schools, n.d.). According to Li (2014), the UK has over 200 Chinese community schools, the majority of which are still located in large metropolitan areas. As community schools are independent from the mainstream education system, and thus are not obliged to register with either the UKFCS or with any other organisation (e.g. the NRCSE, the UK Association for the Promotion of Chinese Education), it is difficult to estimate their exact number.

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  25

In the UK, four types of Chinese community schools have been identified by previous research (Li & Wu, 2008; Li, 2014) according to their target language (Mandarin or Cantonese) and their target learner groups. These are: (a) Cantonese schools for Hong Kong migrant families; (b) Cantonese schools for migrant families with particular religious affiliations; (c) Mandarin schools for Mainland Chinese migrants; and (d) Mandarin schools for Buddhist families, mainly from Taiwan. The two schools where this study was undertaken – named here Apple Valley and Deer River and introduced in the next chapter – teach Mandarin. However, their population is not limited to migrants from Mainland China but, as we shall see in the next chapter, also attended by migrants from other parts of Greater China. Prior literature reports that the classes in community schools in general are primarily attended by second generation British-Chinese children (Mau et al., 2009). However, Wang (2014) explains that pupils who have recently migrated from China, third generation BritishChinese, and local non-Chinese children interested in learning Chinese language increasingly form part of the school population. In the UK, Chinese community school teachers are generally volunteers – parents, or university students (Li & Wu, 2008; Wang, 2017) – who have not necessarily received formal teacher training in the UK or abroad (Mau et al., 2009). The lack of formal teaching qualifications, or at least local teaching credentials, is also a common trait across the international landscape of Chinese community schooling (Chen, 2016). There are however also community language teachers with degrees and teacher training from China who do not have the language skills to become mainstream teachers in their countries of migration. A variety of studies concerning the macro level of Chinese language planning and policy around the world (e.g. USA, Australia, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Scotland), as well as the micro level of Chinese heritage language education, language practices and pedagogies, and socialisation at home in contexts of migration, can be found in a volume edited by Xiao Lan Curdt-Christiansen and Andy Hancock (2014). It provides a comprehensive perspective on Chinese language and culture education but does not focus on the details of how Chinese language is taught and learnt in the school. The scope and the ethnographic approach of this book connects the dimensions of the personal and the global specifically with respect to the teaching and learning of language, and thus contributes to the grand-narrative of Chinese migration in the experiences of both ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ migrant communities. Community schooling and mainstream education system

Independence from the mainstream education system is a feature shared by Chinese schools in different parts of the world. In their work on Chinese community education in Canada, Pan and Wang (2017: 65)

26  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

point out that in Montreal ‘most of these [Chinese] schools are independent, receive no government grants, and have no connection to Quebec government school boards’. In their critique of the UK scene, Li and Wu (2008: 226) state that: ‘despite public debates over pluralistic, multicultural education over the decades, the UK governments have made no real attempts to address the criticisms that the mainstream education system is disabling and disempowering ethnic minority children and their communities’. Although formal establishment of the first community schools in the UK can be dated back to the arrival of migrant communities from Asia and the Caribbean in the 1950s (Creese et al., 2006; Li, 2006), it was only in the late 1970s that these schools started to attract the attention of the government. The publication of the Swann Report in 1985 represented an important turning point in terms of education for ethnic minority children. The Swann Report (DES, 1985) explicitly advocated that a ‘multicultural approach’ be adopted by mainstream schools to tackle exclusion and underachievement of ethnic minority children with a focus on those from Afro-Caribbean (termed ‘West Indian’) background. The report had a direct impact on community schools across the country (Robertson, 2006) as it recommended that ethnic minority communities should be directly responsible for transmitting their own languages and cultures (DES, 1985). In recent decades, studies on community schooling in the UK have highlighted a renewed and increased openness and interest within mainstream education in admitting these languages and cultures to their wider curriculum. However, it is evident that the responsibility for maintaining them still resides in community schools as independent institutions and is therefore placed within the communities themselves. The separateness of the community schools from the mainstream education system and educational policies has resulted in restricted or non-existent access to public funding, but also in the opportunity to retain a relevant institutional freedom to determine their own curriculum and pedagogic roles (Creese et al., 2006). Thirty years after the Swann report, community schools thus still retain as a dominant feature their own independence from the mainstream education system and they can be linked to different extents to local mainstream schools, neighbourhood organisations or faith institutions (Li, 2006). The shift from Cantonese to Mandarin community schooling

Li and Zhu (2010: 155) explain that ‘Chinese communities outside Greater China (China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan), have traditionally been dialect dominant’ with Cantonese – also acting as a major lingua franca across Chinese migrant communities – and Hokkien representing the most dominant varieties. As educational entities created

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  27

by migrants from Hong Kong, the first Chinese community language schools – both in the UK and in other parts of the world including the USA and Australia – taught Cantonese. In the past two decades, the rising economic power of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the related opportunities, and the arrival of new groups of Mandarin-speaking migrants have contributed towards a major shift from Cantonese schooling to Mandarin schooling (Li & Zhu, 2011; Mau et al., 2009). An increasing number of Cantonese schools have added Mandarin classes to address the demands of enthusiastic parents who foresee the opportunities available to Mandarin speakers (Mau et al., 2009). Yet none of the Mandarin schools in the UK teach Cantonese or any other regional varieties of Chinese (Li, 2009). Members of the British-Cantonese community have become increasingly concerned about the increasing value of Mandarin as social and economic capital (Li & Zhu, 2011; Wang, 2014). The enthusiasm for Mandarin has also generated debate amongst parents and educators on which of the two varieties – Mandarin or Cantonese – should be prioritised within community schooling (Mau et al., 2009). Arguments favouring the use of Mandarin, and simplified characters include not only a desire on the part of parents to foster stronger links with Mainland China and Chinese identity, but also a wish to gain all the benefits related to being a Mandarin speaker, especially in terms of employment prospects. Despite not all Chinese speakers having Mandarin as their first or heritage language, and despite the fact that other languages and varieties are spoken by UK families, Mandarin, as the official language of the PRC, holds strong political cachet. This has led to ‘particular critical concern [which] has been directed at the role that the Chinese state continues to play within the construction and defence of dominant notions of contemporary Chineseness’ (Archer et al., 2010: 409). As Chinese community schools are often charged with having a focus aimed at promoting a sense of Chinese-PRC identity through language teaching, language teaching itself becomes a political act. This book seeks to understand how this promotion of Mandarin impacts on the ways in which pupils understand themselves, and whether Mandarin’s centrality in the Chinese community schools contributes to enforcing or to challenging homogeneity in constructions of Chinese identities. The conceptualisation of Chinese identity promoted within Mandarin community schooling that is investigated here is, as we shall see, problematic. The British-Chinese community has a diverse origin in that it includes a large body of Cantonese and Hakka speakers (including migrants from Hong Kong and Macao), along with migrants from Taiwan and Singapore whose heritage language is not necessarily Mandarin (Benton & Gomez, 2008) and ‘new’ Mandarinspeaking migrants from Mainland China who often have a professional

28  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

background and have moved away from the food and hospitality sector. Given the issues and implications, the central purpose of this book is to investigate the experiences of these Mandarin community schools. The aim is to explore both how the centrality of Mandarin in the context of the schools is not only educationally but also ideologically charged, and how the role of Mandarin Chinese language education is understood by adults and pupils, given the diversity of their backgrounds. Chinese communities in the UK

Although Chinese community schools are a relatively recent phenomenon, Chinese migrants started to migrate to the UK in the 17th century and the first sizeable settlement of Chinese people dates to the 19th century (Li & Zhu, 2013). At that time, seamen and labourers – mainly from Mainland China, Hong Kong, and the New Territories – started to migrate in search of job opportunities (Benton & Gomez, 2008). Since then, Chinese migration flows have been uninterrupted and consistent, and nowadays the settled British-Chinese community, which developed primarily from post-war migrants who began to arrive in the 1950s, constitutes the third largest migrant community in the country (Li, 2014; Jin & Dervin, 2017). According to the 2011 Census, 400,000 people identified with the ‘Chinese’ (Han) ethnic group (0.7% of the total population of England and Wales), a mix of ‘new’ migrants and long settled BritishChinese. Over a quarter of the Chinese community in the UK are now British-born (Li, 2014). They are often defined in the literature and in the media discourse as BBC (British-born Chinese). ‘The Chinese’ in the UK also includes the more transient group of Chinese students who often return home after completion of their university studies. According to the UK Council for International Student Affairs (2018), almost one third of non-EU students in the UK are from China, the only country from which student numbers show a significant increase (14% rise since 2012–13). Chinese students in the UK far exceed those of any other nationality and they contribute to the increasing diversity within the Chinese community (or communities). These changes in the migration patterns are also reflected in an increasing linguistic diversity within the community of Chinese speakers. In fact, new migrants, including students, bring with them varieties of Chinese often different from the ‘traditionally’ spoken Cantonese, Hakka and Cantonese, such as Shanghainese and, of course, Mandarin. Chinese overseas communities around the world are often associated with their ‘Chinatowns’, a term originally coined to define the Chinese settlements in San Francisco and New York. In a monograph on the history of Chinese migration to the UK, Benton and Gomez (2008) argue that the concept of ‘Chinatown’ is not entirely applicable to the Chinese

Constructing the Term ‘Chinese’  29

settlements in the UK as these lack residential density and because they did not originate from deliberate planning efforts made by Chinese communities themselves. In the UK, there are five ‘Chinatowns’, situated in London, Birmingham, Liverpool – which is the oldest Chinatown in Europe, Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne. They are small compared to the Chinatowns in the USA and in other parts of the world. For example, Manchester’s Chinatown – the second largest in the UK – is bounded by four streets whilst Newcastle’s Chinatown covers only one street and some shops nearby. Although it is arguable that the Chinatowns – at least in their intention – serve the Chinese communities as points of reference, Chinese people in the UK do not exclusively live in proximity to Chinatowns. As was the case for a number of participants in this study, many Chinese families are scattered in smaller towns or neighbourhoods and, as a result, they experience relative isolation from one another and look for alternative places of socialisation such as churches and community schools. This research was therefore developed in the awareness that ‘the Chinese communities’ are not confined to specific physical and geographical spaces. At the same time, the community schools represent important social and educational spaces where Chinese people meet – albeit only once a week – moved by a shared desire to maintain their language, cultures and identities, and to transmit them to the younger generation. This book offers a window through which to understand this experience of Chinese migrants in the UK, including both ‘new’ migrants from Mainland China and those part of the more ‘traditional’ Cantonese, Hakka and Hokkien speaking communities. After an explanation of the research methodology used, in subsequent chapters we shall see that intercultural issues between adults and pupils from different Chinese backgrounds play a fundamental role in shaping individual relationships and the participants’ own sense of ‘Chineseness’. Note (1) Used for centuries in cursive handwriting, simplified Chinese characters were introduced systematically in Mainland China by the Maoist regime in the mid-50s (Abbiati, 1992) and have been the object of controversies both in China and within Chinese migrant communities. A number of arguments have been used to promote the usage of one system over the other, including aesthetic (e.g. traditional characters are more elegant), pedagogical (e.g. simplified characters are easier to learn), and ideological (e.g. the acknowledgement of a particular geopolitical entity as centre of power). Nowadays, simplified characters are used in education and publishing in Mainland China and Singapore. Traditional Chinese characters are still used in Taiwan, Macao, and Hong Kong, as well as by migrants from these areas in their new countries (Li, 2006).

