大学英语教学探索与展望(txt+pdf+epub+mobi电子书下载)

作者：邱东林,蔡继刚

出版社：复旦大学出版社

格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT

大学英语教学探索与展望试读：

前言

我国大学英语教材正处于一个非常重要的转型时期。这主要表现在下面几个方面：

1）2004年教育部新制定的《大学英语课程教学要求》提出了“大学英语的教学目标是培养学生的英语综合应用能力，特别是听说能力”。这意味着现行的大学英语教材必须按新的教学目标进行修订或重新编写。

2）教育部于2003年制定了《高中英语课程标准》，提出了几乎和大学英语一样的教学目标和标准要求，一批新的高中英语教材纷纷问世。而其中一些教材（如《新世纪高中英语》和《牛津高中英语》等）语言难度已经接近甚至超过某些大学英语教材的第一册和第二册的难度。从衔接的角度上讲，现行的大学英语教材也面临修订。

3）现代教育技术的迅速发展和以计算机网络为基础的新的大学英语教学模式在全国的推行，要求新的教材不再停留在纸质形式上，而应向立体化发展，为教师和学生提供更丰富的教学资源，以适应由教师为中心、单纯传授语言知识和技能的教学模式，向以学生为中心、既传授语言知识与技能，又注重培养语言运用能力和自主学习能力的教学模式的转变。

大学英语教材国际研讨会正是在这样的背景和形势下召开的。本论文集收进了17篇大会论文，其作者有的是国外著名学者专家，有的是国内英语语言和教学的专家，他们从不同角度回顾了我国解放后不同时期有代表性和有较大影响的大学英语教材；分析了当前我国大学英语教材存在的问题；从语言教学的规律和二语习得的理论来探索大学英语教材的编写理念，并在此基础上展望我国大学英语教材的发展趋势。

毫无疑问，本论文集的出版对于大学英语教材理论建设，对于新时期我国大学英语教材的编写，以及大学英语教学质量的提高将起到积极的作用。

最后，我们衷心感谢复旦大学出版社，由于他们的慷慨资助，才使论文集得以付梓问世。同时我们也感谢赞助本次大会的北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社、上海外语教育出版社和北京外语教学与研究出版社。编者2007年2月

1.Some Factors Affecting College-level English Teaching in 21st-Century China

Abstract：

In any discussion relating to the teaching of English in China，there are several changing conditions that need to be taken into ac-count，one is the technology involved：not just the language-teaching technology，although that is obviously significant，but the technology involved in everyday languages，where computers and text-messaging mobile phones have replaced typewriters and conventional telephones as the medium of spoken and written discourse.The second is the changing status of English：English is no longer just one of a number of international languages，alongside Spanish，Portuguese，French，German，Russian，Arabic，Malay，Hindi-Urdu and Mandarin Chi-nese；it is now the distinctively global language，at least for the imme-diate future.And thirdly，there is the changing status of the Chinese language，now that China is coming to be a major economic power in the world.These factors affect the internal equilibrium of language：the balance between speaking and writing，between specialized andnon-specialized registers，between personal and impersonal modes of discourse，and perhaps others besides.They require us to re-examine the full range of linguistic practices in which the learner may expect to engage.

Key words：

College-level；English teaching；technology

An Introduction

As my friends and colleagues here already know，I am not，and never have been，a teacher of English. Well，to say I never have been a teacher of English is not exactly true：for the first twelve or thirteen years of my adult life I was，in fact，a language teacher；and within that time I was teaching English，part-time，for one year—at Peking University，in 1947—1948.But for the remainder of that time，apart from one year in which I taught Russian，I was teaching Chinese，as a foreign language，to speakers of English.So I was teaching a language of which I was not a native speaker，which is an advantage when you are teaching adult，or adolescent，beginners—a point I shall return to in my talk tomorrow.But just in order to finish these introductory remarks about myself：for the rest of my career I was teaching linguistics，which is a very different kind of teaching activity—although one that is still relevant to my talks on this occa-sion，because throughout my working life many of my students have been teachers of English.So while it is true to say that I never，or al-most never，taught any English，I have been a foreign language teach-er，and I have taught numbers of others who were，or subsequently became，teachers of English as a foreign language.

I gave my first foreign language class on 13rd May，1945，which is just over sixty years ago. It was a dictation class，in Chinese，to a group of language trainees in the British armed services.We were using Gwoyeu Romatzyh，which is much the best resource for teaching Chinese to foreigners—I shall return to that topic also，at a later point.Sixty years is a long time，and I might seem justified if I was to claim that my age and experience gave me some added authority in the area of foreign language teaching，including the teaching of English in China.Age—yes：I am supposed to have attained the age of wis-dom，when presumably I don’t need to think anymore；I just need to stay quiet and look wise.But experience？The problem with any claim that one has experience is this：things change too quickly.The most obvious fact about the language teaching situation today，and especial-ly perhaps about the teaching of English，is that it is very different from anything that was happening sixty years ago.And，almost more than any other activity in the field of education，the teaching of a for-eign language is sensitive to the demands and the constraints of the en-vironment.

So let us consider some of the major changes that have taken place，over the past sixty years，which might affect the teaching of English in China. We can group these，perhaps，into two broad cate-gories，which I will call the technical and the social（or socio-politi-cal，to suggest a broader perspective）.There have been massive shifts both in the technology and in the socio-political conditions that are associated with language use.Let me elaborate on these two fac-tors，each in turn.

1.The Technical Aspect

When I first started as a language teacher，there were no tape re-corders，and no easy ways of making copies of an existing text.In our department at the University of London we had disc recording equip-ment，so that students could not only listen to gramophone records of the foreign language but also record and listen to their own perform-ance；but this was time-consuming and expensive.To make multiple copies of anything you had to type the text on to a waxed skin and run it through a cylindrical press（which I think was still operated by turn-ing a handle，though that is probably a memory from my earlier schooldays！）.Then one of our Chinese colleagues，a brilliant all-round scholar named Yu Dawchyuan，built a copying machine by cre-ating an arc between two powerful light sources—a technical marvel，but rather complicated to operate.Since Fudan University is now a hundred years old，there may be some among my audience who re-member those prehistoric times.

