Historical context of China English movement

In a recently published work, Xu (Reference Xu, Xu, He and Deterding2017) presents the historical development of the promotion of the Chinese English variety that is the China English movement. Xu (Reference Xu, Xu, He and Deterding2017: 290) argues that China English is ‘a developing variety of English characterized by the transfer of Chinese linguistic and cultural norms at varying levels of language [and] subject to ongoing codification and normalization processes’ and concludes that there are four periods of time for the development of research into Chinese English as a variety (Table 1):

Table 1: Time periods for the development of research into Chinese English

According to Xu, the movement of promoting China English can be dated to the 1970s when researchers were attempting to differentiate China English and Chinglish due to the derogatory connotation of the term Chinglish. Afterwards, the movement begins to evolve and it generates several key issues and topics that are essential to the discussions and debates of the Chinese English variety: the existence of China English, the terminology and the definition of China English, the differentiation between China English and Chinglish, the ‘acceptability of China English’ (p. 248), functions of China English, and formal features of China English. These issues and topics inspired research of the Chinese English variety to become a stampede in which many Chinese scholars in linguistics as well as TESOL published their work in Chinese academic publications, especially in the early period (Xu, 2010). Hence the origin of the China English movement, in terms of its rhetoric and motivation, is not unmasked to the majority of western readership. Amongst those topics and issues, the most frequently discussed is the definition of China English (He & Li, Reference He and Li2009). I shall provide a closer examination regarding several of the most influential definitions of China English and reveal the problematic rhetoric and rationales that were hidden behind the arguments for the promotion of China English.

Definitions of China English

The ideological irrelevancies

Despite general dissatisfaction with these conceptualizations of China English, what cloud the understanding of China English are the distracting irrelevancies embedded within the conceptualizations. These irrelevancies are caused mainly by the ideological dispositions of the authors. For instance, in Wang's work, it is not difficult to detect his eagerness to rebrand China English and divorce it from the negative connotations associated with the terms Chinglish and Sinicized English. As one of the early proponents, Li (Reference Li1993) also argued that Chinese English or Sinicized English both generate linguistic and social stigmatizations for the users. Hence, the new term, China English, would serve to establish the English of China as legitimate to the world. Yet, Li is uncertain about whether the term ‘China English’ could be a safe choice for avoiding negative connotations because he fears that the construction ‘noun + English is a way of naming such inferior and deviant varieties as Hong Kong English’ (Reference Li1993: 19). To him ‘prestigious varieties are often named following the construction adjective + English, as in British English, American English and Australian English’ (Reference Li1993: 19). This position reveals an ideology that views different varieties of English in a hierarchical sense. That is, Inner Circle varieties are perceived as more prestigious than other varieties of English. Understanding this ideology is critical for diagnosing the motivation of theorizing and differentiating China English. Meanwhile, Li's view of English varieties as inferior and superior is completely opposed to the premises of world Englishes.

Jia and Xiang's insistence on using the term China English also showcases this type of irrelevancy. When they promote the value of proving the existence of China English, they state that:

While it is hard to locate the sociolinguistic relevancy in the rationale for promoting China English, it is easy to infer ideological naiveté from the sentiment driving advocacy because their argument suggests that it is not enough for Chinese to share a common first language, but also are in need of a unified foreign language to strengthen national identity. Unfortunately, the ideological irrelevancy in Jia and Xiang's argument does not stop there; their idealized view of the pedagogical impacts of China English contradicts their argument of the objective existence of China English:

This learner-adjustable feature of China English shows that Jia and Xiang do not actually think that China English is an English variety with an objective existence rather than a manageable device that can be taught to spread the value of Chinese culture.

The China English movement

If the conceptualizations of China English discussed so far represent a movement to establish this term as the best label to represent and symbolize the socio-cultural elements of nativization of English in China, this movement is likely to fail because of five critical flaws. First, it fails to completely and unambiguously differentiate China English from Chinese English; second, it does not identify the actual functional domains in which China English is used; third, it disregards the differences between users and learners of English; fourth, it ignores the variations within Chinese English varieties; and, fifth, it intends to establish this variety under the ideology that views English varieties in a hegemonic order.

Linguistically or functionally, China English, as theorized above, refers to an established variety that exists solely as an abstraction accompanied with questionable and irrelevant ideologies. The China English movement has gradually revealed itself rather more as a complex propaganda tool that is not merely about the striving for a better perception of a legitimate Chinese variety of English, but also re-imprinting itself and thus disassociating Chinese realizations of English from the original stigmatization associated with the terms Chinglish or Sinicized English. Motivated by ideological bias against Outer circle and Expanding circle English varieties, this movement has proceeded with no perceptible intention to be attached to mainstream world Englishes research. Furthermore, by advocating for the replacement of the term Chinese English with the purposefully manufactured term China English, the movement attempts to obtain the linguistic power that would come with the recognition of a new brand.