3 Research Design

This chapter presents the context of the schools and the profiles of pupil and adult participants. It then introduces the ethnographic methodology of the study, including methods of data collection and analysis, and the significance of a researching multilingually approach in research. Examples of materials used during the study are provided in the appendices. The Schools

The two Chinese community schools – Apple Valley and Deer River – are situated in two different areas of England. At the time of the data collection (November 2013 to January 2015), Apple Valley School had 65 students, six teachers and four support teachers. The majority of the teachers had a formal teaching qualification and extensive work experience in schools or universities. All the teachers were women and had Mandarin as their first language. Some of them were postgraduate students at local universities, academic staff, or other professionals. The school was established in the 1990s with the purpose of teaching Mandarin and promoting Chinese culture. Apple Valley received funding from school fees, university-related sponsorships, sponsorships from UKAPCE (UK Association for the Promotion of Chinese Education), and the sale of Chinese goods. The school had informal relationships with the Chinese embassy in London and with a local Confucius Institute, but it remained independent as far as decision-making processes were concerned. At the time of the study, Apple Valley School had an elected school committee and it held regular staff and committee meetings, one annual general meeting (AGM) and at least three or four annual events, including a Chinese New Year event, and school trips. Its six language classes for children covered reception to advanced level (equivalent to the B2 Level of the Common European Framework of Reference). Each weekly class lasted for two hours, and there were separate Mandarin classes for students preparing for GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education) and GCE A-level (General Certificate of Education Advanced Level) in Mandarin, the examinations taken in English state schools. Pupils were generally grouped by level of language proficiency rather than by age and were accepted from five years of age upwards. A weekly language class for adults was also offered. This class 30

Research Design  31

was open to anyone, but it was mostly attended by local British people whose partners were from Chinese backgrounds. Alongside the language classes, the school offered different recreational clubs: art and chess for children, and Chinese dance and martial arts classes for adults. At the time of the data collection (September 2014 to December 2014), Deer River school had 10 classes and about 90 students. Teachers were all women from different professional backgrounds. All were Mandarin speakers from Mainland China and Taiwan. The head teacher and the deputy-head teacher had extensive previous experience of running formal education programmes in China. The school offered language classes for children from reception level to advanced level grouped by proficiency and age; pupils were accepted from five years old upwards. Each class took place weekly for three hours. The school’s regular offering focused on Mandarin classes for children. Students could prepare for their GCSE in Mandarin. At the time of the study, the school was attended mostly by Chinese families, including Mandarin speakers from China, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan. Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong, a number of mixed heritage families, and three or four local English families also attended. The school was run as a charitable organisation and enjoyed in-kind use of the premises of a local mainstream school. Financially, Deer River School relied on student fees and donations. At the time of the study, the school was managed by a committee of parent members and teaching staff and guided by the Constitution of the school. Throughout the year, the committee organised regular meetings, one school AGM, and other recreational activities and celebrations. As with Apple Valley School, the mission of Deer River focused on advancing the teaching of Chinese culture and language within the local community. Its curriculum was similar to the one at Apple Valley in terms of its focus on four language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), provision of formal qualifications and choice of textbooks. Although the committee of Deer River School had a strong interest in delivering cultural activities, these were limited due to lack of financial resources. Apple Valley and Deer River adopted the same textbooks: the 中 文 Zhongwen series compiled for an audience of overseas learners by the College of Chinese Language and Culture of Jinan University (CCLC) through a project supported by the Chinese Ministry of Education (http://hwy.jnu.edu.cn). Although each school committee and teaching coordinator made core decisions on books and the curriculum, the teachers used their own materials to complement the lessons. In both schools, the textbooks provided the major channel through which pupils engaged with Chinese culture and language, together with insight offered by the teachers.

32  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

A final point concerns the student population. The websites of both schools refer to the teaching of Mandarin and Chinese culture to the wider community. However, the governing documents (e.g. constitution) of Apple Valley referred to the transmission of Chinese language and culture to heritage language speakers. Deer River School was open to students from all backgrounds, but families were required to be able to provide Mandarin language support at home. The Participants

I initially gained access to the research sites by contacting the headteachers directly and inquiring about their willingness to have their schools involved in the study. I then approached adult participants in the schools individually and consulted both parents and teachers about the possibility of involving pupils in group interviews. The identification of participants was based on the interest and willingness of participants to be part of the study. A further criterion for the sampling of pupils related to their age so that all the schools’ age groups (5 to 18 years old) could be represented. Furthermore, my own language resources as researcher determined the recruitment of adult participants who could be interviewed in English. Arguably, this choice created issues in terms of inclusion, as a number of potential adult participants did not have a sufficient command of English to participate in the study. In order to balance issues of inclusion, I tried to recruit participants from different areas of the Chinese-speaking world (Mainland China, Taiwan, Malaysia and Hong Kong). By doing so, I intended to represent the ethnic, linguistic, and geographical diversity of the schools’ population. Eventually, the study drew upon the experiences of three groups of pupils (23 children in total), and eight parents, two head teachers, and eight teachers (18 adults in total). All names of children and adults are pseudonyms. I used English pseudonyms where participants used an English name and Chinese pseudonyms where Chinese participants identified themselves with a Chinese name. Divisions amongst participants (pupils, school staff, and parents) are always clearly defined throughout the discussion of findings. I refer to myself as ‘Sara’. Pupils’ profiles

Pupils were interviewed in three focus group sessions which are referred to as FG1, FG2 and FG3 throughout the study’s analysis. The first focus group took place at Apple Valley School. It included six participants: five boys, Dewei, Bojing, Honghui, Yang and Jinlin, and one girl, Meili, aged between 15 and 17. They were all preparing for their Chinese GCSE. All were born in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to

Research Design  33

Chinese parents and had moved to the UK between 1 and 2 years prior to the study. All stated that Mandarin was their first language and they had an elementary level of English. The second focus group also took place at Apple Valley School. It included nine participants: seven girls, Bella, Kitty, Yvonne, Emily, Grace, Leah and Eva, and two boys, Danny and Lucas, aged between 5 and 11. They were at different points of their studies, but they were part of the same Chinese art class. All were second generation children of migrants from China or Hong Kong or from mixed heritage families. They all had English as their preferred language. Their command of Mandarin varied. Danny, Lucas, Leah and Eva were exposed to the language at home and used it with their parents. Bella, Kitty, Yvonne and Emily came from Cantonese speaking families, and had a good command of Cantonese in daily situations and some understanding of Hakka. They were only exposed to Mandarin in the context of the schools. The third focus group took place at Deer River School. It included eight participants: three girls, Violet, Lily and Megan, and five boys, Roy, Steve, Bruce, Julian and Alan, aged between 12 and 13. They were all attending year 7 in mainstream schools and they were all born in the UK. Roy, Steve, Julian, Lily and Megan came from Hong Kong families, and had previously attended a Cantonese community school and moved to their present Mandarin school in the preceding year. They considered Cantonese as well as English as their first language and only recently started to learn Mandarin. Violet, Bruce and Alan came from Mainland China and mixed heritage families. They all stated that English was their preferred language. Although they were exposed to Mandarin at home none of them considered themselves a proficient speaker. Parents’ profiles

The eight parents (two fathers and six mothers) who took part in the study were first generation migrants. At Apple Valley, I interviewed Albert, Philip, Selina, Judith, Shuoqian, and Lan. Albert was born in Hong Kong and moved to the UK as a child while the other parents were from Mainland China and all migrated to the UK as adults to work or to complete their studies. Albert considered Hakka and Cantonese his first languages and he was fluent in both English and Mandarin. The other parents considered Mandarin as their first language and spoke English with varying degrees of competence. At Deer River, Chloe was born in Malaysia and moved to the UK as a postgraduate student. She considered Penang Hokkien – a local variant of Hokkien spoken in Penang, Malaysia – as her first language but she had been educated in Mandarin and English. She could also speak Cantonese, Hakka and Malay with varying degrees of competence and some Italian. Rita was a Mandarin speaker from Mainland China and was also fluent in English and Cantonese.

34  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Teachers’ profiles

The study also includes the perspectives of eight female teachers and two headteachers whose gender is not disclosed to protect their anonymity. At Apple Valley, I interviewed Rose, Alice, Nala – whose classes I also attended and observed – Jun, Lirong and Shuchung. All the teachers were from Mainland China and had Mandarin as their first language with varying proficiency in English. They were all volunteers, parents or university students (see Li & Wu, 2008; Wang, 2017). They all had bachelor’s degrees (subjects included fine arts, business, and accounting) or higher but they had not necessarily received formal teacher training in the UK or elsewhere. Rose and Nala were qualified Chinese language teachers and Alice had previous experience as an art and calligraphy teacher in China. The headteacher had been educated in Mainland China and was fluent in Mandarin as well as in English but had another Chinese non-Han language as first language. At Deer River, Ting was a qualified Chinese language teacher from Mainland China who had Mandarin as her first language and spoke English fluently. Joy had also received formal teacher training and had Taiwanese-Mandarin and 閩南語 mǐnnányǔ (Southern Min) as her mother tongues. She spoke English fluently. The headteacher was from Mainland China and, having lived in the UK for a number of years, she also spoke English fluently. All teachers migrated to the UK as adults, some of them were long-term residents and others were temporary sojourners. Further details about the background of child and adult participants will be provided as appropriate in later chapters. Research Methods

An ethnographic framework informed the development of the study. Ethnography was chosen for its ability to provide rich understanding of linguistic, cultural and behavioural practices of particular groups in a specific context and time (Aull-Davies, 2008; Jackson, 2016). Deeply rooted in disciplines such as sociology and anthropology (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007), ethnographic research is now widely used within the fields of education, language and intercultural communication that this study draws on (Jackson, 2016). ‘Culture’ is a core element in ethnography, and so it aligns with the purpose of this study, because it enables a rich description to emerge not only of what people do in particular settings, but also how and why they do it (Wolcott, 2008). Ethnography was particularly important in this study as it permits access to people’s social meanings and activities (Brewer, 2000) and allows the researcher to present an accurate portrayal of their perspectives.

Research Design  35

A number of techniques were used to fulfil different aims and to respond to different research questions. These were: participant observation (including 12 classroom observations) documented through research field notes, document analysis, one-to-one interviews, visual methods, and focus group interviews. In all, I spent 14 months in the field, taking part in school meetings, supporting the organisation of events, and attending language classes with pupils at Apple Valley School. I was also invited to attend a number of social events (e.g. a karaoke night for parents), that took place out of the school’s opening times. These experiences were important to get an insight into what pupils and adults experience at school and to recruit participants. Collecting the data

The emic perspectives provided by the interviews were complemented by the researcher’ observations of participants’ spontaneous reactions to different school activities, revealing significant traits of their experiences of community schooling. Research field notes were important in this study as, by fostering reflection during the data collection and analytical stage, they helped me to make sense of what I observed and the data I collected. Appendix 4.3 provides more information about the field notes and how these were collected and organised. Furthermore, I analysed a number of publicly available documents related to the schools including their mission statements, constitutions, and curriculum plans. These were used to obtain contextual information about the schools, to ascertain how the schools envisaged themselves, what values they wanted to promote, and what strategic intent they pursued. As all these documents are available online, to protect the anonymity of the two schools, their contents are paraphrased. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were used as a method for data collection with the adults. The interviews explored how the adults’ views complement, confirm, or contrast with the pupils’ perspectives. Teachers and headteachers were asked open-ended questions on the following topics: how they understood and implemented the focus of the schools on the promotion of Chinese language, culture and identity; their own goals as educators; how they understood the importance of community education in the lives of adults and pupils. The interviews with parents had a slightly different focus. After an introductory discussion on their backgrounds, participants were asked to discuss: their understanding of the importance of community schooling; what they wanted their children to achieve; and what their relationship with the teachers were. As discussed at the beginning of the chapter, pupils were interviewed in three focus group sessions which are referred to as FG1, FG2 and FG3 throughout the study’s analysis. To capture their thoughts and opinions

36  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

in the research, pupils were also asked to engage in two drawing-based methods of presenting their ideas: cartoon storyboards and Venn diagrams. These were used to help children to reflect on their experience of learning, supporting them in moving from the concrete to the abstract in order to deconstruct learning processes and their importance in their lives (see Wall, 2008, 2017). The first task consisted of a cartoon storyboard with six boxes on each sheet as prompts. Pupils were allowed to use them in any way they wanted to describe their experience of community schooling. The instructions refer specifically to a learning moment at school: ‘Use this storyboard to tell the story of one learning moment at the Chinese community school: something it has made you learn about yourself, about being Chinese, or anything else important for you. Feel free to use the space as you want with words, drawings etc.’ For the second activity, I created a template with blank Venn diagrams and the task for pupils to compare their experiences of community and mainstream schooling and their commonalities. The visual artefacts produced by the pupils were used as a springboard for discussion in the focus group sessions. Pupils shared their learning experiences according to the following topics: reflections on learning moments; motivation to attend community school and their expectations of it; their experiences of mainstream and Chinese schooling and discussion of how the schools changed (if they did so) the ways in which they looked at themselves. I also encouraged pupils to ask each other questions and so their visual artefacts represented an immediate way of triggering their interest and curiosity (Gauntlett, 2007). The focus groups lasted around 45 minutes and they were audiorecorded. Participation in the visual tasks, just as with participation in the overall study, was voluntary and pupils who worked together already knew each other from being in the same class. At Apple Valley the pupils’ teachers, Nala and Alice, asked to be present to facilitate the pupils’ participation. Nala helped me to facilitate the conversation as the majority of the students had a limited command of English, whilst Alice’s pupils were quite young, and we felt that extra support would be helpful. No teacher was present during the focus group at Deer River. Before conducting the pupils’ focus groups, I had observed pupils in the classrooms and in the wider social context of the school as they interacted with peers, teachers, parents, and with me, the researcher. Analysing the data

