Comparative Summary of Qus and Gaos papers on Language and Identity Changes in China.docx

Comparative Summary of Qus and Gaos papers on Language and Identity Changes in China.docx

《Comparative Summary of Qus and Gaos papers on Language and Identity Changes in China.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Comparative Summary of Qus and Gaos papers on Language and Identity Changes in China.docx（7页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

ComparativeSummaryofQusandGaospapersonLanguageandIdentityChangesinChina

ComparativeSummaryofQu’sandGao’spapersonLanguageandIdentityChangesinChina

I.Introduction

Sincethelastdecadeofthe20thcentury,GaoYihongfromBeijingUniversityandherassociateshavecarriedoutaseriesofacademicresearchesonEnglishlearningandthecorrespondingidentitychangesofthelanguagelearnersinChina.Theysupposedthatthesocialpsychologicalchangesofthelearnerswasofsignificanceininfluencingthelearners’languageproficiencywhentheywerelearningtheforeignlanguage,andtheiridentitywouldbe（re）constructedontheprocess.Theirtaskwastofindouthowtheidentitychangesweremadeandhowthechangesledtothedevelopmentofinterculturalcommunicationcompetence.

However,QuWeiguo,fromFudanUniversity,inhis“OnIssuesConcerningEnglishandIdentityResearchinChina”in2005criticizedtheresearchmeasuresandquestionedthelegitimacyoftheresearch.ToQu’scriticism,Gaomadearesponsetothechallengeinherpaperin2007byreviewingtheirresearchesandresultsandintroducingthedistinctionbetweentwoparadigms,structuralismandconstructivism.

II.SummaryandCritiquesofQu’sPaper

OnthebasisofrecognitionofGao’sachievements,QupointedoutthatthesituationconcerningtheidentitychangesinChinawasdifferentfromthatoftheresearchesintheWest,forthereasonthatEnglishwasnotalanguagebeingeffectivelyusedinChinesedailycommunication.Therefore,theissuewasmorecomplicatedthanwhatGaohadthought.Tomakehisargumentclear,Qustatedhispointsinthefollowingaspects.

Firstly,QuarguedthatsomebasicconceptsrelatedtothelanguageandidentityresearchwerenotclearlydefinedinGao’spapers.Someofthemmightbeinterpretedindifferentways,andotherswereambiguous,which“maycontributetothecomplexityintheempiricalresearch”（2005,p.94）.ThefirstambiguousconceptQupointedoutwas“identity”,whichhadbeenusedwithdifferentdefinitionsindifferentfields.Buttherewasnoonethatwasdefiniteandpreciseandwasacceptedwidely.QufurthernarrowedthedomainofthetermusedinpsychologyandsocialpsychologypresentedbySters&Burke（2000）.Intheiraccount,“thereferentofidentityreferstoeitherroleormembership”（Qu,2005）.Yet,anotherproblemaroseintheirtheoryconcerning“identitytheory”and“socialidentitytheory”.Notonlycouldtheymaketheirtheoryclearlystated,butalsotherewasvaguenessandobscurityexistinginthedefinientia,especiallyabouttheterms“categorization”and“membership”usedinthedefinientiaandotherambiguoustermsinvolved.

Qufurtherarguedthatconsideringapersonhaddifferentidentitiesindifferentsituations,onewouldacquireasetofidentities,whichwascalled“identitycapital”byCote（2002）.However,thisconceptitselfwasambiguousandtheproblemsinvolvedmadeitmorecomplicated.Sincethediscussionwasaboutthe（re）constructionofidentity,itwasimportanttomakeacleardistinctionabouttheincomingandexistingentities.Therelationsandtheinteractionbetweentwoidentitycapitalswerecrucialissuesbuttoocomplexwithmanypossibilities.Anditwasevenhardertoknowthemeaningof“identitychange”andtheresultsthatthechangemightbringabout.Whatisworse,noanyresearchhadbeendoneaboutthecontextwherethechangemightbringaboutandaswellasthelengthandthestabilityofthechange.

Qualsostressedthateventhoughtheimportanceofthelanguageontheconstructionofidentitywaswidelyacknowledged,therewasnodefinitestatementorempiricalresearchonthecontributionthataforeignlanguagecoulddototheidentitychange.AccordingtoLambert’stheory（1974）,someconditionsrelatedtothepossiblecontributionofasecondlanguagemustbefulfilled.However,QustatedthatthoseconditionswereallobstaclesinGao’ssituation.Forexample,the“proficiency”,whichmayleadtothechangesinidentity,washardtobemeasuredbyanacceptablestandard.Thebilingualcommunitywasanotherconditionwiththechange,whichdidnotactuallyexistinChina.Hence,the“identitycontexts”,wheretheforeignlanguagewasusedinthecommunication,rarelyexistedinChina.