Since then we have had a number of technical novelties，coming into and sometimes soon disappearing from the scene：we have had programmed learning；we have had language laboratories with teacher—student interface and increasingly elaborate audio-visual equipment；we have had computer-assisted language learning，as well as learner-centred self-access programmes of various kinds；and all of these developments have affected the relationship between the learner and the teacher，as well as the relationship between who is learning and what is being learned.And“what is being learned”，the per-ceived content of a foreign language course，has itself been trans-formed by advances in the technology：in particular by the computer-ized corpus，the facility for storing，accessing and processing huge quantities of language data on a scale that was never possible before.Here the most powerful agency is the combination of the computer and the tape recorder—or，since tape is no longer the preferred recording material，the combination of computing with some form of audio re-cording.We have been able to store written language ever since writ-ing evolved，because that is what written language is：it is language that is stored in some medium or other，perhaps even carved in stone like the Chinese classics in the Bei Lin in Xi’an.But spoken language is ephemeral：it doesn’t exist，it just happens；and until it could be captured in some way，and transformed into an object which could be held under attention and studied，we had very little understanding of exactly what it was we were trying to teach—unless，that is，we were teaching the language simply as a treasury of texts，as something to be encountered only in the form of writing.It is clear that all this new technology has had an impact on the theories and practices of language teaching，even if not quite as dramatic as some commentators have suggested（or as some practitioners had hoped）.When each new technique is introduced，there will be people who say“now the teach-er is no longer needed；all the learner requires is a programme and some mechanical device with which to operate it”.In fact，it seems that the opposite is the case：each new technical resource makes new and greater demands on the language teacher—and therefore on the professional training that the teacher needs to receive.I do not think that the foreign language teacher is likely to disappear from the scene.

What about the foreign language textbook？I don’t think that that is going to disappear either（otherwise we wouldn’t be holding an in-ternational forum on the subject！）.Of course the textbook is also af-fected by the new technology，because it now takes its place alongside all the other educational resources，and may，in some instances，be designed as an ancillary to something else—for example as text ac-companying an audio-visual language course.Again，the new technol-ogy places more demands，not fewer，on the foreign language text-book，because the textbooks have to become more varied，and more versatile，than they were in earlier times.

But when we consider the effects of technology on our theory and practice in teaching a foreign language，on our decisions about curric-ulum，about materials and so on，it is not only the technology of lan-guage teaching—the technology of the language class—that is the relevant issue.What is equally relevant，though in a different way，is the technology of language use；and this too has undergone some rath-er fundamental changes.Language evolved as speech：that is its only original mode，and it is the mode in which each human child first learns language，unless debarred from this facility by being deaf.But alongside of language there evolved another mode of making meaning，using the visual channel：people made pictures，for example，on the walls of caves（no doubt also on other，less long-lasting surfaces like sand）.These were semiotic events in their own right，although they were not constructed using language.Then at some period in the histo-ry of some human groups these two modes of meaning converged：the visual symbols came to function as symbols of other symbols.That is to say，the pictures were reinterpreted as standing for elements of（spoken）language：either words，and parts of words，like Chinese characters，or syllables，and parts of syllables，like the scripts of San-skrit or Arabic，or English.There were now two distinct modes of lan-guage，the spoken and the written.But they were different，because while people had never been taught to speak—they had learnt to speak，as small children，just by copying others—if they wanted to read and write they had to be taught.

So that is where language education began，and that is where the“four skills”come from. To know a language is to speak and listen and read and write；and when we teach a foreign language we design our courses and our assessments around these four skills，giving them differential value according to the perceived goals of the learners，or according to the goals that we decide they should achieve.These may be purely local goals，specific to one institution or to one category of student；or they may be formulated as a matter of policy，perhaps on a national scale.During the second world war a certain number of the pilots in the British Royal Air Force were taught just to listen to and understand spoken Japanese，so they could intercept radio communi-cation between Japanese pilots and their controllers on the ground；this was a very specific goal，involving just one of the four skills，and only small numbers of learners were taking part.Even on a much lar-ger scale one may still decide to teach just one of the skills：thus after the war was over the Japanese Ministry of Education introduced the teaching of English in educational institutions all over the country—but they concentrated entirely on reading；they wanted their people to have access to materials published in English，but were concerned to defend Japanese culture against the impact of American symbolic pow-er，which they felt would penetrate all aspects of Japanese life，at that time，if English was taught also as a spoken language.On the other hand，in the usual pattern of foreign language teaching as part of school education in more typical circumstances it would be taken for granted that all four skills were to be acquired.

This concept of language skills，with those of reading and writing being recognized as distinct from those of speaking and listening（even though both involve the two aspects of production and reception），ac-cords with the historical evolution of literate societies，in which written language and spoken language have always been clearly separated.Speaking and writing had distinct and complementary functions：writ-ten language was for keeping records，whether the cycles of the calen-dar，or the exploits of rulers，or the inventories of goods being trans-ported from one place to another in the course of trade；and for more esoteric purposes such as religious observances and divination.Spoken language was used in the ways in which it had evolved from the start，as the ultimate foundation stone of daily life：in the enactment of per-sonal and socially sanctioned relationships and in the semiotic con-struction of shared experience—getting along with other people，and making sense of the world around.As time went by，of course，writ-ten language expanded its scope and took over some of this eco-social space，transforming it in the process into the realms of poetry，histo-ry，philosophy，technology and science；but the distance between the two was still maintained，because these activities were the prerogative of an elite minority，and so the written language could follow its own course，with the highly conservative forms of its lexicogrammar becom-ing more and more remote from the continually evolving grammatical structure and vocabulary of the discourses of ordinary speech.

So by modern times the written languages of the traditional socie-ties in the Eurasian culture band，Chinese，Sanskrit，Latin and（lat-er）Arabic，had all diverged rather markedly from the spoken langua-ges of their communities，even if they continued to function in a spo-ken form（like Latin as lingua franca among clerics all over Europe）.Not that these written languages hadn’t changed—they had.The forms may have been archaic；but the meanings that were construed in wenyan（literary Chinese）in Tang and especially in Song times were very different from those of Zhou and Han；likewise，medieval Latin was very different from the classical Latin of ancient Rome.Texts in these later varieties are much more easily rendered into the languages of today，because despite retaining words and structures from an earli-er period，semantically they had evolved along with the spoken lan-guages of daily life.There is much less insulation between spoken and written language at the level of meaning than there is at the level of wording—which is hardly surprising，because the wordings of the written text persist through time：they remain as models to be imita-ted；whereas the meanings are the part of language that is hidden from view.

But at a certain moment in history，technology intervened once more. Writing had always been a tedious process，because even with the invention of flat surfaces for writing on，like parchment and paper which would accept markings in ink，you could make only one copy of the text at any one time.But then the Chinese invented printing，so you could make multiple copies；and when movable type was intro-duced the same printing press could turn out indefinitely many differ-ent texts.Of course the scribes did not disappear overnight；even in the early Ming dynasty，Yongle Dadian was written out by hand（which was a pity，because most of it didn’t survive）.But printing became a major factor in keeping speech and writing apart：not only was writing permanent，freed from the moment of time as it always had been，but now a writer could produce a work in hundreds of copieswhich would be read by people he didn’t know and with whom there was no possibility of interacting；whereas speech，as it always had been，was ephemeral，it was gone with the wind，and most people throughout their lives seldom talked to anyone they didn’t already know，and moreover the listener could usually answer back.So the two modes of language，the spoken and the written，were now about as far apart as they could be.