The data collection process yielded the following sets of data: 55 pages of research field notes (72 hours over 38 days across two research sites); 18 one-to-one semi-structured interviews with adults;

Research Design  37

three focus group sessions with 23 pupils; and 24 visual artefacts produced by pupils. Appendix 4.1 provides an overview of the total data set. Following Braun and Clarke (2006), data were subjected to thematic analysis under four broad categories: community education, Chinese language, culture, and identity. Researching Multilingually

Languages are of central importance in this book. I not only conducted research on languages (e.g. construction of Chinese as a heritage language; language practices), but I also analysed the presence and use of different languages (English, Mandarin, and other varieties of Chinese, and Italian as my first language) that were at play throughout the study. To make sense of the multilingual complexities and possibilities of this study, I draw on the theoretical framework created by Holmes et al. (2013, 2016) that theorises the praxis of researching multilingually, i.e. how researchers make choices about their linguistic resources in theorising, designing, undertaking, and writing up their research. My own involvement in the researching multilingually network project (Ganassin & Holmes, 2013; Holmes et al., 2013) also informed my researcher decision-making, or ‘purposefulness’ in this study, that is, ‘the informed and intentional research(er) thinking and decision-making which results from an awareness and thorough consideration of the possibilities for and complexities of all aspects of the research process’ (Holmes et al., 2016: 101). The framework includes two conceptual dimensions: spatiality (research spaces) and relationality (research relationships) (Holmes et al., 2013). First, Holmes et al. (2013) define the importance of four multilingual spaces: (i) the researched phenomena (e.g. a study on Chinese community schools); (ii) the research context (e.g. two Mandarin Chinese community schools); (iii) the researcher resources (e.g. language competencies of researcher and researched that included, but were not limited to, English and Mandarin); and (iv) the representational possibilities (e.g. dissemination in English; inclusion of data in Chinese). Second, relationality concerns how relationships are negotiated and managed in the research context and which languages are in play in the researcher-researched relationship. This dimension prompts the researcher to investigate how relationships are negotiated and nurtured, and which languages support these processes. This aspect was significant as it impacted on the negotiation of trust (negotiating access in the research sites), power relationships (with adults and children), and representation (whose voices were represented in the research).

38  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

The data were primarily collected in English, but Mandarin was occasionally used, for example during the focus group sessions with pupils who had migrated from China. The dominance of English depends upon the fact that the study was located in an Englishspeaking university, and the researched schools, that are largely Chinesespeaking contexts, are surrounded by a predominantly English-speaking community. My own language repertoire also informed the choice to conduct research in English: I have Italian as first language and I use English in personal and professional contexts. Chinese is also part of my repertoire as I studied Mandarin and Chinese history and linguistics at university. On the one hand, I can converse in Mandarin about a range of daily topics, I can read and write with comfortable knowledge of approximately 1500 characters and I am familiar with the 拼音 pīnyīn romanisation system. On the other hand, my command of Mandarin, which generally enables me to engage in informal conversation with people, would not have been sufficient to conduct full interviews. Thus, from the planning stage, I was aware that I could not provide participants with a choice of interview languages. At the same time, before undertaking the study I knew a couple of people attending the schools where I conducted this research and I knew that they were not fluent Mandarin speakers themselves, one being a first language speaker of Hokkien and one of Hakka. Hence, I considered that participants might not necessarily be speakers of Mandarin themselves, but that I could expect to encounter other varieties of Chinese at the research sites in addition to English and Mandarin. At the same time, I made the conscious decision not to use interpreters, for a number of reasons. First, I felt that the mediation of an interpreter would have impacted on my relationships with participants and created a sense of distance. Second, I wanted to be fully able to engage with the data both during and after the different research phases. Third, I did not have the financial resources to pay for interpreters. Finally, my previous experience of working with interpreters in other contexts, such as contexts involving legal casework, raised such ethical and practical issues that I did not feel that this study would have significantly benefited from their involvement (Ganassin & Holmes, 2013). As far as the use of English is concerned, I learnt from my previous experience of research with migrant communities that the negotiation of a shared language – other than the native language of either the researcher or the participant – could provide an opportunity for neutralising the inbuilt power imbalance within research relationships (Ganassin & Holmes, 2013). Thus, I could see the advantages of conducting research in English as a second or foreign language for both me and at least some of the participants and in the hope that our shared status as foreigners would make us approachable to each other.

Research Design  39

At the same time, I carried out my study with the awareness that I was bringing with me all the languages that form a part of my own repertoire which include Spanish and French in addition to English, Mandarin, and Italian as my first language. Although I was not expecting, for example, that Italian would have had any relevance in this study, I did not completely rule out the possibility of its coming into use. In fact, my previous experience of work with migrant communities taught me that people’s life trajectories, such as experiences of study and migration, can be so diverse that others’ language repertoires are never fully predictable, and researchers need to be aware of that. The opportunities and challenges offered by a ‘researching multilingually’ lens are discussed in various findings chapters and in the Conclusions chapter (see also Ganassin & Holmes, 2019).

4 Chinese Community Schools: ‘Spaces for People to Come Together and Learn from Each Other’

In Chapter 2, we saw how the primary aim of Chinese community schooling around the world is to teach Chinese language(s) (largely Mandarin and Cantonese) to the new generations as well as to offer a variety of teaching related to traditional Chinese cultural practices such as calligraphy and martial arts (Chen & Zhang, 2014; Hancock, 2014; Li & Zhu, 2014; Lü, 2014). The literature describes this focus on two core cultural and linguistic elements as a common feature of community schools set up by other migrant groups (Archer et al., 2010; Chen & Zhang, 2014; Creese et al., 2006). Both the schools where this study took place prioritised the transmission of spoken Mandarin and written Chinese in simplified characters alongside the importance of traditional and contemporary Chinese ‘culture’. From the outset of the study, I was concerned with pupils’ and adults’ subjective experiences of community education; I was interested in exploring the views of pupils, teachers and parents. I began by asking them why they attended a Chinese community school. It was necessary to ask this initial question to create a context in which to address the other research aims and thus analyse the importance of community schooling in pupils’ and adults’ lives. Understanding Chinese Community Education

Previous studies on Chinese community schooling showed that pupils and adults have different understandings of the role and importance of the schools (e.g. concerning language learning, transmission of culture) (Francis et al., 2005a, 2005b). Thus, establishing how those involved in the schools understand the aim and focus of community schooling is important in ascertaining its importance in their lives. 40

Chinese Community Schools  41

Pupils’ Perspectives

Pupils’ understanding of the aim and focus of Chinese community schooling are discussed in terms of: Chinese language learning; getting qualifications; and learning English in a supportive environment. Chinese language learning

The construction of Chinese community schooling as Mandarin language-focused emerged consistently across the data. First, I discuss the perspectives of the pupils who took part in FG2 and FG3, as they unanimously defined the perpetuation of Mandarin language as the main aim of Chinese schooling. The pupils in these two focus group sessions were British-born and defined English (FG2) or English and Cantonese (FG3) as their first languages, whilst the children in FG1 all considered Mandarin as their first language. The following excerpt illustrates the perspectives of Kitty (8 years old) and Emily (11 years old). Kitty had attended Apple Valley School since her first year of primary school, whilst Emily came from a mixed household and had just started to attend Apple Valley: Extract 1:  Emily and Kitty (FG2) – aim of community education (Chinese language) Sara: Why do you come to this school? Emily: To learn Chinese. Kitty: We do it to learn Chinese obviously. Because we are Chinese.

Kitty, who spoke Cantonese and English at home, introduced the idea that ‘Chinese people’ need to learn ‘Chinese’ in a formal learning environment. Alice, who at the time of the data collection was teaching Chinese art at Apple Valley School, helped me to facilitate the focus group and the visual activities during her art class. In the following excerpt she asked Bella (7 years old) and Leah (6 years old) why they attended the Chinese school: Extract 2: Bella and Leah (FG2) – aim of community education (Chinese language) Alice: 你知道你来这个学校做什么？ 说中文？ nǐ zhīdào nǐ lái zhè gè xuéxiào zuò shénme？ shuō zhōngwén？ Bella: To learn Chinese and to get better at how we speak Chinese. Leah, another pupil attending the art class added: 我来学习中文啊。wǒ lái xuéxí zhōngwén ā

42  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

The responses of Kitty, Emily, Bella, and Leah are representative of a very strong trend in the data from FG2. Their classmates overwhelmingly placed a strong focus on language learning in their answers, explaining that their main reason for attending the school was either to learn or improve their Chinese. Only two children advanced other primary reasons (meeting new friends and learning skills) for attending. Similar, to those in FG1, the children in FG3 were British-born. In this excerpt they reply to my question: ‘If someone would ask you why you go to a Chinese school, what would you say?’ Extract 3:  Alan, Steve (12 years old), Lily and Megan (13 years old) (FG3) – aim of community education (Chinese language) Alan: Learning Chinese. Steve: Learning Chinese. Lily and Megan: Learning Mandarin.

The eight pupils in FG3 at Deer River School were aged between 12 and 13. Six of them, including Lily and Megan, came from Cantonesespeaking families. Some had previously attended a Cantonese community school but had moved to Deer River, as their parents wanted them to learn Mandarin. Having a fluent command of Cantonese, when they were asked how they understood the focus of community schooling, they all prioritised Mandarin language learning. Other pupils were exposed to Mandarin at home. For example, Alan’s parents were Mandarin speakers from South Central China, and he was a moderately confident Mandarin speaker. Nevertheless, he considered the school important to improve his language skills. The findings from FG2 and FG3 are consistent with previous literature on Chinese community schooling. For example, research findings from a study of six UK-based Chinese language schools (Francis et al., 2008) showed that the overwhelming majority of pupils saw the main aim of the schools as helping them to maintain the Chinese language. Similarly, when I asked directly ‘why do you attend a Chinese school?’ only two interviewees offered other major rationales. In contrast, FG1 participants did not identify learning Mandarin as the key purpose of their community school. They were all born in China and had been in the UK for between a few months and 4 years at the time of the study. This point is illustrated in the response of 15-year-old Meili who was studying for her GCSE exams at Apple Valley School: Extract 4: Meili (FG1) – aim of community education (English language) I lived in the UK for the past 4 years. Mandarin is my first language. [There is] no need to learn it.

Chinese Community Schools  43

Meili and her classmates all came from Mandarin-speaking families; they had lived and been schooled in China for most of their lives. Thus, they did not identify learning Mandarin as a primary aim of community schooling, and advanced other aims, such as getting qualifications, as illustrated in the next sections. Such a difference in the perception and construction of the school’s role is not present in extant research literature, which focuses on children who were mostly schooled in the UK. Becoming literate in Chinese represented a further consistently perceived aim of Chinese community education. The analysis of the visual data reveals how all pupils, regardless of their oral proficiency, were conscious that speaking Chinese does not necessarily equate to the ability to write Chinese. A number of children illustrated the importance of mastering both abilities. They made wide use of Chinese characters in their drawings; some of them expressed pride in their literacy skills and told me that they used their skills and knowledge to impress me. The following interview excerpt shows how Eva, who at five years old was the youngest (Apple Valley School) pupil, seemed particularly proud of her ability to write Chinese characters. Extract 5:  Eva (FG2) – aim of community education (Chinese language) Sara: Oh, what have you done? OH WOW. Let me see. {Looks at the Chinese characters on the storyboard} Small. Big. {Reads the characters}. Eva: I do Chinese at my home; that’s why I am good! Sara: Oh, you are good. How old are you? Eva: Five. Sara: Five and you can write in Chinese. That’s good. Teacher: {Reads the character written by Eva} Oh yes, she is good. Sara: And do you like learning the Chinese writing? Eva: I do. I can write them quite right.

