SU+Nan

1. World Englishes and China English

Nowadays， English has served as the internationally acknowledged lingua franca while the whole world has become a global village （McArthur， 2004， as cited in Hu， 2005）. Just as Hu （2005） observed that “It is English that allows an Arab and a Japanese， a Chinese， a Russian， an Australian and a German to communicate with each other.” According to Kachru （1997， as cited in Hu， 2004）， the proportion of non-native speakers and native speakers around the world is approximately 2-4： 1. Take Asia for example， the English users here have been as many as the combined population of the United States， Britain and Canada. Its reasonable to state that English no longer belongs to its native speakers exclusively. It has been the property of the world （Hu， 2004）.

In this context， new varieties of English consistently emerge. “World Englishes” becomes a focus of attention for many scholars. As Kubota （2000， as cited in Hu， 2004） defined that “World Englishes refers to the linguistic diversity of English users in terms of phonetics， region and culture， a diversity that can occur within a country as well as between countries”. Before I got into the discussion of the new varieties of English， its necessary to clarify the categories of the World Englishes. According to Kachru， B （1985， as cited in Kachru， Y， 2006）， there are three Circles of Englishes： the Inner Circle （as a mother tongue）， the Outer Circle （as an additional language）， and the Expanding Circle （as a foreign language）. China belongs to the Expanding Circle.

Traditionally， the varieties in the Inner Circle are accepted as the “standard” Englishes， among which British English and American English are the two dominated models in terms of English learning. In contrast， the new varieties in the Expanding Circle are often downplayed or even forbidden in language classroom （Kirkpatrick， Deterding & Wong， 2008）. Whats more， they are often labeled as Chinglish， Japlish and Singlish， which all bear with negative implications. People tend to view them as “bad English”， “beginners English” or an “interlanguage” which blends English and Chinese together （Jiang， 2002， as cited in He & Li， 2009）.

In response to these dismissive voices， Ge Chuanghui first proposed the term “China English” （1980， as cited in Hu， 2004）. He described that the pronunciation of China English will not lead to misunderstanding； its syntax， grammar and lexis reflect Chinese culture and some L1 influences. According to Li （1993， as cited in Jin， 2005）， China English “is based on a Standard English， expresses Chinese culture， has Chinese characteristics in lexis， sentence structure and discourse but does not show any L1 interference.” Concerning the definition of China English， scholars and linguists are consistently making advancements. But one consensus has been achieved—China English is intelligible in the global context （cf. He & Li， 2009； Hu， 2004； Jin， 2005； Kirkpatrick & Xu， 2002）. This point makes the following discussions on the incorporation of China English into teaching models feasible and meaningful.endprint

2. Problems of Current Pedagogic Models

From a historical perspective， Kirkpatrick and Xu （2002） cited the Confucian philosopher Xunzis saying “To be without a fixed standard in your actions is called inconstancy” to prove that models and standards enjoy a pivotal status in Chinese culture. According to Hus （2004） investigation on over 1，200 Chinese university students attitudes on the “standard English”， 100% of the subjects believed that American English and British English were the only two “standard” forms of English （cf. He & Li， 2009）. Furthermore， they set themselves a goal of attaining native-like pronunciation. In fact， this belief is in accordance with the real situation—most of English pedagogical models adopted in Chinese mainland universities are American English and/or British English.

However， these teaching models always bring about undesirable effects on students learning motivations. On one hand， students pay too much attention on the “nativeness” and/or “correctness” of their pronunciations and intend to ignore the essential function of language—communicative tool. On the other hand， aiming to achieve the instructional outcome of native-like pronunciation， the teachers grasp every opportunity to correct students pronunciation mistakes. This over-correctness make students feel disheartened and become reluctant or even avoid to involve in real communication in English （cf. Franky Kai-Cheung， 2006； Kachru 2006）. Therefore， it is the inappropriate teaching models that should be claimed as the underlying cause of the “Dumb English”.

The present teaching models not only bring out harmful effects on students motivations but also have been regarded as an “impossible” goal for language teaching practice by many scholars and linguists. They provided abundant evidences to doubt the possibility and necessity of native-like pronunciation， the prominent feature of the NS-based models.