This was the situation up until the beginning of the twentieth cen-tury，the time when the teaching of foreign languages was becoming recognized as a regular profession.By this time，in Europe，Latin was no longer the lingua franca，and it was no longer generally spoken；but it still carried prestige，as the foundation of European culture，and so was widely taught in the schools.It was taught，however，purely as a written language；so when it became the model for the teaching of modern foreign languages they were also taught through the written mode—with the assumption that if you learned to read and write the foreign language you would automatically be able to listen to it and to speak it as well.This does work with some learners；but they are a rather small minority；for most，the result of trying to learn a spoken language this way is complete failure—as it was for one of the pio-neers of modern language teaching theory Francois Gouin.Gouin was a French student of chemistry，who went to pursue his studies at a university in Germany；he had been taught German for six years in a French lycée，but when he arrived in Germany he couldn’t even order himself a glass of wine，so he gave up chemistry and became a lan-guage teacher instead.His ideas were taken up in several places，in-cluding the Chinese Department in the University of London where I first went to study Chinese in the year 1942.They were quite sensible ideas，and they worked remarkably well.

But by that time，in the middle of the century，the age of print，with the clear disjunction between language in its written mode and language in its spoken mode，was already coming to an end. The first major advances in the technology of language use，the telegraph and the telephone，had extended the range of the performance of writing and speaking，transmitting written language at great speeds and spo-ken language over great distances；but they hadn’t altered the relation-ship between the two.This change really began with the phonograph，when Edison and Bell managed to get speech sound incised on wax cylinders；their technique soon evolved into that of the gramophone re-cord，which is still around if you happen to be lucky enough to have a turntable which turns at the right speed（gramophone records are now collectively referred to as“vinyl”）.Now for the first time speech had been held down and objectified，so that the same utterance could be listened to over and over again.But the recorded utterance was not yet a natural speech event—it was not spontaneous.It had been con-sciously composed，rehearsed and performed in a recording studio；thus it was a pastiche of spoken language，rather than being a real in-stance of language in the spoken mode.

The critical invention for the preservation of speech was the tape recorder（or rather，the wire recorder，which preceded it for a very short time—when I was a student of Wang Li，at Lingnan in 1949—1950，he had a wire recorder for his dialect field work；but the wire kept breaking off，and ending up as a cloud of spun metal somewhere in the corner of the room）. For simplicity we can date the appearance of the tape recorder at 1950，though in fact it had been invented some years earlier.With the tape recorder，for the first time you could re-

cord natural speech in interactive settings and situations：interviews，seminars，and above all informal conversation. The first people who did record were amazed at the hesitations，false starts，rewordings and other strategies of verbal management；and they used their findings to demonstrate how inferior speech was to writing—a prejudice to which they were already committed by the received traditions of a literate culture：all societies that have writing will value it more highly than speaking，because of the special functions with which writing has al-ways been associated.What these scholars failed to realize was that writing，too，requires such verbal management；but the writer crosses things out，and destroys all the earlier drafts，so the rejected bits do not appear in the final version.

Furthermore，most of those early transcripts were taken from aca-demic seminars，where speakers do tend to hesitate a lot because they are having to think out what to say，and are listening to themselves as they go along.When people started observing casual conversation，as I did myself in my research into child language development in the early 1970s，it turned out that this was far more fluent and well-formed：there were very few unfinished structures，or changes of di-rection in mid-stream.The notion that speech was somehow less or-ganized，less orderly than writing turned out to be simply a myth.In some respects，in fact，speech is more organized：it tends to make more complex sentences than writing.

What the tape recorder did，and what all sound recording devices do，is to turn spoken language into a thing—an object，locked into existence so that it stays in place through time. It no longer simply evaporates without a trace.This has had a number of practical appli-cations.In Common Law，for example，a spoken contract is as legally binding as a written one；but with the spoken contract this was diffi-cult to enforce，because if there were no witnesses how do you prove that the words were actually spoken？Now the evidence is there，on the tape.Interviews of suspected criminals by the police used to be presented in court in the form of a written transcription that had been made by the police themselves；now such interviews are recorded as they take place.The validity of spoken discourse has been enhanced.

But apart from such practical applications，the technology of sound recording has had a deeper impact. It has lessened the ideolog-ical distance，the disjunction that used to exist between speech and writing.We can listen to recordings and realize that all the functional variation that has traditionally been associated with writing—genres of literature，institutional registers of administration，law，the profes-sions—are just as much a property of speech；and the creativity，the inventiveness that we value so highly with writers is something that speakers also can achieve—as was well recognized in traditional，oral societies.Speech has started to regain some of the prestige that it had lost when languages were codified in writing.

We can use the same date，1950，to mark the other technical ad-vance that has impacted on language：the computer.If the tape re-corder transformed speech into an object，the computer did just the opposite：it transformed writing，the written text，into an event.On the computer screen，the written text unfolds in front of you in time，just like speech.Reading becomes more like listening：we can scroll the text up before our eyes，retaining under attention，as we do so，probably about the same amount of text as we retain when listening to speech.So the distance has been reduced from this end also：speech has become more like writing，while writing has become more likespeech.But that，it has turned out，was only just the beginning.We only have to look around us，on any street or in any shopping center in Shanghai，to see the effect that the computer，or electronic technolo-gy，has had on the habits of language use.The tape recorder，and the computer screen，changed the way in which language was presented to the receiver：in other words，they affect the processes of listening and reading，because the spoken word can be made permanent—it can be repeated as often as the listener desires，while the written word can be made transient—it disappears off the screen unless you stay it.And this，in turn，influences the processes of speaking and of writing：you may be speaking“for the record”，monitoring yourself all the time as you go along；or you may be writing just for the present mo-ment.Your speech becomes less spontaneous，your writing more spontaneous；the two channels become more alike.Now consider the small electronic device you hold in your hand：it started as a mobile telephone，but now you can use it to text…to send written messages instead of speech，and to“write”in ways that look rather different from writing of the traditional kind.Here，with the latest wave of dig-ital language technology，there is a direct effect on the producer：not only have spoken and written text become more alike in the way they appear to the receiver，but even in the process of production speaking and writing have become less distinct.

This has happened because the act of writing is now almost as in-teractive as the act of speaking.There is a new verb in English to re-fer to this；we now talk about“texting”，and the receiver is treated grammatically as the Goal，the direct object of the process：you text your friend，and he or she will text you in return.Previously we talked about“writing to”somebody；originally this meant getting a piece of paper，getting a writing implement（a pen，or，later on，a typewriter），putting written symbols on the paper，putting it in an en-velope，sealing it，writing or typing the address of the receiver，stick-ing a stamp on the envelope and putting it into a special box，a red box in England，a green box here in China.In the 1980s this complex set of operations was overtaken by electronic technology and the“let-ter”was typed into a computer and sent by E-mail，meaning electron-ic mail；but it was still called a“letter”，and it was still“written to”somebody and“sent”（if no longer“posted”）.This was soon felt to be inappropriate，however，and instead people started saying“I’ll email you”，with the word email turning into a verb（and losing its hyphen，in the written form）.Emailing someone didn’t really seem like writing a letter to them；and when it comes to texting them，the concept of a“letter”seems very wide of them ark.