At the time of the study, Eva was attending a Chinese pre-class at Apple Valley School. She was also attending art classes. Because of her very young age, I was particularly careful about involving her in the activities and the focus group. Nevertheless, Eva was one of the most enthusiastic participants and the fragment of conversation above shows not only her skills, but also her level of self-awareness and her understanding of the importance of writing skills in Chinese education. All the FG1 pupils had been schooled in China till at least the age of 13 and they were fluent Mandarin speakers. However, they all saw improving their literacy as an important aim of the school. Some pupils stated that the school helped them to maintain and improve their written skills and their 语文 yǔwén . Bojing (16 years old), who had moved to the UK with his family the year before my data

44  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Figure 4.1  Cartoon storyboard created by Bojing

collection, illustrated in his cartoon storyboard (Figure 4.1) the importance of improving his literacy skills at the community school. As highlighted in box 2: 我在这里锻鍊了自己的写作， 让我可以写出更好 的作文了 Wǒ zài zhèlǐ duànliàn le zìjǐ de xiězuò, ràng wǒ kěyǐ xiě chū gèng hǎo de zuòwénle : Bojing had just moved to the UK from China, and he had a good knowledge of Chinese characters, as demonstrated by his confident use of them in his storyboard. Nevertheless, he felt that through the school he could perfect his writing and composition skills. Learning English in a supportive environment

Pupils who were born in China also considered learning English at the Chinese school an important reason for attending. Although at first they saw obtaining qualifications through help with preparing for examinations as the main aim of community schooling, a second important aim emerged concerning English learning and practising the language in a supportive environment. Honghui (16 years old) had moved to the UK less than two years before the data collection. Here, he talks about his class at the Chinese school: Extract 6: Honghui (FG1) – aim of community education (English language) Honghui: In Chinese School there are few people and mostly people born in China, that’s only 2 hours a week.

Chinese Community Schools  45

Sara: Do you think that is good or bad, the fact that everyone was born in China? Honghui: It’s bad because most of people speak Chinese. We cannot improve our English Sara: So you also come here to improve your English? Dewei: Yeah and people speak Chinese and English. More time [sometimes] they speak English and more time [sometimes] they speak Chinese. […] Chinese people we can talk to each other and know how to learn English.

Although Honghui manifested a certain disappointment at not being able to practise English at the community school as much as he wished, his classmate Dewei (15 years old) suggested the importance of speaking both Chinese and English in the classroom as a learning strategy. Similarly to Dewei, 16-year-old Jinlin referred to the importance of being at the community school with a teacher and classmates able to speak both Chinese and English as a strategy to improve his own English language skills. Here, he explains: Extract 7: Jinlin (FG1) – aim of community education (English language) I can search online some of the English words that I don’t understand, but still I cannot understand, but there is the Chinese school so I can ask the teacher and the classmates to study English better.

Previous studies showed that community language schools are social settings where different languages are used strategically by all the informants to accomplish and optimise teaching and learning (Martin et al., 2006). The extant literature focuses on the process of teaching and learning a particular heritage language (e.g. Cantonese, Somali, Gujarati). At the same time, it introduces the idea of language community schools as safe, multilingual environments where the pupils’ use of languages is not problematised (Creese et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2006). Providing a different perspective on language acquisition and community schooling, this book shows how the process of teaching and learning through a strategic use of English and Mandarin also has the potential to help learners to improve their English language skills. As Dewei stated, at the community school: Extract 8: Dewei (FG1) – aim of community education (English language) Chinese people we can talk [to] each other and know [learn] how to learn English.

Nala, their teacher, confirmed the pupils’ perspectives. Nala was teaching the GCSE Mandarin class at Apple Valley School. She also helped me to facilitate and translate during the focus group. Nala was fluent in

46  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

both Mandarin and English and during the classroom observations with her pupils she was constantly helping the students not only to translate from and into Mandarin and English but also to understand new concepts. However, it was not only the teacher who could use her own language skills to engage with the pupils; they also understood each other’s’ challenges and were supportive and non-judgemental. Such support is particularly important for pupils who have recently immigrated to the UK and who sometimes do not get support in their mainstream schools. Getting qualifications

Both schools offer the chance to prepare and sit for nationally recognised examinations (General Certificate of Secondary Education [GCSE] and A-level). Such exams represented an extra asset in the schools’ offerings, and they were highly valued in particular by FG1 pupils who were all preparing for their GCSE exams in their mainstream school. Meili (15 years old) made a strong point about the importance of being supported by the community school to achieve her Chinese GCSE: Extract 9: Meili (FG1) – aim of community education (qualifications) Sara: So, if you could speak Chinese before coming to the school why do you come to the school? Meili: I lived in the UK for the past 4 years […]. We don’t have a Chinese class [in the mainstream school], we need to pass one more GCSE.

Meili explained that despite having lived in the UK for nearly 4 years English was still a strong barrier for her. Her classmate Dewei (15 years old) confirmed her concerns: Extract 10: Dewei (FG1) – aim of community education (qualifications) 在英文学校，很多压力。考试很难。Zài yīngwén xuéxiào, hěnduō

yālì. Kǎoshì hěn nán. . I want to have GCSE Chinese. You need to increase your GCSE[s] and [English]. It’s [a] second language so it’s more difficult to get that. You can get Chinese, so you just have four [left to get].

Concerned about being able to pass a minimum number of GCSE exams, Meili, Dewei and all their classmates demonstrated how formal qualifications in Chinese are particularly valuable to recent migrants who might still struggle to perform in their mainstream schools. Pupils who recently migrated from China lamented how difficult studying in English was for them, an issue which was made worse by a mainstream learning environment that they perceived as very

Chinese Community Schools  47

unsupportive. Hence, achieving a Mandarin GCSE at the Chinese school represented a way of achieving their required number of qualifications without facing the difficulties of working in a second language. The achievement of formal qualifications through Chinese community schools also emerged as one reason for attendance in previous studies (see Francis et al., 2009) where British-born children saw these qualifications as a way to increase their opportunities in the job market. Furthermore, the discussed findings suggest that getting formal qualifications could be even more important for pupils who do not have English as their first language, as through qualifications they could improve their performance in the mainstream education system. This finding is important because it introduces an as yet under-explored role of Chinese community schools: supporting migrant children in their mainstream education by helping them to achieve formal qualifications. The pupils who participated in the other focus groups did not discuss the importance of achieving formal qualifications at the school. Arguably, they were too young to focus on formal qualifications. Parents’ Perspectives

The eight parents (six mothers, two fathers) who took part in the study understood the aim of community education in terms of: strengthening a sense of belonging and identification; improving intergenerational communication; transmitting Chinese language as capital for the children’s future; provision of a community space for the adults; and provision of qualifications. Strengthening a sense of belonging and identification in the children

All the parents prioritised the importance of their children’s attendance at a community school as a way to form or strengthen a sense of belonging to the wider Chinese community through language learning and socialisation. As a teenager, Albert had migrated with his family from the New Territories to the UK and eventually settled in England when his family moved back to China. His two 8 and 9 year-old daughters had attended Apple Valley since their first year of primary school. Extract 11: Albert (parent) – aim of community education (identification) Sara: Why have you decided to send them [the daughters] to the community school? Albert: Why? I decided to send them here because when they came back from English school they asked me: “Why do I look different to

48  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

any other kids?” So for that reason, you know, [is that] I want to let them know who they really are.

Having identified his children’s sense of being different from others in their mainly white mainstream school, Albert saw the Chinese community school as offering a possible space for them to make sense of who they are. Albert also suggested a further consideration concerning the relationship between Mandarin language learning at the school and a sense of affiliation with the Chinese community. Although Albert could speak Mandarin, he was actually a Cantonese speaker. Other data supported this indication that a desire for identification with the Chinese community was a major factor that impacted on the choice of parents to enrol their children in a community language school. This desire was, perhaps, even stronger in parents of mixed heritage children, as they felt that their children were pulled between two different identities. For example, Lan, a mother of two mixed background children, explained that she was trying to have a conversation with her children about their identity: Extract 12: Lan (parent) – aim of community education (identification) I do want them to continue. It’s not for the exams and it’s to appreciate the community. To appreciate the Chinese culture and to appreciate what they are. It is [to] broaden their mind as well, I believe. When I ask [to] the old[er] one: ‘what do you believe? Do you believe that you are Chinese or English?’ Sometimes I try to make that conversation.

Lan was concerned about her children’s ability to ‘broaden their mind’ and to make sense of their own identity and its complexity. Furthermore, she extended Albert’s understanding to include the appreciation of Chinese culture and sense of community provided by the school. The construction of Chinese schools as community spaces is extensively explored in the literature (Archer et al., 2010; Chow, 2004; Creese et al., 2006; Zhou & Kim 2006; Francis et al., 2010). Their role includes the provision of a community space for intra-ethnic interaction (Zhou & Kim, 2006), and the replication and appreciation of Chinese culture (Chow, 2004), as prioritised by Lan. Furthermore, Archer et al. (2010) contend that Chinese community schools provide a space away from ‘minorisation’, where Chinese children can affiliate and identify with the Chinese community. When explaining his daughters’ question: ‘Why do I look different to any other kids?’ Albert reinforced the idea of ‘minorisation’ as experienced by his daughters in their mainstream school by suggesting that the schools offer what Archer et al. (2010: 108) define as ‘protective and remedial space’ for children.

Chinese Community Schools  49

Shuoqian, a Chinese language teacher, had moved to the UK from China after marrying her British husband. As with Albert and Lan, Shuoqian shared a desire for her 10-year-old daughter to understand (‘learn’) more about herself through her involvement with the Chinese community at the school: Extract 13: Shuoqian (parent) – aim of community education (identification) It’s very important to memorise and learn [understand] her identity and culture as an investment for her life so she could identify herself in the Chinese community rather than [as] just English.

By bringing up the idea of ‘identification’ Shuoqian suggested the existence of a process shaping her daughter’s identity construction. In his work on identity, Dervin (2013) understands identification as a process rather than a given state. Retaining characteristics of fluidity, identification can be reworked differently according to one’s individual experiences and encounters. For Shuoqian, Lan, Albert and all the other parents, their children’s involvement with the Chinese school was mainly aimed at reinforcing their sense of being Chinese by affiliating with the community provided by the school. Their views were echoed by Chloe at Deer River School, who had moved from Malaysia to the UK to study and had settled in England after marrying her European husband. She was a Hokkien speaker with a good command of both Mandarin and Cantonese. The next excerpt shows why she had enrolled her 5-year-old daughter in the school: Extract 14: Chloe (parent) – aim of community education (identification) In the end for me the main purpose to bring her to school is for her to know that she is Chinese. She has to learn the language and feel Chinese; also, she is always proud that her mum is Chinese. She always says: “oh my mum is Chinese” which is good. She always tells all the teachers and all the friends. Even to Valentina [daughter’s friend] she says: “Can you speak English? Can you speak Chinese? I go to Chinese school”. She is very proud. This is how I want her to be.

Influenced by her own sense of having a Chinese identity, Chloe thought that through community schooling her daughter could construct her own sense of being Chinese. She also introduced a concept of pride related to Chinese identity and language proficiency, suggesting that being part of a community school could enable her daughter to achieve a favourable Chinese in-group membership. In sum, issues of identification emerged in the findings as playing a fundamental role in the parents’ choice to enrol their children in a community school. All the parent-participants, irrespective of the

50  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

school their children attended, saw the provision of a community space that supported identification and a sense of belonging as the primary purpose of Chinese schooling. Improving intergenerational communication

Parents from Mandarin-speaking backgrounds were equally concerned about the role of the schools in transmitting Chinese as a heritage language (CHL) to pupils so that they could communicate with Mandarin-speaking relatives and particularly with their grandparents. Conceptually, the idea of heritage language evokes family relevance and the emotional value of the language for the learners (Fishman, 2001). It also assumes some degree of exposure to the language at home (Valdés, 2001). The corpus of literature on heritage language learning tends to consider the learners’ proficiency as an asset which is needed for effective communication within families and communities (Fishman, 2001), and fostered through family and community efforts (He, 2010). Language maintenance for communication purposes was seen by parents as one of the main aims of Chinese community education. Judith was the mother of two mixed heritage (English and Chinese) children attending Apple Valley School. During her interview, she expressed the desire for her children to learn Mandarin in order to be able to communicate with her family. Despite her efforts to speak Mandarin with her children and get them interested in the language at home, Judith felt that the community school was fundamental for them and it was important to keep the opportunity of return open: Extract 15: Judith (parent) – aim of community education (intergenerational communication) I think that it’s very important for them to come to the school and learn my language; basically all my family is still in China; they have to keep on communicating with them; maybe one [day] they [may] want to go back and live there but for that reason you need to have the basic skills. If you can communicate with people you can do that, otherwise you don’t.