Cheng (Reference Cheng and Kachru1992: 174) observes that ‘English in China largely reflects the sociopolitical situation there. The pattern of the Chinese varieties of English are clear; when China is inward-looking, the English there acquires more Chinese elements; when China is outward-searching, English there is more like the norm in the west’. The China English movement began almost simultaneously with the ‘open policy’ initiated by the Chinese government since the early 1980s and has flourished since the Chinese economy started to develop and grow strong. In fact, the context of globalization and the economic situation are constantly mentioned by contributors to the China English movement. For instance, Xiaoxia (Reference Xiaoxia2006) explicitly states the correlation between the rise of the Chinese economy and China English:

Eaves (Reference Eaves2011) also does not doubt that China English is a result of social and economic development. She asserts that English will be continuously extended by Chinese, ‘as China develops socially and opens economically over the next decade [ … ] and it will become an established Expanding Circle World English’ (70). Therefore, the question becomes what would an established variety of China English bring. Xiaoqing, who argues that China English will gradually evolve into a source of national pride, has certain appreciation of at least some aspects of the world Englishes paradigm, states that:

It is not difficult to infer the nationalistic motivation from this aspiration, which shows a strong desire to bring linguistic power to those who claim the institutionalization of China English. Kachru is correct on this point when he argues that:

The China English movement wishes to codify the linguistic repertoire of China English users by instilling a normative English variety of China English while claiming nativized linguistic features. This is desired despite the fact that the codification of this normative or standard English is only hypothetical, which makes the convictions of this movement even more puzzling. Moreover, the degradation of the terms Chinglish (or Chinese English) and Sinicized English, while prescribing the legitimacy of China English, shows the man-made suppression of less favorable varieties and purposeful elevation of China English.

Restoration of Chinese English

After taking a critical stance on previous works that define and conceptualize China English, I propose that the conceptualization of a Chinese English variety should return to the trajectory described within the Kachruvian paradigm for better capturing the sociolinguistic realities of English in China. And the appropriate terminology for the Chinese variety of English would be Chinese English. In The Other Tongue Kachru (Reference Kachru1982) uses the term Chinese English for the first time to refer to the variety of English associated with China. Even though Kachru does not provide any explanation for the adoption of this term, it seems that it would not lead to any pejorative attitudes because it is aligned with most ‘adjective + noun’ formulations for naming the English varieties. This practice is followed by most world Englishes researchers and scholars when naming new varieties (e.g., Nigerian English, Indian English, etc.). However, the term Chinese English has not gained favor among the proponents of China English (Wang, Reference Wang1991; Li, Reference Li1993; Jia & Xiang, Reference Jia and Xiang1997; Jin, Reference Jin2002; He & Li, Reference He and Li2009) and has been gradually interpreted as a Chinese version of English that should be dissociated from the formal English variety that the proponents of China English want to be the symbol of the Chinese context (He & Li, Reference He and Li2009).

Eliminating linguistic stigmatization

Bolton (Reference Bolton2002, Reference Bolton2003) adopts a historical approach to his reexamination of the concept and the phenomenon of Chinese Englishes, and argues that the history of China's contact with English in the past two centuries plays a significant role. Furthermore, Bolton suggests two essential components of WE paradigm that are relevant to the Chinese context: the pluralism and ‘universalism’ (p. 196) in the Kachruvian paradigm. In Bolton's argument, the pluralism of Kachruvian theory is the key for reshaping the discourses of the Chinese English variety and the notion of universalism – which is the WE-ness of the Kachruvian paradigm – would inevitably draw animosity due to political controversy in the past hundreds of years of Chinese history in regard to the contact with English.

To restore the term of Chinese English to represent the Chinese variety, I argue that one of the main benefits of this conceptualization is that it avoids the linguistic stigmatization that triggered the movement for a terminological replacement. It is important to emphasize the linguistic and functional nature of an Expanding Circle variety and clarify that the institutionalization of English is not yet developed in the localized context and that English is still used as an international language that functions in restricted domains in China. Kachru (Reference Kachru, Quirk, Widdowson and Cantù1985a) also distinguishes the Outer Circle varieties as norm-developing varieties and Expanding Circle varieties as norm-dependent varieties, which concerns the issue of the norms and models of Chinese English. The distinctions are critical in illustrating the local context for the function of English in a specific region and for more pragmatic pedagogical planning (Kachru, Reference Kachru and Greenbaum1985b). Although the term ‘institutionalized varieties’ is utilized by Kachru to distinguish them from the performance or Expanding Circle varieties, the terms (‘institutionalized’ and ‘performance’) are not intended to prioritize one variety over another, nor should the terms be seen as valorizing any particular variety.