This change in the way of talking about the writing process，re-flecting its changing nature as an interactive event，may lead us to ask whether the process itself—the production of written text，and the product that results from this process—is also undergoing some man-ner of change.I think we can observe two things happening in Eng-lish，one as if it were inside the writing system and the other some-where on its borders；and both are ways of relaxing some of the rules and doing away with some of the traditional boundaries.

The first concerns spelling，that highly ritualized feature of Eng-lish life.English spelling was not always regulated and expected to conform.When English was first widely used as a written language，its spelling varied considerably；this was partly because there were so many different dialects，but also because，after it had borrowed so many words and word-forming（morphological）devices from otherlanguages，its phonology became highly complex，and anyway those other languages（French and Latin）already had their own written forms；so there was much uncertainty，and people could choose to spell more or less as they felt appropriate.But in the fifteenth century there was a great increase in adult literacy and in schooling for the ed-ucation of children；and over the next century and a half—the period spanning the lifetimes of Shakespeare and of Milton—spelling be-came fixed，more or less in the form that is used today.

But it is complex，and，although not as chaotic as it seems，it has many irregularities；so ever since that time there have been at-tempts to reform it.A succession of linguists from about 1，600 on-wards have suggested and promoted alternative spelling schemes，sometimes dealing with just one or two features but in many cases of-fering complete revised orthographies for the entire language.None of these revised spelling systems has been generally adopted；partly be-cause no adult population will adopt a measure by which they would simply render themselves illiterate，but also because most of the sys-tems were rather closely tied to the sounds of individual words，giving a kind of phonemic representation which is not well suited to the Eng-lish language（in English as in Mandarin Chinese a phonemic spelling works as a notation to be used for special purposes，like teaching the standard language to speakers of other dialects，but it is not a satisfac-tory basis for a general script）.So English has retained its rather old-fashioned spelling system，just as Chinese has continued to use its original charactery.

There have of course always been minor changes：the Americans adopted a few of Noah Webster’s emendations，though not as many as Webster would have liked—enough to make it look different from the British；advertizers like to put funny spellings on their products，which they can then register as trademarks，like pinecleen and kleen-maid and ezyglide and cofi-cosi（the last is a wrap-around padded cloth for keeping the coffee warm），and occasionally such spellings come into general use，like lite for light in the sense of low in alcohol，to distinguish it from light in colour as opposed to dark.People also use funny spellings as markers of individuality，for example，in the names of their houses or on the licence plates of their cars；and here，since the total number of symbols is restricted，perhaps to six，as well as using letters to stand for a homonymous word（like U for“you”），they are allowed to use numerals alongside the letters，so we find hy-brid“spellings”such as CON10T for“content”—presumably a car-owner who is satisfied，either with the car or with some other quality of life.

This last seems a very minor extension；after all，numerals，like letters，are still abstract symbols，and they are still members of a small finite set：the alphabet of 26 letters has simply been enlarged by the addition of the numerals 0—9，making 36 symbols in all. But it is the thin end of the wedge，because it opens up the potential for exten-ding the“alphabet”in much more elaborate ways.And this leads to the second of the happenings that I referred to a few moments ago.

All writing systems make a clear distinction between the written symbol，whether letter，syllabic sign or character，and any other form of visual representation，such as a picture，a diagram or a graph. But there is a long tradition in English of a kind of graph logical play known as“rebus writing”，where pictures are built in to the text as part of the wording.The picture may stand for whatever it is depic-ting；or else it may stand for the syllable（or other stretch of sound）that figures in the name of the thing depicted，as if you were to write“idea”with a picture of an eye followed by a picture of a deer.In other words，the symbol functions either like the radical or like the phonetic in a Chinese character of the xingsheng（phonetic com-pound）type.Sometimes，in fact，it may be a composite symbol of just this kind，hence exactly like a xingsheng character，although these are rather less common in texts of the traditional rebus type.

Rebus writing used to be a standard feature in books written for young children. Like many other forms of childsplay，it had had a se-rious origin：it was used as a technique in heraldry，in the coat-of-arms of a noble family in medieval European society.After this use was forgotten it survived as a game；but this too largely disappeared in the last century，although primary school teachers sometimes brought it in as a classroom activity，since it helped to draw children’s atten-tion to language.But now it serves once more as a resource for inter-active writing，with which the writer once again becomes freed from the conventions of spelling and puts an individual stamp on the written text.

Whether these particular practices，of spelling words in new and individual ways，or of introducing elements other than alphabetic sym-bols—letters and punctuation marks—into the written text，will spread among those who are using English in the future，we cannot tell.The large number of non-native speakers using the language may help to make this happen，since they are less committed to the stand-ard forms.But what is already clear is that the boundaries are shift-ing：the boundary between what is“correct”spelling and what is not，and the boundary between what is a written symbol and what is not；and also the familiar boundary between writing and speech，not only between written and spoken text but also between the functions of writ-ing and speaking in today’s society：the“functional complementarity”between the two，which has been the typical feature of a literate socie-ty，has now largely disappeared.Thus there are changes not only in the way people use language but also in their attitudes to language；and these affect the expectations of the learner，as well as the environ-ment，the contexts for which the foreign language is being learned.All this is bound to have some relevance for our language pedagogy.But now let me turn to the other major change that I spoke about at the beginning.I have discussed the technical aspects；now let me look at the socio-political，where we have to take special account of the case where the language being taught is English.The technological changes are going on in many languages；in the second aspect，English is（so far）unique.

2.The Social Aspect

The changes I have been talking about so far have probably been taking place，in some form or other，wherever the technology has be-come available.Of course the practice will differ，in the actual forms it takes，in different language communities.I do not know how the young people are emailing each other and sending text messages in Chinese；but I am sure they are，and if I stayed longer in any major Chinese city I would no doubt be able to observe them.

But the next topic is different. The changing patterns I want to talk about now are rather specific to English.I have called this aspect the“social”；this is short for social，political，economic—all the factors that together define the particular status of a language，itsfunctioning and its position in the world.

There are a number of languages in the modern world which are often referred to as“international”，in that they serve beyond their re-gional and national borders as some kind of lingua franca for people of various mother tongues.This is not a new phenomenon；it happened in medieval and even in classical times，with Greek in the eastern Mediterranean，Latin over much of the rest of Europe，Sanskrit in In-dia and beyond，Arabic in southwest Asia and north Africa—and of course ancient Chinese，which spread at one time over Vietnam，Ko-rea and Japan.In the modern world this process was a result of the expansion of Europe，as European colonizers took their languages with them：Portuguese，Spanish，Dutch，French，English and Russian all spread across different regions in this way.Today we can think of an international language as one that operates in more than one nation state；this would include all the above，and it would include also Ger-man，Arabic，Malay，Hindi-Urdu，Swahili and perhaps Tamil；and again Chinese，not classical Chinese now but Mandarin，because，outside China，Mandarin is an official language of Singapore.