Judith also stressed the emotional value of Mandarin as her own language and its importance in making her children feel connected with her family and heritage. According to Van Deusen-Scholl (2003: 221), heritage language learners are ‘a heterogeneous group ranging from fluent native speakers to non-speakers who may be generations removed, but who may feel culturally connected to a language’. According to Judith, her children had very little command of Mandarin; nevertheless, they can be defined as a heritage language learner because they had cultural connections with the language and some degree of exposure to it in her family.

Chinese Community Schools  51

Philip, a professional from China, also considered the transmission of Chinese (Mandarin) heritage language the main aim of community education. His accounts show that a desire for his children to engage with their grandparents drove him to enrol his daughters in community schooling and he added the factor of cultural pride: Extract 16: Philip (parent) – aim of community education (intergenerational communication) In the world, we Chinese are like the Jewish. We are keen into [on] our traditions. If you go to China and can’t speak Chinese is big trouble. If the child goes back to China and they don’t speak Mandarin then they cannot speak with our parents. Also, we are proud of our culture.

Despite the fact that both Philip and his wife are Mandarin speakers, and Mandarin is the main language spoken in their family, he pointed out that their children had little desire to use Mandarin before they joined the school: Extract 17: Philip (parent) – language practices Philip: Well, see, the thing is, as the children were born here [England} even if me and my wife speak Mandarin at home, the children are not keen to learn. Sara: They just want to speak English? Philip: Yeah. They watch TV programmes which are English-based. Well, the older daughter, we tried to teach her Chinese but before she came here she was not interested at all. […] Now she seems keener on using Mandarin again.

Polinsky and Kagan (2007: 368) describe heritage language learners as ‘people raised in a home where one language is spoken who subsequently switch to another dominant language’, a description which fits Philip’s children, but when they began to attend the community school, there was evidence that they, or at least his elder daughter, would switch back to some extent. Overall, the accounts of these parents demonstrate how Chinese community schooling can give extra support to parents in teaching Mandarin as a heritage language. In fact, unlike mother tongue acquisition in a monolingual environment, heritage languages are in constant competition with the dominant language/s of the local community (He, 2010). A number of parent participants in the study problematised the dominance of English in their children’s lives. At the same time, parents understand community education as a force to counteract the dominance of English and as a way to provide extra support to the families in their efforts to raise their children as Mandarin speakers.

52  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Chinese language as capital for the children’s future

Bourdieu (1984, 1986, 1989) understands capital as a valuable, legitimate, and exchangeable resource that can generate social advantage. Here, the work of Bourdieu is used to analyse parents’ understanding of the Chinese language skills provided by the school as capital for their children’s future. Bourdieu (1986) defines four types of capital: economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital, which are constructed over time and interact to determine the individual’s position within a particular social context. Economic capital relates to financial resources and is institutionalised in the form of property rights. Cultural capital refers to familiarity with the dominant culture in a society. Social capital refers to the actual or potential resources which are linked to the possession of a durable (social) network or in-group membership (Bourdieu, 1986). Finally, Bourdieu defines symbolic capital as ‘the form that the various species of capital assume when they are perceived and recognised as legitimate’ (Bourdieu, 1989: 17). The construction of Chinese language learning at the community school as capital defined as a resource to generate advantage (e.g. economic or social advantage), is consistently present in the data. At the same time, participants’ narratives often encompassed more than one form of capital and so it is not always possible to make distinctions among them. Selina referred to the advantages offered by Mandarin, and more generally by foreign languages, as additional credentials for pupils to facilitate future opportunities: Extract 18: Selina (parent) – aim of community education (language as capital) I would also like her to learn more languages too. It’s good for the children that they can speak different languages. You never know in the future. If they can do that. That’s great, it opens so many doors.

As Selina’s reference to the opportunities offered by a diverse language repertoire was rather vague, it is not possible to ascertain if she understood language as social capital (e.g. offering opportunities to travel and enhance one’s social network) or economic capital (e.g. bringing career opportunities and, therefore, economic return). However, an instrumental construction of the role of Chinese language emerges in her narrative in terms of the language’s potential to provide her daughter with a variety of opportunities in later life. Selina’s pragmatic understanding of the benefits of learning Chinese was echoed by Shuoqian:

Chinese Community Schools  53

Extract 19: Shuoqian (parent) – aim of community education (language as capital) Chinese is very good in modern society. That’s essential for Chinese people. That’s all. […] China is more and more important.

Shuoqian was motivated by the rise of China as an international superpower and the related opportunities which that brought for Chinese-speaking people. Albert was also concerned about the importance of Mandarin for his children’s future in relation to the economic opportunities offered by an affiliation with China: Extract 20 (part 1): Albert (parent) – aim of community education (language as capital) It’s extra work for you but it might help you in the long term. As you know now China is developing very quickly. I am sure that by the time they get older there is a lot of opportunities. If you are in that part of the world [China] if you can speak the tongues and read the words, I am sure that there is more going on [in] Asia than in Europe.

Albert’s children were confident Cantonese speakers. Nevertheless, he was particularly concerned about the importance of their mastering Mandarin, as doing so offered them more opportunities and thus potential social and economic capital. Furthermore, he valued the school’s ability to provide children with additional social capital through the acquisition of ‘Chinese’ behaviour: Extract 20 (part 2): Albert (parent) – aim of community education (language as capital) They learn how to write, how to read, it might not be as good as what they actually learn from China or Hong Kong or anywhere in Asia but there is still something they can gain from [it], even though, the teachers, they will teach them how to behave in the class. […]. I do feel that, they are a little bit more respectful, let’s put it that way.

By highlighting the importance of becoming ‘more respectful’, Albert indicated his belief that the school did not just help the children to gain language proficiency but could also help them to improve as individuals. Chloe also discussed the value of her daughter’s learning Chinese in terms of both increasing her language skills and self-improvement. At first, she focused on language as a skill, and, arguably, a form of social or economic capital, explaining that:

54  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Extract 21 (part 1): Chloe (parent) – aim of community education (language as capital) It is important not only to know her culture but also [that] she knows an extra language not just English and Spanish, it’s an extra skill.

She then explored the further possibility that Mandarin was capital; that is, knowledge of the language meant one could access knowledge only available in Chinese: Extract 21 (part 2): Chloe (parent) – aim of community education (language as capital) Also, so many Chinese books are never translated to English or Spanish. These books are very rare. They have knowledge of thousand years, like poetry and literature. It’s important for her as [a] person. Like in Chinese we always strongly value family. Respect the elderly. Take care of the children. How do you behave in school; it’s all in the books. It’s like the Bible for you. Like religion. You don’t need to learn it all but you take the major teachings.

Chloe reinforced the idea that not only culture, but also behaviour can be formally taught to the younger generations, and that community schools might offer a space for such a process of transmission. Hence, similarly to Albert, she constructed the possession of social and cultural capital as the ability to internalise the traditions that were central to her view of Chinese ‘culture’. As previous studies have demonstrated, Chinese parents generally place a very high value on education not only in terms of gaining credentials, but also because of its intrinsic value as part of a broader personal development process (Francis & Archer, 2005b; Francis et al., 2010). Consistent with the literature, the parents in this study constructed education at the Chinese school as cultural and social capital which included both a language dimension and was important in helping their children to understand and internalise Chinese traditions and values. Provision of a community space for adults

We have now seen how parents considered language schools important spaces for their children to identify with the wider Chinese community. However, parents also valued the provision of a community space for adults as a place to make friends and feel less isolated. Shuoqian had moved to the UK from a large metropolitan area of China. Her husband had no command of Mandarin and, having no family in the UK, she expressed a sense of isolation. In her interview, she explained how the community school had helped her to feel less lonely:

Chinese Community Schools  55

Extract 22: Shuoqian (parent) – aim of community education (community space for adults) I am happy that I found the [Chinese] school. Last year I was very isolated. I am the only one who speaks Mandarin in the house. Some parents enrol their children to make friends. In this country we are always with the English community but bringing the child here makes you feel closer to the Chinese community.

In sharing her experience, Shuoqian suggested that community schooling is important for adults as it allows them to meet other people and feel part of the Chinese community. Philip, similarly, was not only concerned about his daughters’ disinclination to speak Chinese; he also discussed his own difficulties as a migrant in the UK. Living in a largely white area, he found a space in his community school to make new friends. Extract 23: Philip (parent) – aim of community education (community space for adults) Before I came to Chinese school I didn’t have Chinese friends. Before I moved here I lived [name of town] and I used to go to the church and all our friends were English people so until now in the school we didn’t have any Chinese friends. So now I live in [name of town] where only [name of friend] is nearby and my wife is not working. She looks after the children.

Meeting with other Chinese people at the Chinese school was important for Philip and his wife, who spent most of her time at home and had a limited command of English. Having no family members in the UK other than her British husband and their children, Judith also emphasised the importance of community schooling for herself and the other adults. Extract 24: Judith (parent) – aim of community education (community space for adults) Judith: The school is important for parents. Maybe for some of them; I don’t know the different reasons for other people but for me it is. Sara: So, do you like coming to the school and being with other Chinese people? Judith: Yes, when you communicate with your first language it’s much easier. You talk and you basically know your culture. It just comes out, things that like sometimes. Where you come from. It’s just very interesting when it comes all together. Yes, I do. Maybe some people don’t have other Chinese friends at all. It depends on

56  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

where you live or where your friends are from. It might be a problem to make friends to feel: ‘oh I still got a part of Chinese in me’. Sometimes you can be lonely if you live in a different country.

Without any Chinese relatives or friends, Judith was concerned about losing touch with her Chinese identity. Hence, sharing language and culture with people at the Chinese school supported her in overcoming her sense of loneliness. From a social constructionist perspective, heritage language competence is achieved not only through the command of lexicon, grammar and syntax, but also through the understanding of norms, preferences and expectations in different contexts and with different interlocutors (Polinsky & Kagan, 2007). Thus, Judith constructed a complex view of Chinese heritage language competence as embracing both language proficiency and meaningful communicative practices. The coexistence of both dimensions at the school where she could meet with other Chinese people allowed her to feel connected to a Chinese community and even to reinforce her own sense of Chinese identity. The construction of Chinese community schools as social spaces is extensively explored in the literature (Archer et al., 2010; Creese et al., 2006; Chow, 2004; Francis et al., 2009; Zhou & Kim, 2006). Their role includes the provision of a community space for intraethnic interaction (Zhou & Kim, 2006) and the replication and appreciation of Chinese culture (Chow, 2004). The idea of provision of social capital for the whole family is consistently present in this study too, thus confirming the importance of community schooling for children and parents alike. Provision of qualifications

Two parents – Lan and Shuoqian – identified the achievement of formal qualifications as one of the aims of Chinese community education. Qualifications were considered important not just as cultural capital, but also as a formal acknowledgement of the language skills acquired through community schooling. Lan’s elder son was attending Apple Valley School, and despite his fluency in Mandarin, she valued the importance of children getting formal qualifications. Extract 25: Lan (parent) – aim of community education (qualifications) His [her son’s] Mandarin is actually quite good, spoken Mandarin. But not his reading and writing is not as good. But I am determined, so he is going to have his GCSE and he has to choose Mandarin.

Chinese Community Schools  57

Despite the young age of her children, Shuoqian too wanted them to be able achieve formal recognition of their Mandarin language skills in the future. Extract 26: Shuoqian (parent) – aim of community education (qualifications) Sara: What do you want the children to achieve through the school? Shuoqian: Achieve, for example, for exam[s] results it’s a start. If they could, I wish that they could go further after to achieve a certain exam result for AS [GCSE] and A-levels.

