Comparative Summary of Qus and Gaos papers on Language and Identity Changes in China.docx
- 文档编号:4623005
- 上传时间:2023-05-07
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:7
- 大小:20.10KB
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)》请在冰点文库上搜索。
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
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- Comparative Summary of Qus and Gaos papers on Language Identity Changes in China
链接地址:https://www.bingdoc.com/p-4623005.html