I shall have more to say about the status of Chinese tomorrow，in relation to the particular situation we are concerned with，where Chi-nese is the L1 and English is functioning as L2.But for now let me concentrate just on the status of English.English is an international language，and it shares that status with about a dozen other languages（depending on the exact criteria we use to define“international”here）.But，among this group of languages，English stands out，be-cause it is also functioning with another status in which it is at present unique.English is not only international，it is also“global”；and at this moment in history it is the only language we could so define.

I find it useful to make this distinction，between international and global，even though there is no clearcut line dividing the two，because it affects the way we conceptualize the task of teaching English as a foreign language. I also find it helpful to locate this in its historical perspective，so that we can track the ways in which a language comes to expand—to expand its functional scope and，as part of the same process，to expand its meaning potential.English is the topic of our discussions here，so English will be the case to be discussed；but it should be said at the start that there is nothing special about English，nothing intrinsic to the language that enabled it to expand the way it did.Every human language has the same potential，and would be equally capable of developing in response to—in fact，as a necessary part of—the social-historical movements in which its speakers are in-volved，as active participants.

With this in mind，let me identify four“moments”，four stages in the history of a language which we find when we try to throw some light on the present status of English. Note that I am talking about the institutional history of the language，its relation to and interaction with its environment，not its systemic history，its internal grammar and phonology（although the two are obviously not insulated from each other）.I referred to these in another recent paper as“written lan-guage—standard language—international language—global lan-guage”，so I will use these same categories for the summary I am presenting here.

At some moment in history the need arises for what we may call“documentary”language—for keeping records of one kind and an-other.This typically comes in the cultural context of settlement，when people settle，stay in one place，and practise agriculture，whichneeds a calendar，and then，as products come to be regularly ex-changed，they organize trade，which needs accounts and bills of lad-ing.This is where writing evolves.Not everyone is concerned with writing，of course；there are priests，who keep the calendar and per-haps practise divination or astrology；and scribes，who produce inven-tories and perhaps enumerate the glorious deeds of the king；but writ-ing is restricted to certain sections of society，and in any case is labo-rious and costly of resources.These are special functions of language and they make special demands on the grammar，like making lists of objects or events.In time the practical resource of writing is extended to become an art form，to write lyric poetry，like Book of Songs（Shi Jing）or epics like Iliad of Homer，which had previously been a fea-ture of spoken language；and a vehicle for scholarship，the extension of human knowledge and technical control；and this in turn brings out new features in the grammar，in particular the syntactic strategies of simile and metaphor which make it possible to use analogies and to create abstract entities to think with.Thus writing opens up new di-mensions in the meaning potential of a language.

As societies evolve and political structures are put in place，cer-tain languages，already written down，take on further responsibilities in the formation and maintenance of the state.They become“stand-ardized”，as standard or national languages，playing an essential part in the creation of the nation state.Such a language usually emerges out of a collection of dialects，as Mandarin did in Chinese，and Stand-ard English in England.In origin，the“standard language”is a dia-lect like any other，perhaps one with a tradition of literature or of sa-cred or secular knowledge；but it gains further prestige when it comes to be used as the language of government and the law，and of com-merce beyond the boundaries of any one region.

The particular trajectory by which a national language emerges will depend，obviously，on the local conditions；let me make some quick observations about what happened in China and in England. In China，where the administration was for most of the time highly cen-tralized，Mandarin emerged by a gradual but steady process as the dominant spoken variety.Meanwhile the written language continued to use the earlier，classical forms of wording；but，because of the nature of the Chinese script，which did not preserve the earlier form of the sound system，when it was read aloud in official or other“standardi-zing”contexts it was likely to be read aloud in Mandarin.Mandarin itself came to be written down in certain situations about a thousand years ago，in transcripts of Buddhist sermons，and then in the famous Secret History of the Mongols（Yuanchao Mishi）which was published not as a literary text but as a training manual for interpreters.From then on，it came to be used as a language of the more popular kinds of literature，the drama and the novel，and by the end of the last imperi-al dynasty，and the“May-4th Movement”（Wu-si Yundong）of 1919，when the classical language was finally dethroned，Mandarin was the only serious candidate as a standard language for the new re-public.

English was first written down in the Old English（Anglo-Saxon）period，from about 500 A.D.，in certain contexts such as epic poetry（the text of Beowulf）and popular verses and tales；but the language of learning was Latin.Following the conquest of England by the Nor-man French，a thousand years ago，there were three languages of more or less equal prestige：French in government（the court），Latin in learning（the monasteries and schools）and，as trade grew wider，English in commerce.Gradually，English took over in the contexts of all three，and by the fourteenth century one particular dialect，that of the southeast midlands，with some admixture from Kentish，emerged as the standard variety，and this evolved into what we know today as Standard（British）English.

None of this involved any deliberate planning. By contrast，in more recently established states，particularly former colonies of the European powers，it was necessary to adopt a national language and to develop it rapidly to take on administrative and other functions.In these countries there has often been a measure of conscious planning and design，with a language planning agency set up to ensure that the language can meet these demands，and can serve both as a vehicle for and as a symbol of national independence，and national pride.There was not enough time to let these processes take place without interven-tion.

Just as when a language is first codified in writing，so also when such a written language becomes standardized，new demands are made on its resources for creating meaning. These are not simply formal processes；with each step—becoming a written language，and be-coming a standard language—the language has got bigger.It has grown in power：we say it has“developed”，by taking up new regis-ters and genres all of which have enlarged its total meaning potential.When we come to the third step，that of becoming an international language，we might assume that the language need not grow any more；it simply exports its existing meanings to some other communi-ty，through its political（and often military）dominance.It has al-ready developed the necessary range of administrative and other func-tions.

But this does not mean that the language remains unchanged. If we consider English，we can see that in the course of becoming an in-ternational language it has developed in two（and perhaps three）dif-ferent contexts.（1）In the first place，it has been transplanted by emigrants to new areas that were relatively sparsely populated—North America and Australasia；and here it has taken over as the first lan-guage of the main community.（2）In the second place，it has been introduced by the colonial authority as the language of administration，on regions which were already organized and highly populated—the Indian sub-continent，west and east Africa，parts of southeast Asia；here English has become the second language of a population with very different languages and cultures.Other areas，like South Africa and the Caribbean，are a mixture of these two scenarios.

The two categories I have identified are often referred to，follow-ing Kachru，as the“inner circle”and the“outer circle”of English-speaking communities；and in both circles the language differs from the English of its original home.Not that British（or rather English）English has stayed just the way it was；it has changed just as much as American or Australian English；but as they changed，they tended to move apart.We are aware of this as soon as we listen to their speak-ers：the pronunciation of English varies noticeably around the world.But that is variation on the plane of the expression，the way the lan-guage sounds.Is there also variation on the plane of the content？Are the meanings the same，in all these different varieties？No，they are not.In the outer circle，English has had to accommodate to the mean-ing styles of the indigenous languages，as becomes clear when one reads the post-colonial English writings of novelists and poets in India，Nigeria，Kenya or Singapore.Here，new meanings are created，meanings which are not simply taken over from Hindi or Yoruba or Swahili or southern Chinese but are some kind of a blend，a new fu-sion of the meaning potential of these languages with that of English.In the inner circle，where English has continued to evolve in its status as a first language，there is less semantic variation among the regions；but there still is some.Canadians and Australians，for example，do not mean in exactly the same way as Britishers，nor for that matter ex-actly as each other.

