CHINA'S LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING IN EDUCATION: A COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL APPROACHES
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
China, renowned for its linguistic and ethnic diversity, grapples with a complex language landscape where Mandarin Chinese dominates as the official language. Despite Mandarin's prominence, the country harbors various regional dialects and 55 officially recognized ethnic minority groups, each contributing to a rich linguistic tapestry. Recent language policies aimed at enhancing literacy and ensuring stability have sparked debates on the implications for minority languages and dialects. This article evaluates Chinaʼs language policy through the neo-classical and historical-structural approaches, shedding light on the intricate dynamics shaping linguistic diversity and national identity. The historical-structural approach to language policy analysis involves examining societal, historical, and political factors that shape and influence language policies. It considers the historical context, power structures, and the role of the state. The neo-classical approach focuses more on individual choices, market trends, and the influence of various actors in language policy development. The neo-classical approach, while valuable, falls short in capturing the influence of state-driven initiatives and the agency of local actors. In contrast, the historical-structural perspective proves more insightful, considering political, societal, and historical factors in shaping language policies. The dissemination of English within multilingual communities underscores the importance of resource distribution, emphasizing the need for a historical-structural perspective. While the historical-structural perspective provides a more comprehensive understanding, acknowledging the potential of strengthening the neo-classical approach through empirical research is crucial. Further investigations into academic performance, code-switching practices, and in-depth interviews could offer nuanced insights into language policy implementation dynamics and their impact on stakeholders in China's educational landscape.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
language policy, language planning, language of instruction, public policy, bilingual education
Blachford, D. (2004), “Language Spread versus Language Maintenance: Policy Making and Implementation Process.” Language Policy, edited by M. Zhou and H. Sun, Springer, pp. 99–122.
Blommaert, J. (2004), “Writing as a Problem: African Grassroots Writing, Economies of Literacy, and Globalization.” Language in Society, vol. 33, no. 05, doi: 10.1017/s0047404504045014. Accessed 30 Aug. 2019.
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Polity Presss. Bugarski, R. and Hawkesworth C. (1992), Language Planning in Yugoslavia. Slavica Pub, 1992.
China’s “Bilingual Education” Policy in Tibet (2020), Human Rights Watch. Available at: www.hrw.org/report/2020/03/05/chinas-bilingual-education-policytibet/tibetan-medium-schooling-under-threat. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.
Cobarrubias, J. (1982), “Language Planning: The State of the Art.” Progress in Language Planning, by Juan Cobarrubias, edited by Joshua A Fishman, Berlin; New York, Mouton Publishers, pp. 3–28.
Cooper, R. L. (1989), Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. (2016), “Conflicting Language Ideologies and Contradictory Language Practices in Singaporean Multilingual Families.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 694–709, doi: 10.1080/01434632.2015.1127926.
Encyclopedia of Language and Education. (2008), Edited by Nancy Hornberger, New York, Springer.
“Ethnic Mongolians in China Protest Removal of Traditional Language in Schools.” (2020), Reuters. Available at: www.reuters.com/article/us-chinaeducation-mongolian-protests-idUSKBN25T0YP/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.
Feng, A. (2007). Bilingual Education in China: Practices, Policies and Concepts. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.
Feng, A. and Adamson, B. (2017), “Language Policies and Sociolinguistic Domains in the Context of Minority Groups in China.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 169–180, doi: 10.1080/01434632.2017.1340478.
Feng, A. and Sunuodula, M. (2009), “Analysing Language Education Policy for China’s Minority Groups in Its Entirety.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 685–704, doi: 10.1080/13670050802684396.
García, O. and Menken, K. (2010), Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers. Routledge.
Han, Y. and Johnson, D. (2020), “Chinese Language Policy and Uyghur Youth: Examining Language Policies and Language Ideologies.” Journal of Language, Identity & Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 1–14, doi: 10.1080/15348458.2020.1753193.
Hancock, A. (2014), “Language Education Policy in Multilingual Scotland: Opportunities, Imbalances and Debates.” Language Problems and Language Planning, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 167–191, doi: 10.1075/lplp.38.2.04han. Accessed 27 May 2019.
Hu, G. (2009), “The Craze for English-Medium Education in China: Driving Forces and Looming Consequences.” English Today, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 47–54, doi: 10.1017/s0266078409990472.
Hu, W. (2001), “A Matter of Balance – Reflections on China’s Language Policy in Education.” Asian Englishes, vol. 4, no. 1, June 2001, pp. 66–79, doi: 10.1080/13488678.2001.10801064.
Johnson, D. (2013), Language Policy. Springer, 2013.
Kaplan, R. and Richard B. (1997), Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Clevedon England; Philadelphia, Multilingual Matters.
Lam, A. (2005), Language Education in China. Hong Kong University Press. Accessed at: 16/03/2023.