On one hand， the widely used native speaking English models are unattainable for the majority of Chinese university students （He & Li， 2009）. Hu （2004） confirmed that “beyond the age of puberty， it is virtually impossible to acquire a standard pronunciation in the target language”. This view was supported by Tickoo （2007） who argued that second language could never “hit the mark” and proposed an approach to this problem—establishing a more achievable standard for the L2 learners. However， Kirkpatrick and Xus （2002） survey among college students showed that nearly all the subjects believed “non-native speakers could speak standard English”. In this point， education regarding the possibility of achieving native-like pronunciation is needed to help students break their blind admiration of the so-called “standard English” （cf. Jin， 2005）.endprint

On the other hand， the native-like pronunciation is not necessary in Chinese context （cf. Berns， 2008； Hu， 2004）. Just as Hus （2005） observation mentioned before， English has been accepted as the global lingua franca which means its no longer the exclusive tool facilitating non-native speakers to communicate with native-speakers. More often than not， especially in Mainland China， English users primarily communicate with non-native speakers in the Asia. Thereby， the nativeness of pronunciation is peripheral when both the two sides of the cross-linguistic communication are non-native speakers. In the same vein， Berns （2008） suggested that emphasis should be placed on the using of English in communication instead of the accurate production of its features （such as pronunciation）.

In order to deal with the problems involving in the present teaching models， scholars and educators offered a recommendation to “customize” pedagogic models for university English learners—incorporating China English into pedagogic models.

3. Incorporating China English into Pedagogic Models

The long attachment to standards and models in traditional Chinese culture does not mean that Chinese stand still and refuse to make progress. By comparing with the shift from wenyan （literary model） to baihua （vernacular model）， Kirkpatrick and Xu （2002） projected the models used in English classroom will， in the similar way， shift from the native varieties of English to China English.

In Chinese mainland， China English is more appropriate to be used as college language teaching models. Just as what mentioned above， most of the college graduates will use English to communicate with non-native English speakers in Asia. And according to Hung （2002， as cited in Kirkpatrick， Deterding & Wong， 2008）， some features influenced by Chinese （L1 interference）， such as the syllable-timed pronunciation， presented in China English could actually promote its intelligibility in the Asian region. Hence， China English is “a more culturally appropriate model of English than any superimposed ‘Anglo norm” （Kirkpatrick & Xu， 2002）.

In practice， China English has enlisted the supports of both teachers and students in Chinese mainland universities. Hus （2005） survey among local English teachers indicated that over half of the interviewees were in favor of China English. And the reasons Hu cited were that the supporters all realized its both impossible and unnecessary to attain native-like pronunciation for common university students in Chinese mainland. According to He and Lis （2009） investigation on students attitudes about China English， students still advocated the incorporation elements of “China English” into present teaching models although most of them preferred American/British English as their pedagogic models. He and Li （2009） then came into the conclusion that “the attitudes of mainland Chinese learners and teachers of English seem to be shifting toward accepting ‘China English as a legitimate， indigenized variety”.endprint

Baumgardner and Brown （2003） reminded teachers in all three Circles of the principle of selecting teaching models—“it is the needs of the local context and not the alleged superiority of the model that should inform their pedagogical choices”. In this light， before choosing pedagogic models for Chinese college students， the educators and teachers should take their local English learning context into consideration.

In accordance with this principle， Hu （2004） suggested integrating the NS-based models as the “external models”. Five years later， He and Li （2009） claimed that the ideal college English teaching models in Mainland China should be based upon Inner Circle varieties of English （e.g. American English or British English） with “salient， well-codified， and properly implemented features of ‘China English” as supplementation. Taking account of the underdevelopment of China English， I believe He and Lis suggestions are more feasible in present.

4. Conclusions and Implications

As an Expanding Circle variety， China English plays a significant role in promoting Chinese cross-linguistic and cross-cultural communications with outside world. It is reasonable to use it as a “standard” in Chinese context. Meanwhile， incorporating China English into the pedagogic models in college spoken English classrooms is necessary and meaningful. This adjustment of traditional pedagogy aims to distract students attentions away from the “correctness” or “nativeness” of their pronunciations to their oral proficiency as effective communicators and actual English users.

However， the underdevelopment of China English should not be ignored. To be a qualified teaching model， it should be systemized and adequately described in terms of phonology， phonetics， syntax and lexis etc. （cf. Hu， 2005； He & Li， 2009）. China English still has a long way to run. Until now， there are rare researches digging into this field， and future researchers could devote more efforts on it.

References：

[1]Baumgardner，R.，& Brown，K.（2003）.World Englishes：ethics and pedagogy.World Englishes，22（3），245-251.

[2]Berns，M.（2008）.World Englishes，English as a lingua franca，and intelligibility.World Englishes，27（3/4），327-334.

[3]Franky Kai-Cheung，P.（2006）.Hong Kong English，China English and World English.English Today，22（2），23-28.endprint