I mentioned that there was perhaps a third context of change. In Britain，and all the countries of the“inner circle”，over the last 50—60 years large numbers of immigrants have moved in，especially from south and southwest Asia，South America and the Caribbean，as well as a smaller but continuing inflow of people from China.These newcomers also influence the English of the communities they move into，although in somewhat more indirect ways，and this is also a by-product of the internationalization of the language.

So this third step，from national to international status，does in-crease the functional range of the language，quite considerably al-though in a different way from what had happened before.English be-comes adapted to different regions and different cultures，and this also develops and expands its potential for meaning.But there is one more step to come；and it is one which，up to now，has been taken only by English.Other languages have become internationalized；only English has become globalized.And whereas the impetus for the earlier move-ments came from the original homeland，England，the impetus for this last step has come from the United States.

If the world is a global village，perhaps it needs a global lan-guage.This is not a new idea；there was a“universal language”movement in western Europe already in the 17th century，promoted by the need for a universal language of science，for codifying and exchan-ging the new forms of knowledge that were emerging in physics，and in cosmology and other fields.Many proponents of such schemes，from that time on，have argued for an artificial language，and numer-ous artificial languages have been devised for the purpose；but they are not widely favoured—and there is a good reason for this.A lan-guage is an evolved system，with all the multidimensionality and elas-ticity which comes with evolution；designed systems are too rigid，and even today with all the advances in linguistics and in intelligent com-puting we could not design a system with the power and openended-ness（we call it the“meaning potential”）that characterizes a natural language.

So now that the pressure for a world-wide linguistic currency has become irresistible，it is a natural language，rather than an artificial language，that has come into use in this domain.More surprisingly，perhaps，it is English，a language that is linked both to the older，British imperialism and to the newer，U.S.imperialism；and this might be thought to make it unacceptable for general world-wide use.But most people obviously think in more pragmatic terms：if it works，let’s use it.As I said earlier，there is nothing intrinsic to English which makes it better or worse than any other language for various“global”purposes.If it has taken on this role，this is the effect of trends in recent world history.English is the language most widely used by the most powerful agents of today’s corporate capitalism：those who control the mass media，the production and marketing of consum-er goods，and（especially）the new information technology.This is the foundation of its status as a“global”language.But because Eng-lish was already prominent at the“international”level，as the lan-guage of the most widespread community of speakers（the“inner and outer circles”），these two factors together have enabled it to worm its way，in many parts of the world，into every aspect of people’s profes-sional and even personal lives.When my wife，whose mother tongue is Urdu，needed help with her computer，she was guided through a series of operations，over the telephone，by a consultant from southern India—in English.When my daughter-in-law，whose mother tongue is Spanish，went to study for a higher degree in Germany，she atten-ded all the courses the university prescribed—in English.And when last year I attended a conference in Japan，I heard the hotel staff talk-ing to the Chinese participants—in English.

Now，as we all know，English is not the most widely spoken lan-guage in the world—not，that is to say，the language that is most widely spoken as a mother tongue.That is Chinese；and more specif-ically Mandarin，with getting on for 900，000，000 native speakers.English comes equal second，along with Spanish，each of which has about 340，000，000.English overtakes Chinese only when we take ac-count of all those who use it，with some degree of facility，as a second or as a foreign language—because there are still relatively few non-native speakers of Chinese（a point I shall bring up again tomorrow）.

Many of those who use English as a foreign language are Chi-nese.Some of these，of course，live in English-speaking countries；but many of them are living here in China.Now，in China you do not need English in order to be fully educated：everything in technology，in the physical，biological and social sciences，and in humanities and the arts can be studied through the medium of Chinese.Simply in terms of the size of the population，the Hanzu，Chinese must be ac-knowledged as in some sense a world-wide language.So where does English come into the situation in China？Let me refer again to the dif-ferent statuses of English that I have just been talking about.

The traditional“English major”was concerned first and foremost with English as a written，national language：with the literary canon of Shakespeare and Wordsworth，Charles Dickens and Jane Austen；and although this was soon extended to include writers from the United States and，in time，other countries of the inner circle，the written model—and also the spoken model—was essentially that of the standard English of England and the British Isles.

More recently still，a flavour of“international English”has been added，with the study of post-colonial literatures from the countries of the outer circle.But meanwhile，as far as I can tell，the main focus of College English has shifted to courses of another kind，those of“pub-lic”or practical English；and it was here that the language was being located more in its“international”context.Practical English is taught as a means of access to other fields of study，and to various forms of professional activity such as interpreting and translating.Increasingly this has come to mean learning English for the purpose of study abroad，“English for academic purposes”，particularly in the United States because that is where most of the scholarships are available.

An essential requirement in many of these contexts is competence in listening and speaking. In the old style English major，a lot of at-tention was paid to phonetics：the standard was high，and Chinese students were known for their excellence in pronunciation.The num-bers were few，the students were highly selected，and they got the careful and intensive instruction which accurate speaking requires.But as English studies have expanded the standards have not beenmaintained，despite the fact that more and more competent speakers of English are needed to meet the new demands.For example，China is becoming a favourite destination for foreign tourists；yet Chinese tour guides who are employed to speak in English are often impossible to understand—on my previous visit I met with a guide whose English was so bad that the tourists didn’t realize she was talking to them in English；they thought she was speaking Chinese！And Chinese students，and others working in international enterprises，are finding it increasingly difficult to operate effectively in spoken English.There is a danger that there will develop a kind of Chinglish that will simply be passed on from one generation of learners to the next.

Two responses have been given，by Chinese learners. One is that there is no need for expertise in speaking，since global English is largely electronic and in writing；the other is that they don’t want to sound like an English person or an American anyway.To take the sec-ond point first：of course they don’t—why should they？They want to sound like Chinese.But that is not the issue.If they are going to in-teract with other people in English，their English must be intelligible；and not just to native speakers，the British，the Americans，the Aus-tralians and so on—we are used to listening to all varieties of Eng-lish；but to non-native users，Indians，Japanese，Arabs and others，who have a much harder task in deciphering English with a strong Chi-nese accent.

As to whether they will be able to operate in global English in the written mode alone：for certain purposes，such as the internet，yes，but electronic text can be spoken as well as written，and the two chan-nels often work together，and complement each other.And we should not forget that even today most of the exchange of meaning among hu-man beings continues to be face to face.There are many interactive situations in which your participation will be very restricted if you are unable to function in the spoken mode.

