Comparative Summary of Qu’s and Gao’s papers on Language and Identity Changes in China.docx

Comparative Summary of Qus and Gaos papers on Language and Identity Changes in ChinaI. Introduction Since the last decade of the 20th century, Gao Yihong from Beijing University and her associates have carried out a series of academic researches on English learning and the corresponding identity changes of the language learners in China. They supposed that the social psychological changes of the learners was of significance in influencing the learners language proficiency when they were learning the foreign language, and their identity would be (re)constructed on the process. Their task was to find out how the identity changes were made and how the changes led to the development of intercultural communication competence. However, Qu Weiguo, from Fudan University, in his “On Issues Concerning English and Identity Research in China” in 2005 criticized the research measures and questioned the legitimacy of the research. To Qus criticism, Gao made a response to the challenge in her paper in 2007 by reviewing their researches and results and introducing the distinction between two paradigms, structuralism and constructivism.II. Summary and Critiques of Qus PaperOn the basis of recognition of Gaos achievements, Qu pointed out that the situation concerning the identity changes in China was different from that of the researches in the West, for the reason that English was not a language being effectively used in Chinese daily communication. Therefore, the issue was more complicated than what Gao had thought. To make his argument clear, Qu stated his points in the following aspects.Firstly, Qu argued that some basic concepts related to the language and identity research were not clearly defined in Gaos papers. Some of them might be interpreted in different ways, and others were ambiguous, which “may contribute to the complexity in the empirical research” (2005, p. 94). The first ambiguous concept Qu pointed out was “identity”, which had been used with different definitions in different fields. But there was no one that was definite and precise and was accepted widely. Qu further narrowed the domain of the term used in psychology and social psychology presented by Sters & Burke (2000). In their account, “the referent of identity refers to either role or membership” (Qu, 2005). Yet, another problem arose in their theory concerning “identity theory” and “social identity theory”. Not only could they make their theory clearly stated, but also there was vagueness and obscurity existing in the definientia, especially about the terms “categorization” and “membership” used in the definientia and other ambiguous terms involved. Qu further argued that considering a person had different identities in different situations, one would acquire a set of identities, which was called “identity capital” by Cote (2002). However, this concept itself was ambiguous and the problems involved made it more complicated. Since the discussion was about the (re)construction of identity, it was important to make a clear distinction about the incoming and existing entities. The relations and the interaction between two identity capitals were crucial issues but too complex with many possibilities. And it was even harder to know the meaning of “identity change” and the results that the change might bring about. What is worse, no any research had been done about the context where the change might bring about and as well as the length and the stability of the change. Qu also stressed that even though the importance of the language on the construction of identity was widely acknowledged, there was no definite statement or empirical research on the contribution that a foreign language could do to the identity change. According to Lamberts theory (1974), some conditions related to the possible contribution of a second language must be fulfilled. However, Qu stated that those conditions were all obstacles in Gaos situation. For example, the “proficiency”, which may lead to the changes in identity, was hard to be measured by an acceptable standard. The bilingual community was another condition with the change, which did not actually exist in China. Hence, the “identity contexts”, where the foreign language was used in the communication, rarely existed in China. Secondly, when going on talking about the assumptions and the presupposition underlying the research, Qu stated that the conditions of the research in China were different from those of the previous researches and even more complicated. Qu first analyzed that the purposes and the composition of the second-language learners, most of whom were students for education or certificates and employees for promotion. They learned the foreign language not for the use in the daily communication but for some more practical purpose. Although there were such people who used English in their daily work as the English teachers, interpreters and the staff in some companies or agencies, Qu pointed out that they still could not be treated as the members in a bilingual speech community because they did not interact with each other in the foreign language but with those outside of their speech community. On account of the fact that the yardstick of the language proficiency was hard to set up and the context where a foreign language was used in China was artificial, Qu reached the conclusion that “English in China is thus a much learnt language but not a used one” (2005, p. 106) and “English is not a functional channel for communication except for the few who work with foreign nationals” (2005, p. 107) in China. Besides, on identity and Chinese identity, Qu also criticized that the distinctions among “identity”, “Chinese identity” and “cultural identities” were blur and misused in Gaos research. In Gaos previous study (2005), the questions to the informants were not concerned about the Chinese identity or even cultural identities. In addition, given the complexity of the core components of the Chinese culture and the disruption of tradition after the foundation of a new China, what the central characteristics of Chinese identity were needed discussing and delimiting. Only when these had been done could the research on the identity changes be valid and meaningful.At last, when talking about the relationships between English and identity change, Qu pointed out that the language learners were exposed to the western values and beliefs in many ways, which was against the requirement of exclusiveness of the agency. Therefore, the identity change could not be proved to be the impact of the language learning. Qu ended his critiques with some suggestions on the solutions to the problems he had presented. This was a very interesting and instructive paper, in which the author presented his doubt and critique about Gaos researches and made some suggestions to her future research. The paper was well organized in expounding the authors opinion in three sections. After explaining his purpose of this paper, the author made his argument with detailed quotations and clear analysis. Some of his ideas were positive and available, which might be of great significance. However, the paper was a bit more wordy when the author tried to prove his points. It was the repetition that weakened the papers power. Besides, even though Gaos research would have been better