As we have seen from the pupils’ accounts, parents often represented the driving force behind their children’s attendance at the Chinese community schools. Lan and Shuoqian valued not only Chinese language education, but also the formalising of their children’s achievements through the gaining of recognised qualifications. School Staff Members’ Perspectives

This section investigates how the school staff members in this study understood the aim and focus of Chinese community education. The eight participants (six teachers and two headteachers in the two schools) discussed parents’ and pupils’ expectations about community schooling and how these were accommodated or not within their teaching practices. Four major themes emerged from the analysis: the maintenance of Chinese as a heritage language; Chinese language as capital for the pupils’ future; offering of qualifications; and provision of a community space for the adults. Maintenance of Chinese as a heritage language

As did parents, teaching staff prioritised the maintenance of Chinese as a heritage language at the schools. On the one hand, they were motivated by the importance of Mandarin as a means of supporting intergenerational communication, and, on the other, by a desire to help pupils develop a sense of identification with the wider Chinese community. Joy, a Taiwanese teacher who worked at Deer River School, and also speaking as a parent, prioritised the maintenance of Chinese as a heritage language as the main aim of community education: Extract 27: Joy (teacher) – aim of community education (maintenance of CHL) The main aim is for the children to speak Chinese. My child speaks Mandarin. It’s important. When we go back to Taiwan she needs

58  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

to speak the language to communicate with my parents. They can’t speak a word of English. Also, with the cousins, the same thing, although they are learning English. When Christine [daughter] was young her cousins spoke with her in Mandarin. She understood but when she spoke it wasn’t proper so the other children didn’t want to play with her anymore and she was crying. Learning Mandarin is good; children need to communicate with the family.

In sharing her own concerns as a parent, Joy stressed the importance of learning Chinese as a way to bridge communication and make children feel connected with their families. At Apple Valley School, Nala discussed the school’s focus on teaching Chinese as a heritage language in relation to the parents’ expectations: Extract 28: Nala (teacher) – aim of community education (maintenance of CHL) I think that the parents think that for the children [it] is good to learn Chinese because they[’ve] all got [the] relatives, you know, grandparents that cannot speak English and if they are not able to speak Chinese it would be a big barrier of communication between the generations.

Other teachers also stressed the importance of facilitating intergenerational communication and connection with the families in China through language teaching. For example, Alice explained: Extract 29: Alice (teacher) – aim of community education (maintenance of CHL) If parents at home speak Chinese and your children can’t speak Chinese you can’t keep contact. You can’t understand each other when they speak […]. Some parents want them to learn Chinese because they might bring them [children] back to China, and to play with local children. That’s why it’s very interesting and important to learn Chinese.

It is noteworthy that Alice too referred to the importance of children being able to play with local children. Teachers thus tended to discuss the aim and focus of community education in terms of the parents’ expectations. As Joy, Nala and Alice explained, parents saw the teaching of Chinese heritage language as important in migrant families for parent-children communication, to bridge a gap with the elderly, and to engage with friends. Headteachers also prioritised the transmission and maintenance of Chinese heritage language as a key aim of the school. The headteacher of

Chinese Community Schools  59

Deer River School discussed the aims and strategic direction of the school both as a parent and in relation to the official perspective of the school: Extract 30: Headteacher (Apple Valley School) – aim of community education (maintenance of CHL) The real goal is for the children to be reconnected to their Chinese heritage and to be able to communicate with their Chinese families orally. Using Chinese and hav[ing] a good foundation to write and read basic Chinese to the extent that, if they are interested when they grow older, they can expand on that.

We have previously seen how parents constructed community schools as suitable spaces for children to become more interested in the language and feel connected with the local Chinese community. The headteacher reiterated this idea, adding that the schools could provide invaluable peer-support to parents who were otherwise struggling to keep their children connected to their Chinese family heritage: Extract 31: Headteacher (Deer River School) – aim of community education (maintenance of CHL) I can speak for myself. I don’t want them to lose their Chinese heritage. I need some peer pressure system that would motivate me, also to motivate my teaching.

Along the same lines, the headteacher of Apple Valley School also suggested the maintenance of Chinese as a heritage language as the key aim of community education: Extract 32: Headteacher (Apple Valley School) – aim of community education (maintenance of CHL) If you want to maintain it [Chinese] by yourself it’s difficult, because you have these social aspects of learning by communicating with other people. So that’s places like Chinese schools as spaces for people to come together and learn from each other rather than just from media and the book.

This account extends an understanding of the schools as community spaces which include the importance of the social dimension of learning, as people ‘come together and learn from each other’. Thus, Chinese heritage language maintenance is the result of a collective effort at the schools. Chinese language as capital for the pupils’ future

The idea of language as capital also emerged from the teachers’ accounts. As both an educator and the mother of two mixed heritage

60  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

children, Joy believed that fluency in Chinese might represent a credential for the children’s future: Extract 33: Joy (teacher) – aim of community education (language as capital) Everybody sees the economic importance of China in the future, for people who are bilingual and [they] speak Mandarin as well as English, it would be really good and easy for them to get a job.

Alice too saw the fast economic growth of China as another reason contributing to the importance of learning Chinese, as bilingual children could be more competitive and access better employment opportunities. Extract 34: Alice (teacher) – aim of community education (language as capital) Another reason [to enrol children] is that if you could [can] speak two languages you could [can] get more opportunities in the future because China is developing very quickly.

Ting, a teaching coordinator at Deer River School, also mentioned the provision of cultural and economic capital through language teaching. Extract 35: Ting (teacher) – aim of community education (language as capital) Another one [aim of Chinese community education] is to master Chinese to help them in the future, to find a job and help them to find a better life.

Consistent with the literature that investigates teachers’ constructions of the aims and benefits of community schooling (e.g. Francis et al., 2010), this study’s participants made frequent references to economic rationales. The majority of the teachers in this study constructed Chinese in terms of cultural and economic capital which could facilitate future opportunities and careers, evoking what Francis et al. (2010: 107) call ‘ethnic capital to benefit pupils’ saleability in the global labour market’. However, in constructing Chinese language as capital participants were equally concerned about Chinese as broader cultural capital which would, as Ting suggested, ‘help them [children] to find a better life’. The two headteachers did not mention the economic importance of China and Mandarin as a major focus of their schools. However, they acknowledged that these could be a motivating factor in the eyes of the parents. The headteacher of Apple Valley School commented that the economic value of Mandarin was potentially another reason for parents enrolling their children.

Chinese Community Schools  61

Extract 36: Headteacher (Apple Valley School) – aim of community education (language as capital) The families probably think that the children could find a job in China. Do business in China or that they could speak another language. For me is more about supporting our identity.

The other headteacher reiterated the point that the parents’ perception of Mandarin as economic capital was one of the main factors influencing the pressure on enrolments, although creating economic capital did not necessarily represent an actual aim of the school. Extract 37: Headteacher (Deer River School) – aim of community education (language as capital) For families, I think that they perceive Chinese as a useful skill set for the children’s future. […] I think that is much more than that, it’s not just language to find a job, it’s about creating a sense of community but maybe the families have different views.

In short, consistent with the literature, the staff members in this study referred to economic rationales and the vision of Chinese language as cultural and economic capital to explain the role of Chinese community education. These participants were particularly aware of parents’ envisaging Mandarin as an economic and professional credential. However, while the teachers saw maintaining the language as a key aim of community schooling, the head teachers distanced themselves from this position, and merely acknowledged that economic rationales do influence enrolment although the schools seek to achieve ‘much more than that’, for example, by promoting a sense of community. Offering of qualifications

The school staff agreed with parents that the provision of formal qualifications was one of the key offerings provided by their schools and the excerpts below capture some of their views. The headteacher of Deer River School indicated that offering exams as part of the curriculum was one of the aims of the school: Extract 38: Head teacher (Deer River School) – aim of community education (qualifications) For the school, our immediate goal is being able to complete the curriculum so that every student is able to pass their GCSE.

A pragmatic, exam-focused construction of the role of community schooling was also provided by a number of teachers. Alice taught

62  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Chinese to primary school-age pupils and, although exams were not yet relevant for her students, she was aware of the importance of offering qualifications at the school: Extract 39: Alice (teacher) – aim of community education (qualifications) My class, that is class 3 because the children are really small, so if they grow up they absolutely have to take these exams, GCSE, A-levels, they want to use these skills to learn Chinese. Our chairman [headteacher] said about these exams, it’s really good for the school if we can find children undertaking them, it attracts people.

In reiterating the perspective of the headteacher, Alice emphasised that qualifications were one of the foci of the school and part of the school’s marketing strategy as offering exams ‘attracts people’. Her colleague Rose also described how the school focuses on exams and results. In the following excerpt, she discusses the school goals in relation to her own teaching practice: Extract 40: Rose (teacher) – aim of community education (qualifications) I think that the school’s main goal is passing the exam, like A-levels or GCSE. So what we do is giving the foundations. Maybe the more knowledge, the better [it] is for them. However, I try to motivate the children, to make things more interesting in that way.

As Rose stated, she tried to keep the children motivated and engaged despite the school’s focus on qualifications. Similarly to Alice, she suggested the parents’ expectations and the school’s goals were not necessarily a priority that reflected her own goals as an educator. Nevertheless, during our conversation Rose added that following the school’s goals was her primary focus. Extract 41: Rose (teacher) – goals as educator (qualifications) My personal focus is that you have to follow the school goals first maybe adding a little bit on top. The school’s goal is basically just taking the exams in the end, GCSE and A-levels, [to] give them an actual certificate that the children can use to achieve a better result or to go to a better school or university. Whatever it is, of course, we got to follow that routine. Like all the schools have their own goals. Like pass the exams. You have the sets. You have to take exams. You have to follow the order in the curriculum so obviously that’s a way of testing the children’s knowledge. I think that all the schools follow the same system.

Chinese Community Schools  63

Having direct experience of both mainstream and language community schooling, Rose argued that, despite their formal separateness, they are similar in their system and have a shared focus on formal qualifications. As a number of her colleagues did, she saw community education as being modelled on the values and structures of mainstream schooling and, arguably, equally legitimised by the existence of a solid curriculum and exams. Finally, Rose argued that exams are not just a way of assessing knowledge, but also an easy way for the parents to know what their children have been learning: Extract 42: Rose (teacher) – aim of community education (qualifications) I think that it’s parents who want to know what they have been learning. To show them what they are achieving, I think that the certificate is the easiest thing. Of course, if you can talk, that’s good but you need to have it assessed. Unfortunately, this is the way the society is, even if I don’t agree.

Rose distanced herself somewhat from the focus of the school on exams, as it did not necessarily reflect her own goals as an educator, and because she thought that focus resulted more from the parents’ desires and the choice of community education to conform to the mainstream education system. Nala, who was preparing her pupils for their GCSE exams, also stressed the school’s focus on qualifications but took a slightly different perspective: Extract 43: Nala (teacher) – aim of community education (qualifications) Now I am teaching GCSE and all the pupils got Chinese GCSE A*so it puts them in a good position to apply for sixth form college and beyond. Loads of the children feel good especially if they are not born here; they have difficulties in achieving in other subjects but Chinese is always guaranteed to make them feel good.

Nala drew here on her experience to emphasise the role of the schools in supporting migrant children in their mainstream education by supporting their achievement of formal qualifications, emphasising too the benefit of qualifications in terms of pupils’ self-esteem. On the one hand, school staff members did not particularly concede the intrinsic importance of qualifications in terms of language learning, as qualifications do not necessarily correspond to language proficiency. On the other hand, they acknowledged the value of offering qualifications both to cater for the desires of parents concerned about formal recognition of their children’s learning and as a marketing strategy to profile the school. Qualifications were also considered important for

64  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

pupils who had recently come from China, as they offered the children a greater opportunity to progress in mainstream education and gain self-confidence. Provision of a community space for the adults

We have already seen how parents valued the provision of a community space at the schools, not just for their children but also for themselves. This view was echoed by a number of teachers. Alice was particularly concerned about the situation of the Chinese housewives and their difficulties in making friends: Extract 44: Alice (teacher) – aim of community education (community space for adults) Just like community. [In] some places like the community school people mix with each other. I have heard some parents saying that is important for them. You know some housewives. Their lives are very simple. It is the same as if you live in China. For them is very important to get a sense of community and make more friends.

Her colleague Nala also suggested the importance of the schools as community spaces for new migrants: Extract 45: Nala (teacher) – aim of community education (community space for adults) I think that a lot of parents feel that as new immigrants they feel lost and lonely. They cannot completely integrate into the society here. Because of the different life and experience sometimes people look for some likeminded people gathering together and share some life experiences.

She thus stressed the importance of community schooling as a place for adults to overcome feelings of being ‘lost and lonely’ in the local community. Nala’s and Alice’s construction evokes the idea of social capital offered by Chinese schools discussed by Francis et al. (2010: 108) who define them as ‘a gathering place for the community’. As with parents, teachers and head teachers described a multiplicity of aims and foci for Chinese community schooling. Overall, their perspectives showed that school staff members were largely concerned about accommodating the needs and desires of parents. Teachers seemed concerned about taking forward the school mission regardless of their own personal views on it, describing how they followed rather than contributed to it. Headteachers on their side had a clearer understanding of the school priorities and presented the aims and objective of community schooling by drawing on the official position of the school.