One thing that might be useful—unless it has already been done—is a collaborative research project designed to find out exactly what demands a typical College graduate faces when operating through the medium of English. There is an old strategy used in sociolinguistic in-vestigations，the“language diary”，in which subjects keep a detailed account，over days and nights for a fortnight，say，or even a month，of all their uses of language.We have used a framework based on the contextual model of“field”，“tenor”and“mode”.You record the nature of the activity in which you are taking part—the field；the rel-evant facts about those with whom you are interacting—the tenor；and the way the language is being used，spoken or written，technical or general，monologic or dialogic and so on—the mode.Putting a reasonably large number of such reports together，you obtain a profile of Chinese speakers who know English and use the language for some part of their daily lives.This might be of interest to those who are re-sponsible for planning and providing materials for English teaching at College level in the complex circumstances of today.

At present there is a huge imbalance between the number of Chi-nese who know English and the number of English speakers，or even of foreigners in general，who know Chinese.Even after sixty years，I am still something of an exception！So when there are jobs requiring both languages—managers，accountants and others working in inter-national companies；consultants and advisers on economic policy and conditions of trade；airline staff，travel agents and so on—the appli-cants are almost certain to be Chinese.This will not always be thecase.Already there are many foreigners studying Chinese—I am not nearly so exceptional as I used to be；and as China moves towards be-ing the world’s number one economic power the Chinese language is bound to move along with it.Whether，or when，it will replace Eng-lish as the number one global language，we do not know，and that is something else I will take up in my talk tomorrow：there are a number of interesting factors which we can already recognize as being rele-vant.It is our job，as linguists，to think about language in the future：what demands people are going to make on their linguistic resources，and how their languages are going to evolve in the course of facing up to these demands.

3.Some Comparisons between English and Chinese

Yesterday I tried to outline some of the factors that seemed to me relevant to the teaching of English at College level to students in pres-ent-day China.I concentrated mainly on English，as the language be-ing taught，because I felt that there have been important changes，over the past few decades，in the practices and conditions of its use.These were partly technical，or perhaps technological，in the sense that advances in technology have been realized in the form of technical practices that affect the way people exchange meanings with each oth-er，so that we no longer have the neat complementarity between speaking and writing that we have been familiar with ever since the age of print.And for various reasons these changes in practice have probably gone further in English than in other languages，although I suspect that Chinese is not very far behind.Secondly，and this is where the“various reasons”are to be found，the changes have been institutional，having to do with the socio-political conditions of lan-guage use.Whereas，for some centuries past，certain languages have become prominent in that they have spread far beyond the boundaries of their own speech community，becoming not just national，as the standard language of some political entity such as a nation-state，but international，now for the first time we have one language standing out even further and becoming“global”，in the sense that in certain con-texts it will appear all over the globe；and for the present at least that language happens to be English.These two factors are bound to have some impact on the teaching of English at the College level，in terms both of the goals that are to be attained and the materials and methods that are devoted to attaining them.

But English is not the only language to have undergone major changes in status in the course of its recent history. Chinese has also seen significant transformation in both these respects：it is now widely circulated in electronic forms，although I have not been here for enough time in recent years to have a very clear picture of the situation in this regard；and its status on the international scene has changed completely since I first encountered it some sixty years ago.Since Chinese is the first language of your College students，who are the learners for whom you are responsible，and thus the consumers of your textbooks and teaching practices，the ways in which Chinese is used today and its status relative to English，are a significant factor in de-termining the approach that is taken to the teaching of English in Chi-na.Let me just remark，in this connection，that the situation in a Chinese tertiary educational institution，where almost 100% of your students will have Chinese as their first language，is different from the situation that typically obtains in a university in an English-speakingcountry，especially one in a big city，where a substantial minority of the students，say from 10% up to 25% or more，may have a language other than English as their family language and even as their own mother tongue.

So I think it is worthwhile to look at the question of College Eng-lish in China in the perspective of language as a whole，taking account of the nature of language，of similarities and differences between lan-guages，of how languages are used by speakers，and how they are in-vestigated by linguists，as well as of course how languages are learned and how they are taught.Now，I am a grammarian and a general lin-guist；I am not a specialist in language teaching，though I was a for-eign language teacher myself for the first part of my career；and I am not，and never have been，a psychologist or a student of learning the-ory.So I am going to start by saying something about language learn-ing，or rather about language learners，because I can make it clear that this is simply a kind of narrative of my own personal experience，as a language teacher，and also as a language learner；it is not based on any considered theory or on any wide reading in this area.I put this first because，although it is perhaps the least authoritative or in-formed of anything I have to say，as a personal experience it inevitably influences my perspective and my understanding of the language teaching situation.

When I started teaching a foreign language，to adult learners（I have only ever taught adults，including students at tertiary level），I assumed that all learners were alike in their ways of learning. I was not conscious of making this assumption；it was only when I came to reflect on my own practice that I found that I had been making it；and by this time，I had realized it wasn’t true.Learners don’t all learn a foreign language in the identical manner.

So next I came to think that they must all be different：if you had a class of 25 students，they would have 25 different styles of learning. In other words，language learning must be an individual matter in which each learner has his or her own distinctive approach.What a problem this presents to the teacher，and to the course designer and the writer of textbooks！Clearly they could not be expected to accom-modate such an amorphous variety of learning styles.

But with a little bit more experience I realized that this view was equally mistaken. There are not indefinitely many different ways of learning a foreign language.Rather，there are a small number of ge-neric types—or，better，there are a small number of variables，and each individual’s learning strategy is the product of where he or she is located along each one of these variables.The learner can be de-scribed by a clustering of values along a small set of different vectors.It seemed possible—I did not come to this all at once，of course，but only after reflecting and trying things out—to identify four variables as being significant among the students I was familiar with：each might tend towards type（a）or type（b）in respect of any or all of them.

These were not simply two-valued variables—it was not that the learner had to be located at one end or the other.A learner might lie anywhere along any one of these lines.I formed the impression，but very tentatively，since I was not in the business for long enough to ob-serve in depth，that typically a learner would lie at an extreme in re-spect of one or two of the variables but would be somewhere around the middle in respect of the others.But this might have been partly the result of reflecting on my own experience as a language learner.I myself am at the extreme in respect of No.1：I learn languages almost entirely through the ear，and am incapable of learning a language as a written object.（Whereas I once had a colleague who could read flu-ently in 26 different foreign languages but could not speak or listen to any of them—he was at the opposite extreme along this dimension.）I am also by tendency a planner rather than an actor.But in the other two vectors I am not strongly inclined towards either end.I like to move both from the top down and from the bottom up；and I am equal-ly capable of attending to the sounds of a language or to its meanings（so，as a linguist，I was equally happy studying phonology or studying grammar）.

I am sure that a great deal more is known about these things to-day；this is all from a long time ago，and I am not going to pursue these ideas any further here.As a teacher，at the time，I tried to make provision for these different learning preferences，although I did not have the resources，or the time，or the knowledge to implement any coherent or well-organized scheme.But I thought it worthwhile to refer to my observations about learner variation，because I think such factors do play a part in the success or failure of some of the foreign language teaching projects that are current today.