if she had had a more explicit explanation of the concepts she had used in her research, I still thought that Qus criticism on the definition was too strict. In the domain of social and psychological fields, the sphere and the referent of some term could not be so fixed and static. In addition, Qus discussion would have been more persuasive if the author had provided some practical solutions to the problems he had put up in the paper.III. Summary and Critiques of Gaos PaperAs this paper was to respond to Qus criticism, Gao first over-viewed her researches on “best foreign language learners” and on ordinary learners with a brief introduction to their quantitative and qualitative researches. After a summary of Qus query, Gao (2007) put forward a new argument that the dispute about “identity” was not only about “the ontological issue” but also about “the epistemological paradigms concerning how the knowledge of identity is obtained or developed” (2007, p. 103).To go on with the analysis, Gao introduced the distinction between structuralism and constructivism. Structuralists took the structure static and hierarchical. They emphasized the systematic interrelationships among the elements of any human activity. Their task was to find out the objectivism and essentialism among the interrelationships. In contrast, constructivism laid emphasis on the ways that people created the world through a series of individual constructs. Constructivists stressed the interaction and the process where the interaction constructed.On the basis of the theory, Gao further argued the different ways to treat the ambiguous concepts Qu had doubted. Structuralists regarded identity as a definite and real entity which could be unpacked and analyzed with quantifiable evidence. While in the constructivist perspective, identity was multiple and dynamic, and it developed in the interaction between the individual and the environment. The relationship between language learning and identity change was not a linear cause-effect as structural-positivist approach but “multiple and complex, sometimes reciprocal” (Gao, 2007, p.105). About the speech community, Gao was against the clear boundary of bilingualism and monolingualism, but thought the distinction was not clear and changeable on account of the learners high motivation and subjective efforts.To support her argument, Gao presented the current research trend, which was a shift from structuralism to constructivism in the field of social science, with the achievements some foreign scholars had made. The underlying reasons of the shift between the two paradigms Gao analyzed were summarized as the multiplicity of the social phenomena and the needs and control of the knowledge of the world. Only by breaking through the confined frames could man reach a new realm of perception and action. It was the constructivist approach as a new way of thinking and analyzing that could take the task to make the breakthrough. With the analysis, Gao reached the conclusion that Qus views of the legitimacy of their research were “largely on epistemological stances” (2007, p. 108), while their researches were based on the perspectives that identity was built through the use of a language, and the learning and using a foreign language was bound to make an impact on the construction of the individuals identity.In a retrospective of the research Gao and her team had done, Gao admitted that the concept they had produced “productive bilingualism” was based on the structuralist approach and made it clear that more constructivist approaches would be practiced in the future research.This paper was of great use in providing a different epistemological paradigm in doing the research. By introducing the new method and applying the method in the analysis, Gao made the theory practical and instructive. In contrast to Qus paper, this was more persuasive with the empirical evidence. However, the author failed to make the view more logical and easier to be understood. The author asserted that identity change and foreign language learning had influenced each other and “ is bound to have impact on the person as a whole” but failed to provide any powerful proof. Besides, the author herself admitted that the relationships were multiple and complex and hard to show the cause and effect. When mentioning their research, Gao argued that the self-esteem and confidence of the language learners were improved with the language learning process. However, there was no denying that the improvement in mastering a technique or a skill could promote ones social status and boost his confidence, which did not only happen to the master of a foreign language. In what sense the improvement of the confidence could be evaluated as identity change was still a doubt to the reader. Moreover, Gao suggested that “identity change” should be substituted by “development”. However, she ignored that “development” generally referred to a changing process to a more advanced or mature stage. Even though the author could prove that the change did exist, she had to make a further demonstration that the change was to the good orientation.IV. My Personal Reaction Both of the papers had provided abundant and powerful reasons to prove that their arguments more valid and their methods more feasible from their separate stances. Compared with Gaos paper, Qu seemed stronger in the theory deduction. And Qu did put forward some useful and instructive questions, which I believe would be a good guide for Gaos following research. I agree with his view that we could not know the change and the cause of that until we know what the Chinese identity is, . However, since the research was in the field of social science, I think there was no need to be too strict to the definition. Yet it would have been better if Gao could present a more feasible and practical definition in the future researches. Considering the way of constructivism was still new and in the exploration, more time and tolerance should be given. Therefore, the debate between Gao and Qu was more helpful to make the research develop healthily. Whats more, Qus research may be of great significance in the development of the foreign language teaching in China. As an English learner, learning a foreign language has definitely made me have some change. On the process of acquaintance of English, I have got to know more and more English and American cultures, which contained a totally different way of thinking. All of the mixed elements must have made some impact on me. Besides, the new perspective of a different culture has taught me to see the multi-culture in a more objective view and more importantly, I have learned to see my native culture from other angles, the influence of which has integrated into my daily life and my mode of thinking. However, I am not sure if the change has been large enough to lead to the change of my identity. Even though I am a foreign language learner and teacher as well, I do not live in a bilingual community and the foreign language I use is also confined to the artificial context. No matter whether English has been an international language as Qu said, as far as I could see, English in China is still for the educational purpose rather than communication. It is true that in the information era the Chinese have received a large amount of exotic culture and viewpoints; however, its fair to say the largest impa