The Expanding Circle is comprised of areas where English functions as an international language and traditionally is regarded as a foreign language (Kachru, Reference Kachru, Quirk, Widdowson and Cantù1985a). When emphasizing the role of English in Expanding Circle countries, Kachru (Reference Kachru, Quirk, Widdowson and Cantù1985a) adds that English is spreading rapidly in multilingual societies of Expanding Circle nations as an additional language or an alternative language. This he identifies as a response to the demands of modernization, ‘as well as by other sociopolitical and sociolinguistic dynamics’ (Reference Kachru, Quirk, Widdowson and Cantù1985a: 15).

In Kachru's work on English as an Asian language (Reference Kachru1998), he expands the notion of nativization by adding the concepts of the ‘range’ and ‘depth’ of English in Outer and Expanding Circle varieties, in which the concept of ‘range’ refers to the ‘functional repertoire of the language in the regulative function, interpersonal function, instrumental function and imaginative function (Reference Kachru1998: 92); the concept of ‘depth’, on the other hand, is about the use of English available to different groups of users in different functional domains. The uses could range from the elite in business and academia to shopkeepers and taxi drivers. Such notions give rise to a dimension to understanding the nativization of English in a localized context. Meanwhile, the distinction of norm-providing mechanisms (Inner Circle varieties), norm-developing mechanisms (Outer Circle varieties) and norm-dependent mechanisms (Expanding Circle varieties) is also crucial to illuminate the fundamental components in the theorization of Chinese English. All these notions are fundamental in defining an Expanding Circle variety. Together these notions provide a definition of Chinese English that looks like this: Chinese English is a performance variety of English with restricted functional domains. It has formal linguistic characteristics displaying the Chineseness resulting from the nativization of English in the Chinese sociocultural context. The term captures the different varieties that develop by the users who represent the range and depth of nativization across different levels of society and that develop within the various contexts of use represented within the functional allocation of English.

Functional domains of Chinese English

The definition of Chinese English outlined above realigns the conceptualization of Chinese English with the Kachruvian paradigm. First, it reiterates that Chinese English is an Expanding Circle variety, and as an Expanding Circle variety, its uses are restricted in different domains. Hence, depicting the functions of English in China for its users becomes necessary in understanding this variety. One practical tool for depicting the functions of English in China is the sociolinguistic profile, which Ferguson (Reference Ferguson and Bright1966) proposed in the form of a mathematical formula to quantitatively present the language situation within a national context. He claimed that this in situ understanding of language was a crucial socio-cultural aspect of a nation-state. Kachru (Reference Kachru1983) adapted this notion and further developed it into a framework that could illustrate the sociocultural realities of English uses in Outer Circle contexts. Later, Berns (Reference Berns1988, Reference Berns1990, Reference Berns1992, Reference Berns1995a, Reference Berns1995b) adopted this framework and applied it to address questions that are critical to pedagogical practices and to contextualizing communicative competence in English-using European contexts. Berns’ sociolinguistic profiles of English in the Expanding Circle highlights the plurality of realities for English around the world and challenges the adequacy of differentiating ESL and EFL as two separated contexts for English teaching (Reference Berns1990). Afterwards, sociolinguistic profiles of English have been developed by numerous scholars to depict sociocultural realities in various nations of multiple continents such as Europe (Petzold, Reference Petzold1994; Pulcini, Reference Pulcini1997; Fonzari, Reference Fonzari1999; Dimova, Reference Dimova2005; Reichelt, Reference Reichelt2005; Ustinova, Reference Ustinova2005; Selvi, Reference Selvi2011; Kasztalska, Reference Kasztalska2014), Asia (Shim, Reference Shim1994; Yong & Campbell, Reference Yong and Campbell1995; Matsuda, Reference Matsuda2000; Gil & Adamson, Reference Gil and Adamson2011), South America (Friedrich, Reference Friedrich2001; Aguilar-Sanchez, Reference Aguilar-Sanchez2005; Nickels, Reference Nickels2005), and Africa (Bamiro, Reference Bamiro1991; Schaub, Reference Schaub2000; Michieka, Reference Michieka2005).