Secondly,whengoingontalkingabouttheassumptionsandthepresuppositionunderlyingtheresearch,QustatedthattheconditionsoftheresearchinChinaweredifferentfromthoseofthepreviousresearchesandevenmorecomplicated.Qufirstanalyzedthatthepurposesandthecompositionofthesecond-languagelearners,mostofwhomwerestudentsforeducationorcertificatesandemployeesforpromotion.Theylearnedtheforeignlanguagenotfortheuseinthedailycommunicationbutforsomemorepracticalpurpose.AlthoughthereweresuchpeoplewhousedEnglishintheirdailyworkastheEnglishteachers,interpretersandthestaffinsomecompaniesoragencies,Qupointedoutthattheystillcouldnotbetreatedasthemembersinabilingualspeechcommunitybecausetheydidnotinteractwitheachotherintheforeignlanguagebutwiththoseoutsideoftheirspeechcommunity.OnaccountofthefactthattheyardstickofthelanguageproficiencywashardtosetupandthecontextwhereaforeignlanguagewasusedinChinawasartificial,Qureachedtheconclusionthat“EnglishinChinaisthusamuchlearntlanguagebutnotausedone”（2005,p.106）and“…Englishisnotafunctionalchannelforcommunicationexceptforthefewwhoworkwithforeignnationals”（2005,p.107）inChina.

Besides,onidentityandChineseidentity,Qualsocriticizedthatthedistinctionsamong“identity”,“Chineseidentity”and“culturalidentities”wereblurandmisusedinGao’sresearch.InGao’spreviousstudy（2005）,thequestionstotheinformantswerenotconcernedabouttheChineseidentityorevenculturalidentities.Inaddition,giventhecomplexityofthecorecomponentsoftheChinesecultureandthedisruptionoftraditionafterthefoundationofanewChina,whatthecentralcharacteristicsofChineseidentitywereneededdiscussinganddelimiting.Onlywhenthesehadbeendonecouldtheresearchontheidentitychangesbevalidandmeaningful.

Atlast,whentalkingabouttherelationshipsbetweenEnglishandidentitychange,Qupointedoutthatthelanguagelearnerswereexposedtothewesternvaluesandbeliefsinmanyways,whichwasagainsttherequirementofexclusivenessoftheagency.Therefore,theidentitychangecouldnotbeprovedtobetheimpactofthelanguagelearning.

Quendedhiscritiqueswithsomesuggestionsonthesolutionstotheproblemshehadpresented.

Thiswasaveryinterestingandinstructivepaper,inwhichtheauthorpresentedhisdoubtandcritiqueaboutGao’sresearchesandmadesomesuggestionstoherfutureresearch.Thepaperwaswellorganizedinexpoundingtheauthor’sopinioninthreesections.Afterexplaininghispurposeofthispaper,theauthormadehisargumentwithdetailedquotationsandclearanalysis.Someofhisideaswerepositiveandavailable,whichmightbeofgreatsignificance.However,thepaperwasabitmorewordywhentheauthortriedtoprovehispoints.Itwastherepetitionthatweakenedthepaper’spower.Besides,eventhoughGao’sresearchwouldhavebeenbetterifshehadhadamoreexplicitexplanationoftheconceptsshehadusedinherresearch,IstillthoughtthatQu’scriticismonthedefinitionwastoostrict.Inthedomainofsocialandpsychologicalfields,thesphereandthereferentofsometermcouldnotbesofixedandstatic.Inaddition,Qu’sdiscussionwouldhavebeenmorepersuasiveiftheauthorhadprovidedsomepracticalsolutionstotheproblemshehadputupinthepaper.

III.SummaryandCritiquesofGao’sPaper

AsthispaperwastorespondtoQu’scriticism,Gaofirstover-viewedherresearcheson“bestforeignlanguagelearners”andonordinarylearnerswithabriefintroductiontotheirquantitativeandqualitativeresearches.AfterasummaryofQu’squery,Gao（2007）putforwardanewargumentthatthedisputeabout“identity”wasnotonlyabout“theontologicalissue”butalsoabout“theepistemologicalparadigmsconcerninghowtheknowledgeofidentityisobtainedordeveloped”（2007,p.103）.

Togoonwiththeanalysis,Gaointroducedthedistinctionbetweenstructuralismandconstructivism.Structuraliststookthestructurestaticandhierarchical.Theyemphasizedthesystematicinterrelationshipsamongtheelementsofanyhumanactivity.Theirtaskwastofindouttheobjectivismandessentialismamongtheinterrelationships.Incontrast,constructivismlaidemphasisonthewaysthatpeoplecreatedtheworldthroughaseriesofindividualconstructs.Constructivistsstressedtheinteractionandtheprocesswheretheinteractionconstructed.

Onthebasisofthetheory,GaofurtherarguedthedifferentwaystotreattheambiguousconceptsQuhaddoubted.Structuralistsregardedidentityasadefiniteandrealentitywhichcouldbeunpackedandanalyzedwithquantifiableevidence.Whileintheconstructivistperspective,identitywasmultipleanddynamic,anditdevelopedintheinteractionbetweentheindividualandtheenvironment.Therelationshipbetweenlanguagelearningandidentitychangewasnotalinearcause-effectasstructural-positivistapproachbut“multipleandcomplex,sometimesreciprocal”（Gao,2007,p.105）.Aboutthespeechcommunity,Gaowasagainsttheclearboundaryofbilingualismandmonolingualism,butthoughtthedistinctionwasnotclearandchangeableonaccountofthelearners’highmotivationandsubjectiveefforts.

Tosupportherargument,Gaopresentedthecurrentresearchtrend,whichwasashiftfromstructuralismtoconstructivisminthefieldofsocia