Chinese Community Schools  65

However, headteachers too seemed highly concerned about catering for parents’ needs such as the provision of qualifications. Conclusion

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this chapter which investigated participants’ understandings of the aim and focus of Chinese community education. First, language teaching and learning was universally acknowledged by pupils and adults as the primary focus of community schooling. As they focused not only on Chinese (Mandarin), but also on English, pupils and parents had different motivations. On the one hand, pupils considered Mandarin language learning at the school as an asset for their professional future or for communication with their families. Pupils who had recently emigrated from China also suggested that Chinese community schools could represent a supportive space in which to learn English and study towards qualifications. On the other hand, parents also made explicit connections between language learning and affiliation with Chinese culture and sense of identity. As Byram (2013) argues, language can function as a social identifier that distinguishes the individual as part of a certain in-group and thus as distinct from other out-groups. The explicit connection between Mandarin language and Chinese in-group identity made by the parents suggested that Mandarin can be seen as a primary identity marker among Chinese families, even when they have other varieties of Chinese as heritage languages (e.g. Hokkien, Cantonese). Although the majority of pupils did not make explicit connections between language proficiency and identity, a number of them understood the importance of speaking Mandarin in order to be accepted by the broader Chinese community. The second conclusion concerns the provision of capital (Bourdieu, 1984, 1986, 1989) as a perceived benefit of community schooling as participants valued the role of the school in creating forms of social, economic and cultural capital for both pupils and adults. For example, a number of adults constructed Chinese language learning and the overall experience of community schooling in terms of both social and economic capital including future professional opportunities, and in terms of cultural capital by enabling pupils to internalise Chinese values. The third conclusion concerns the importance of the schools as community spaces, an outcome that is also related to the creation of social capital. Consistent with the literature on Chinese community education in the UK (Archer et al., 2010; Francis et al., 2009), a number of participants discussed how the schools created the location for the development of social capital, as they constituted important gathering places not just for children, but also for adults.

5 One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages: ‘I Can’t Speak Mandarin but when I Speak Cantonese People Think that I am Local’

Chapter 4 discussed how pupils, parents and teachers understood the aims and focus of Chinese community education. Set against the schools’ focus on language maintenance and transmission, this chapter explores how the schools provide a context for pupils and adults to construct understandings of Chinese language(s) and language education. Participants’ perspectives are illustrated in the context of the teaching and learning taking place in the classrooms and in the broader social context of the two schools. The analysis of examples presented in the chapter is based on a view of language as a social construct and discussed in light of theories on heritage language teaching and learning and by introducing concepts of native speaker, authenticity and legitimacy. Understanding ‘Language’

In the field of language learning and teaching, language has been understood either as a code – comprised of lexical and syntactical forms – or as a social semiotic (see discussion in Kohler 2015). It is not the intention of this book to provide a comprehensive review of such understandings but rather to offer reference points against which to consider issues related to the role of Chinese language(s) – and in particular, Mandarin-Chinese heritage language – in the lives of pupils and adults. Here, language is understood in light of the theory of social constructionism and its focus on people’s lived experiences. According to Berger and Luckmann (1967), the social construction of reality refers to the processes that humans use to actively create and shape the world 66

One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages  67

through social interaction. They describe how language plays a key role in enabling humans to understand our social world: The common objectivations of everyday life are maintained primarily by linguistic signification. Everyday life is, above all, life with and by means of the language I share with my fellowmen. An understanding of language is thus essential for any understanding of the reality of everyday life. (Berger & Luckmann, 1967: 37)

In this view, language constitutes reality as it enables people to jointly make sense of the world around them. Furthermore, in a social constructionist perspective language can be understood as a set of ideologically defined resources and practices (Heller, 2007). Such resources and practices are negotiated in social rhetoric and discursive spaces whose meanings and value are socially constructed and contextual in that they contribute to defining language as a social phenomenon. This view of language as socially constructed resonates with the view of language as a social semiotic. Rooted in the work of Halliday (1975, 1978), this view understands language as a social phenomenon, a system of signs that are used, shared, and adapted by people as they construct meaning according to their social context(s). In this view, language is multiple and dynamic: it shapes and is shaped by the relationships between users as they co-construct multiple meanings. The social context also plays a fundamental role in shaping the language and, in turn, it is influenced by the language itself and by its users. For this reason this book is not only concerned with how language is construed by participants and how it influences their relationships, but it is also concerned with language practices: how languages are used in the schools involved in our study – and especially in the classrooms – as pupils interact with one another, with their teachers and to some extent, with the researcher. To explore how languages are used in the classrooms, this study adopts an ecological approach to language which focuses on the multilayered nature of classroom interaction (van Lier, 2004; Blackledge & Creese, 2010). Furthermore, according to Creese and Blackledge (2010: 104): ‘the language ecology metaphor offers a way of studying the interactional order to explore how social ideologies, particularly in relation to multilingualism, are created and implemented’. An ecological approach is used in this chapter and in Chapters 6 and 7 to investigate how, not just language, but also culture and identity are negotiated in interactions between those in the schools. Language and culture

A key area of interest for this study is the relationship between language and culture. We shall see in this chapter, and in Chapters 6 and 7, how pupils’ constructions of language and culture, and their wider

68  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

experiences of community schooling, contribute towards their understandings of their own identity. Chapter 6 discusses how culture is understood for the purpose of this book and how participants’ constructions of Chinese culture are analysed through the lens of the ‘small culture’ approach suggested by Holliday (1999). Here, I provide a brief overview of how, in the field of language learning and teaching, the relationship between language and culture has been variously articulated and how they are seen as inseparable or connected but separable in some respects (Kohler, 2015). Kramsch (1993, 1998, 2003) proposes the view that language and culture are inseparable, and that culture is a feature of language itself. She identifies three ways in which they are bound together (Kramsch, 1998). First, language expresses cultural reality: language acts not only as a means for people to express facts and ideas but also their attitudes. Second, language embodies cultural reality: people give meaning to their experience through communication; through language, they also create experience and meanings understandable to the group they are part of. Third, language symbolises cultural reality: people view their language as a symbol of their social identity. The view of language and culture as inseparable received several criticisms. Damen (2003) argues that, although language and culture can be seen as interconnected, the fact that they are simultaneously universal and distinctive poses a challenge to language teaching. In fact, language can be taught and learnt as a code with its own rules while culture is dynamic, contextual and involves different stages of acculturation. Damen’s (2003) position has been taken further by Risager (2005, 2006, 2007) who calls for greater precision in theorising the relationship between language and culture. According to Risager (2005: 190): ‘[t]here are dimensions of culture that are bound to a specific language (languaculture), and there are dimensions that are not, for instance musical traditions or architectural styles’. She also argues that the relationship between language and culture includes two levels, the ‘generic’ and the ‘differential’ sense (Risager, 2005). At the generic level, language and culture are inseparable and they can be understood as general human phenomena with two variants: psychological/cognitive phenomena and social phenomena. The differential level enables us to distinguish between different languages and different cultural phenomena (e.g. specific forms of cultural knowledge and cultural practices associated with specific languages). Drawing on the work of Friedrich (1989) and Agar (1994), Risager uses the concept of linguaculture (or languaculture) to understand the interface between language and culture at the differential level: Whereas Agar uses the concept of languaculture in order to theorize the single universe of language and culture, I use it as a concept that may

One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages  69

offer us the opportunity to theorize deconnections and reconnections between language and culture as a result of migration and other processes of globalisation. (Risager, 2005: 190)

The concept of linguaculture is useful to understand the spread of languages in transnational and migratory contexts (Risager, 2012, 2015). In fact, Risager (2012:101) reminds us that ‘language is intimately related to nation, people, and culture’. People develop their linguistic resources as part of their socialisation processes and life history and, as they migrate, they bring these linguistic resources with them and put them to use in new contexts. Furthermore, migrations of people from rural to urban contexts as well as south-north migration flows contribute to create hierarchies and struggles among language users for power and recognition (Risager, 2012). We shall see in this chapter how dynamics of recognition and power emerge as speakers of different varieties of Chinese come together in the context of the schools. Language as identity marker

Researchers in the fields of applied and educational linguistics and intercultural communication also theorise that language can represent an important identity marker and provide individuals with a sense of belonging to particular groups. The work on language and identity by Kramsch (1998), Creese and Blackledge (2010), Zhu (2014), and Byram (2006) in particular, has therefore informed the theoretical framework of this study. Blackledge and Creese (2010) argue that languages and identities are socially constructed. Although it is an oversimplification to consider languages as symbols of identity, researchers do need to take into account the fact that people might believe that languages can function as a salient feature of their identity. Kramsch (1998: 65) too suggests that ‘there is a natural connection between the language spoken by members of a social group and that’s group’s identity’. She goes on to say that ‘although there is no one-to-one relationship between anyone’s language and his or her cultural identity, language is the most sensitive indicator of the relationship between an individual and a given social group’ (Kramsch, 1998: 77). In arguing that language symbolises identities and is used to signal identity positions by speakers, Byram (2006: 5) points out that ‘people are also categorised by other people according to the language they speak’. As a result, in addition to being a marker of identity and cultural affiliation, languages carry within them constructions of hierarchies amongst groups. For example, Zhu (2014: 205) argues that ‘fluency in a heritage language is often used as a marker of the strength of one’s orientation towards the ethnicity of the community’. Furthermore, in the context of language learning and teaching provided by Chinese community schooling, the concept of native

70  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

speaker is helpful in understanding how hierarchies of languages and speakers are constructed. Doerr (2009) outlines three ideological suppositions behind the ‘native speaker’ concept: its links to nation states; an assumption of a homogeneous linguistic group; and an assumption of the complete competence of the ‘native speaker’ in his or her ‘native language’. In relation to language teaching and acquisition, Holliday (2006) also argues how the ideological construction of the native speaker teacher as an authentic and, therefore, legitimate language teacher, is persistent and uncontested in education studies. Benchmarks of authenticity and legitimacy are traditionally important in language teaching, as ‘they define the native speaker teacher as the possessor of the right cultural and linguistic attributes to represent the target speech community’ (Creese et al., 2014: 938). I follow Creese et al. (2014: 939) and their call for researchers to ‘pay attention to how speakers use the notion of authenticity, to what ideological ends, [and] through which authenticating practices’. Native speakership brings to its speakers a certain authority associated with authenticity and legitimacy of language use (Kramsch, 1998). Kramsch (2012: 490) theorises that legitimacy and authenticity are related concepts. However, while legitimacy depends on the sanction of an institution, authenticity requires a link to an identifiable origin and group membership and, as such, can be attributed or denied by group members. An alternative view of authentication is taken by Bucholtz (2003). Authenticity in language teaching is an outcome of constantly negotiated social practices rather than being a fixed status, and authenticating practices, applied by different actors such as pupils, confer or deny authenticity to teachers both as native speakers and as educators. With respect to the investigation of what it means to be an authentic speaker, Gill (2011) argues that what it means to be an authentic speaker can be investigated in particular settings only – such as language classrooms – in terms of the contextual norms, the authenticating practices in place, and in relation to the agency by which authenticity is conferred or denied. Although, in the context of language teaching, the notion of the native speaker retains a strong hold, sociolinguistic research has challenged the notion of the ‘idealised native speaker’. Rampton (1995), for instance, contests the definition of ‘native speaker expertise’ as abstracted and problematic, and does not take into account how language and membership of social groups change over time. Furthermore, Creese et al. (2014: 2) argue that ‘what counts as the authenticity and legitimacy of the ‘native speaker’ teacher’ can take a multiplicity of forms, as it is negotiated and determined by both teachers and pupils. This study seeks to understand how concepts of native speaker and the attribution of legitimacy and authenticity are used in the context of the schools and in the interactions between pupils, teachers and parents.