Not only did the framework of the sociolinguistic profile facilitate a descriptive account with consistency and comprehensibility for perceiving the Englishes around the world, many scholars have also utilized it for theoretical discussions and conceptualizations. For instance, Yong and Campbell (Reference Yong and Campbell1995) use the framework to show that both the demographics of English users and the sociolinguistic realities of English uses in China demonstrate that the main function of English was not in serving as an international language. Friedrich (Reference Friedrich2001) presents the sociolinguistic profile of English in Brazil to demonstrate the dynamics of English in Expanding Circle countries. She also deploys the profile to challenge the reality of linguistic imperialism (see Phillipson, Reference Phillipson1992) in this Expanding Circle context. Aguilar-Sanchez (Reference Aguilar-Sanchez2005) offers a detailed portrayal of how English in Costa Rica is integrated with both Inner circle and Expanding Circle contexts. In her illustration of English in Puerto Rico from historical and political perspectives, Nickels (Reference Nickels2005) argues that coining the term ‘Puerto Rican English’ can much more accurately capture the sociolinguistic realities of English in Puerto Rico. Selvi (Reference Selvi2011) reveals that Turkish English has features of both the Outer Circle and Expanding Circle due to the status of English and its significant instrumental function.

For the language situation of English in China, two sociolinguistic profiles of English in China have been drawn, one by Yong & Campbell (Reference Yong and Campbell1995) and another by Gil and Adamson (Reference Gil and Adamson2011), that provide illuminating depictions of English in Chinese culture and society. Yong and Campbell (Reference Yong and Campbell1995) thoroughly examine the users of Chinese English by using ‘educational level’ as a tool to both measure and differentiate groups of users and their purposes and motivations for learning and using English. They conclude that the argument of English as an international language, which was previously perceived as the primary function of English in China, is not correct because most users do not learn or use English for international communication, but to gain social capital and better ‘social mobility’ (Reference Yong and Campbell1995: 385). Gil and Adamson (Reference Gil and Adamson2011) provide an exhaustive historical lineage of the status of English in different stages of Chinese history, from when English first was introduced to China in 1637 up to the 21^st century. Through the illustration of different historical statuses of English as a foreign language in China, they claim that English has an unprecedented and important status in contemporary Chinese society. Findings in both profiles are informatively relevant and expand knowledge of the sociolinguistic realities of English in China.

The educated variety on the cline of bilingualism

The definition of Chinese English I propose also helps find a place for China English among the array of Chinese Englishes. The China English movement's fixation on an alternative terminological representation that distinguishes China English, a specialized term, amongst such other designated terms as Chinglish and Sinicised English can be resolved by another Kachruvian notion: the cline of bilingualism (Kachru, Reference Kachru1976). In Berns’ (Reference Berns2011) examination of various terms that portray different English varieties in China, she adopts a Kachruvian approach by assigning several established varieties to points on the cline of bilingualism. In this cline, ‘the more standard, “native-like” if you will, of these varieties and the less standard, least native-like, would be at opposite ends of the [cline]’ (2011: 3). The former would be near the so-called ‘ambilingual point’ and the latter near the so-called ‘zero point’. Varieties closer to the zero point would include those that normally evoke negative attitudes and are regularly ‘vilified’ (Bolton, Reference Bolton2002: 188) among Chinese English prescriptivists. The variety known as Sinicized English would also be closer to the zero - point because it is often associated with ‘beginner's English’ or ‘bad English’. For instance, Li (Reference Li1993) characterizes Sinicized English as the arbitrary translation that is a form of ‘incorrect use of English with Chinese grammar, syntax and tone’ (cited in Berns, Reference Berns2011: 3) caused by direct translation from Chinese expressions. Nearer the ambilingual point is the variety of English that is considered an ‘educated variety’ (Kachru, Reference Kachru1976). As Berns argues:

An advantage of this definition over that of the China English proponents is its recognition of the linguistic varieties and transfers of Chinese that are the results of English nativization in the Chinese context. A particularly rich context for the development and institutionalization of many linguistic variants are realizations of the innovative/imaginative functions of English in Chinese contexts, that is of ‘bilingual creativity’ (Kachru, Reference Kachru1983). Literature is the major domain of use for the emergence of linguistic varieties that are primarily contributed by Chinese writers who write in English. Authors such as Ling Yutang, Ha Jin, Amy Tan and Yiyun Li exemplify those whose use of English contextually and linguistically displays features of Chineseness. Another domain of use for the innovative/imaginative function of English is Chinese social media, where the function is achieved primarily through code-mixing. Through participant observation, Zhang found that the Chinese netizens’ code-mixing uses are mostly in ‘three domains that are government administration, pop culture and social interaction.’ (Reference Zhang2012: 40) Her findings yield the potential of how Chinese English could be developed via the increasing mixing practices and, more importantly, how these practices are perceived in a neutral way. That is, the attitude toward these mixed uses are neither as a symbol of prestige nor as a deficient use of language.