One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages  71

One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages

The discussion in Chapter 4 revealed that a number of both pupils and adults acknowledged the role of the schools in transmitting Chinese language and, in particular, Mandarin as a heritage language, if they are from families where Mandarin was spoken. As discussed in Chapter 2, defining Chinese heritage language is not as straight forward as it is for some other languages (e.g. Italian, Japanese) where there is only one standard variety, and the language is associated with a more homogeneous population, and a more precise geographical area or nation-state. Instead, Chinese can be considered as an umbrella term which includes a diverse range of varieties (Li & Duff, 2008) that, despite their cultural and historical connections, and the existence of a common writing system, are often mutually unintelligible. Here, we shall see how in the context of the schools the construction of Mandarin as the only heritage language is problematic, especially in the eyes of pupils. I begin with an analysis of the pupils’ understandings of Chinese as a heritage language. I then compare and contrast pupils’ perspectives with the ideologies of the teachers and the schools regarding the transmission of Mandarin. The literature shows that Mandarin is the language which is currently mostly taught in community language schools as a heritage language (Li & Wu, 2008) as well as the variety most taught in Chinese second language education. In second language education, the choice is related to socio-economic factors as well as to the status of Mandarin as the official language of the PRC. In the context of community education, the choice is also often based on the assumption that pupils have ‘some level of exposure to that language within their families’ (Valdés, 2001: 38), and that the language has a ‘particular family relevance’ (Fishman, 2001: 169). In the two participating schools, Mandarin is taught with the assumption that pupils have some exposure to the language at home and that the school should cater primarily for the needs of heritage language speakers. On the website of Deer River, the school emphasises how the support of Mandarin-speaker family members plays a key role – or so it should – in advancing the pupils’ own language learning, as pupils should be able to receive adequate language support at home. The observation sessions and informal conversations with pupils and parents in fact revealed that families used other 方言 fāngyán or varieties of Chinese – for example, Cantonese, Hakka or Hokkien – in their daily lives and that a number of families do not use or speak Mandarin. The account and cartoon storyboard of 11-year-old Emily, for example, challenges the idea of Mandarin as her heritage language. Coming from a family where Cantonese, Hakka and English are used for

72  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Figure 5.1  Cartoon storyboard created by Emily

daily communication, Emily started to learn Mandarin at Apple Valley School. In her cartoon storyboard (Figure 5.1) she described a lesson at her community school, explaining in box 2 that: ‘The teacher starts writing at the board characters we will learn. She always speaks Chinese so, I do not understand. Sometimes she explains in English.’ Emily’s concerns were echoed by Lily (13 years old), a student at Deer River whose parents had migrated from Hong Kong and never received formal education in Mandarin, a language that they could not speak. Extract 46: Lily (FG3) – construction of Chinese heritage language We are not really allowed to use English in the class and I always worry about what the teacher thinks about me and my Mandarin. Or if I am able to say what I want to say. I don’t speak well at all, and I am always scared about mistakes, etc.

A fluent Cantonese speaker, Lily had just started to attend Deer River following her parents’ decision to transfer her from a local Cantonese school. Her account shows an evident discomfort as she was worried about making mistakes and not being able to express herself. The choice of using a particular target language as the exclusive means of instruction in the classroom is not uncommon in contexts of second and heritage language teaching. However, it is also important to consider that language community schools are not only educational,

One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages  73

but also sociopolitical contexts in which language policies and choices are ideologically charged and reflected in the classroom practices (e.g. Blackledge & Creese, 2010; Li & Wu, 2008). According to Li and Wu (2008), classroom language practices in the context of Chinese community schooling tend towards what is termed a ‘(Mandarin) Chinese only policy’. Pupils are often strongly encouraged to use Mandarin when engaging with teachers and often with peers, with the view that an exclusive use of the language will support their learning. Emily’s and Lily’s teachers too believed that the exclusive use of Mandarin in the classroom would help their students to become proficient speakers. In the class, they encouraged them to use Mandarin at all times assuming that all students were exposed to it at home. It should be said that this book is not concerned with the conscious or unconscious application of structural rules in Chinese language learning/acquisition (e.g. how proficient children are in Mandarin); nor does it focus on ‘quality’ and ‘effectiveness’ of Chinese language teaching and learning in the schools. However, the accounts of Emily and Lily are representative of a wider issue as the exclusive use of Mandarin was problematic for students whose parents are not first language speakers of Mandarin. Although the two pupils had a good level of literacy in simplified characters, verbal communication in Mandarin was difficult for them and often they did not understand when the teacher was talking to them. The pupils’ lack of exposure to Mandarin at home and their limited ability to speak and understand it contrast with Valdés’ (2001) definition of a heritage language learner as somebody who speaks, or at least understands a particular language. Given the lack of mutual intelligibility between Mandarin and Cantonese in the spoken form (Li, 2006), and the fact that they were not exposed to Mandarin at home, Lily’s and Emily’s status as Mandarin heritage language speakers is problematic. Nevertheless, they had language competencies in Cantonese, a basic understanding of Hakka, and familiarity with Chinese characters, which He (2008) identifies as characteristics of Chinese heritage language learners. This means that, although the research sites focused on Mandarin-Chinese for heritage language learners, Mandarin did not have family relevance nor affective value for some pupils and thus they considered other varieties of Chinese to be their own Chinese heritage language. The majority of pupil participants at Deer River School, for example came from Cantonese-speaking families. They were confident Cantonese speakers; they explained, however, that their parents wanted them to learn Mandarin at the school as an asset for the future, despite the language’s lack of family relevance. As 13-year-old Roy, who was transferred by his parents from a Cantonese to a Mandarin community school, explained:

74  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Extract 47: Roy (FG3) – construction of Chinese heritage language Mandarin, it’s going to be an important language because of the business that China is getting at the minute; they [parents] think that it will be useful if, say, you apply for a job for some corporate on international business; they might want people with Mandarin that can do business in China.

Roy’s classmates confirmed this instrumental understanding of Mandarin in their discussion about Chinese language in relation to their preferences and practices: Extract 48: Lily, Roy, Julian (13 years old) (FG3) – construction of Chinese heritage language Lily: I like Cantonese. Roy: I like Cantonese. Julian: Cantonese, it’s my first language. Roy: English and Cantonese are my first languages. We went to Cantonese school for few years and then we came here. I can’t speak Mandarin but when I speak Cantonese [in Hong Kong] people would think I am just local.

We see then that those pupils who had a shared understanding of Cantonese as their Chinese heritage language articulated their responses by stressing its emotional value, by pointing out the family relevance of the language, and their proficiency in it. In particular, Roy stated that his ability to speak Cantonese allowed him to gain a sense of affiliation, so that when he visits Hong Kong people think he is ‘just local’. By stressing how language proficiency allows him to feel connected to a particular group, Roy signalled the importance of Cantonese in relation to his identity. As Kramsch (1998: 65) contends, there is a ‘natural connection between the languages spoken by members of a social group and that group’s identity’ and language acts as the most sensitive indicator of such group identity. In acknowledging his status as a nonMandarin heritage language speaker, meaning that he ‘can’t speak Mandarin’ though his parents wanted him to learn it at Deer River School, Roy highlighted the significance of Cantonese as his own Chinese heritage language instead. At Apple Valley School, other pupils supported the idea that, although they did not attend the school as Mandarin heritage language learners, they still considered themselves Chinese heritage language speakers. Coming from a family still largely domiciled in Hong Kong, Kitty and Yvonne (8 and 9 years old), who attended Apple Valley, also attributed a strong emotional value to Cantonese:

One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages  75

Extract 49: Kitty and Yvonne (FG2) – construction of Chinese heritage language Sara: So, do you speak Chinese when you are not in the school? Kitty and Yvonne: Yes, we speak Cantonese a lot, Hakka and quite a lot of English. Sara: You speak quite a lot of Cantonese? Yvonne: I speak Cantonese when I don’t want anybody to understand what I say to her. Kitty: Cantonese is important to speak secrets and to speak with our grandparents. Sara: Do you ever use Mandarin? Kitty: No, not at all. Why would I? My grandma doesn’t even speak Mandarin herself!

Yvonne and Kitty were confident Cantonese speakers who took great pride in their language skills. As Kitty put it, ‘you might as well say that I speak Cantonese really well’. When they were asked if they spoke ‘Chinese’ when not in school, they gave an affirmative response, but were, in fact, referring to Cantonese. As Dai and Zhang (2008: 41) suggest in their theorisation of the habitus of Chinese heritage language learners, ‘acquisition and maintenance of Chinese as a heritage language often occurs in a vertical and reciprocal intimate relation between grandparents/parents and their Chinese heritage learner grandchildren/ children’. Kitty and Yvonne emphasised the family value and ‘intimate dimension’ (Fishman, 2001) of Cantonese as important ‘to speak with our grandparents’ and also to ‘speak secrets’, as opposed to Mandarin which Kitty reportedly spoke only at the Chinese school. Using her cartoon storyboard (Figure 5.2), she illustrated this point in box 4 saying that: ‘You need to use Chinese only, I speak Mandarin to the teacher, only the words that I know’. Whereas Kitty admitted using Mandarin to communicate with her teacher required an effort, she enthusiastically described how Cantonese has family relevance for her and how she is a confident bilingual speaker able to use Cantonese and English at the same time, exhibiting varying expertise and allegiance (He, 2008). Furthermore, not being a Mandarin heritage language learner did not seem to impact on Kitty’s identification with a Chinese self. In box 5, she wrote: ‘Me happy to be Chinese’, suggesting that proficiency in Mandarin is not necessarily a condition for constructing a sense of Chinese identity. So far, we have seen that the pupils’ diverse and complex range of Chinese language repertoires informed their understandings of Chinese as a heritage language. At the same time, their command of other varieties of Chinese was not necessarily valued by teachers who envisaged Chinese community schooling as aimed at heritage language learners and who understood that language as meaning Mandarin-Chinese.

76  Language, Culture and Identity in Two Chinese Community Schools

Figure 5.2  Cartoon storyboard created by Kitty

Shuchung, a teacher at Apple Valley School, explained that parents enrolled their children in a community school so that they could engage with the language and culture of their families: Extract 50: Shuchung (teacher) – construction of Chinese language (enrolment and family motivations) Parents want the children to come here and learn Chinese, because the parents are native speakers. They want the kids to understand the language and, through it, Chinese culture.

Shuchung defined a relationship between Chinese (Mandarin) and what she termed ‘Chinese culture’ whereby language becomes a vehicle to gain cultural affiliation. Mirroring Blackledge and Creese (2010), Shuchung perceived language as a salient feature of Chinese identity, and, in the process, seemed to gloss over the implications of simplifying concepts of language and culture. As she assumed that pupils all speak Mandarin at home, she assumed a simple relationship between one Chinese language and the existence of an overarching Chinese culture. Moreover, she confirmed the position of the school, the assumption that pupils’ parents are ‘native speakers’, and that, as such, they enrolled their children to learn a language with family relevance. A further issue that emerged was how some pupil participants, particularly in FG2, did not seem to have a clear sense of the difference between Mandarin and other varieties of Chinese. One possible reason was their age, as they were quite young; some were in the first years of

One of Many Chinese Heritage Languages  77

primary school. Before the focus group, Alice, their teacher, explained that several pupils spoke other varieties fluently at home, but were not necessarily fluent in Mandarin. In this excerpt, Alice and some of the pupils discuss what varieties they speak at home: Extract 51: Danny (6 years old), Bella (7 years old), Eva (5 years old), Grace (9 years old) (FG2) – construction of Chinese language (pupils’ repertoires) Sara: 有没有人说广东话？yǒu méi yǒu rén shuō guǎngdōnghuà Danny: 我知道广东话！wǒ zhīdào guǎngdōnghuà Bella: 我爸爸妈妈说普通话！ wǒ bàba māma shuō pǔtōnghuà Eva: 我只说中文！ wǒ zhī shuō zhōngwén Grace: 什么是广东话？什么是广东话？ shénme shì guǎngdōnghuà? shénme shì guǎngdōnghuà? Alice: 广东话是广东人说的语言, Cantonese! guǎngdōnghuà shì guǎngdōngrén shuō de yǔyán Sara: Does anyone speak Cantonese at home? 广东话? guǎngdōnghuà? Bella: Ah, yes, yes me.

It is evident that children did not necessarily recognise what variety they spoke at home and seemed confused about the question as in their views they speak ‘just Chinese at home’. During the focus group Alice also tried to understand the pupils’ language backgrounds by tracking their family origin. However, she did not seem to succeed, as her pupils struggled to show a clear understanding of their Chinese language practice at home: Extract 52: Alice (teacher) (FG2) – construction of Chinese language (pupils’ repertoires) Alice: 你是福建人吗？你的老家your hometown是福建吗？还是哪 里？No, 你爸爸妈妈是哪里人？在中国. nǐ shì fújiànrén ma？ nǐ de lǎojiā your hometown shì fújiàn ma？háishì nǎlǐ ？ No, nǐ bàba māma shì nǎlǐrén？ zài zhōngguó.