I want to keep in focus of attention both English and Chinese：English，obviously，because in the present instance it is the language being taught，but Chinese because it is the learners’mother tongue，and so plays a critical role in the learners’learning experience. I would also like to say a little about the teaching of Chinese，because that forms part of the total environment of modern foreign language teaching.Before that，however，let me take up one or two points in a comparison of Chinese and English，following up the discussion I en-ded with yesterday.

Institutionally，with regard to their presence on the contemporary scene，Chinese and English are obviously very different. As I re-marked，Chinese is by a huge margin the most widely spoken language in the world：almost three times as many native speakers，even if we consider only Mandarin，as the next most populous languages English and Spanish.But Chinese still has relatively few non-native speakers；whereas English has a very large number，however you count them：they outnumber the native speakers by a considerable margin.And this could have an interesting effect，in bringing about changes in the language.

In principle，the predominance of non-native speakers might be expected to simplify certain features in the grammar and/or the pho-nology，by a process known as“creolizing”that happens when lan-guages mix.Throughout its history，English has been mixing with oth-er languages，but never under circumstances at all like those of today.One or two distinctions in the grammar have in fact been lost during my lifetime，particularly in tense and in modality；but it is hard to say whether this is the effect of the preponderance of non-native speakers or not：it might have happened merely as an internal change.In anycase，unlike what happened in earlier instances of the emergence of creoles，where typically there was only one group of non-native speak-ers involved（that is，people from just one language area），in the present situation the non-native users of English come from all over the world；so their own native languages would tend to pull in different di-rections.The changes now taking place in English may result rather from the new contexts and conditions of use，the technological factors that I referred to in yesterday’s talk，and hence to be brought about just as much by the native speakers as by the rest of the world.It is too early to say whether the processes of globalization are bringing about a state of permanent revolution in the language！

It is not unusual for languages to mix in the course of their histo-ry.An example in the East Asian region is Japanese，which（as seems most likely）was in origin an Austronesian language that be-came mixed with Altaic；it was then massively influenced by Chinese，borrowing a large slice of vocabulary at the time that it borrowed the writing system；and since the mid 20th century it has borrowed exten-sively from English.Japanese，like English，is a borrowing kind of language；it freely takes in words from other languages，taking over the sounds and adapting them to its own phonology.Chinese，by con-trast，is relatively unmixed：it has not been much impacted on by oth-er languages；and it does not borrow—it calques—if a foreign word is being imported，it is analysed into its component parts and these are translated into Chinese.（Although this process is not referred to as“borrowing”，the two are in fact related：“calquing”is borrowing on the content plane only，not on the plane of the expression.Chinese borrows the meanings，but not the sounds.）This might seem to give the Japanese an advantage when learning English，since many of the words are familiar to them already；but it is not，in fact，an advantage when they are speaking，or even when they are listening to English，because they tend to pronounce the words as they have been adapted to the Japanese sound system，so that they are often quite unrecogniz-able to anybody else.For the Chinese learner，although all the words are initially unfamiliar，there is no false self-assurance about how to pronounce them.

Chinese and English have had very different histories. Chinese is a large continental language，relatively unaffected by input from other sources；English is a small island language，frequently invaded and then reshaped by its contact with many different tongues.Chinese has expanded its borders very considerably in historical times，but it has expanded in numbers mainly through the growth of its own population；English has expanded by being exported to other populations.But there are Chinese-speaking communities all over the world，as a result of constant emigration；in that sense Chinese is already a world lan-guage，even if it is not a national or official language in many nation-states.What is the prospect for it to rival or replace English as a glob-al language，as far as we might try to look ahead？

Mandarin phonology is quite difficult for most foreigners to mas-ter.But then the phonology of English is not one of the simplest ei-ther；both have to be taught，preferably by a teacher with training in phonetics and in how to teach the sounds of a foreign language.But both can be learned.There is no evidence that any language has failed to develop in status because it is hard to pronounce.

The writing system，however，is a different story. Chinese is written with a charactery；it always has been，and despite some pres-sure in the early days of the People’s Republic to replace the charac-ters with an alphabetic script，the language continues to be written this way and is unlikely to change.There is in fact no reason why it should change：a charactery is well suited to the phonological and grammatical structure of Chinese.

Not every language is suited to a charactery. Of the three langua-ges around the region by which the Chinese characters were borrowed，the only one to which characters are well suited was Vietnamese，a language which，although not historically related to Chinese，is very similar in its typology.Ironically，the Vietnamese gave up the charac-ters，in response to pressure from the French colonial authorities，and adopted a very complex version of the Latin alphabet instead.The oth-er two，Japanese and Korean，are not well adapted to a character-based script：their words change too much，and there are too many sub-lexical particles；so each developed a syllabic system of its own，starting from the Chinese script but taking off in a different direction.After World War II，the American authorities exerted some pressure on the Japanese to change to the Latin alphabet；but the Japanese re-sisted，as they saw in this a threat to their cultural autonomy，and they continue to use their traditional way of writing，a script that is a mixture of Chinese characters（kanji）and their two syllabaries（hira-gana and katakana）.The South Koreans also retain characters along with their syllabary，but in North Korea Chinese characters have been discarded.

The problem with a charactery is that it requires a very large number of distinct symbols. Popular writers on language used to tell stories of the 50，000 or so characters in the Kangxi Zidian；perhaps half of these have been in use，at some time in the history of the lan-guage，as distinct morphemes，and one can be reasonably proficient in reading contemporary Chinese with about 10% of these，say around 2，500.At the time of the debates on script reform it was said that it took Chinese children two years longer to become literate，in their schooling，than children in Europe and elsewhere；but whether or not this estimate was valid at the time，it has now been shown conclusive-ly that it is perfectly possible for China to achieve a near-universal lit-eracy，as near as is achieved anywhere，through the medium of the charactery.Characters pose no problem—provided you have Chinese as your mother tongue.

What if you don’t？There is a lot of very confused discussion on this topic；so let me try to cut through the arguments and take up just two points which relate to Chinese as a possible future global lan-guage.The first concerns teaching Chinese to foreigners；the second concerns adapting Chinese to the global context；and both revolve around this question of the script.

There is a growing industry to TCFL，Teaching Chinese as a For-eign Language；and at present almost all foreign learners are expected to learn Chinese characters from the start.This is a guarantee of fail-ure，for all but a small minority of those who are trying to learn.Chi-nese children become literate because they are already fluent in the Chinese language，in speaking and listening，before they ever begin to read and write.And this is how the foreign learner needs to be taught.Foreign students of Chinese need to become fluent in the Chinese lan-guage before they are faced with the characters；otherwise，most of them will never learn—they will never master either the language or the script.

Of course，if they are adults，or adolescents，they will need to record the language in written form；for this they can use an alphabet-ic transcription.This can be Hanyu Pinyin，although for English-speaking students Gwoyeu Romatzyh（Luomaatzyh）is better，because it incorporates the tones into the spelling，and，partly for this reason，has more redundancy in it.The level of redundancy in Pinyin is ade-quate for an ancillary writing system，which is how it is used in Chi-na；but it is below the level that is comfortable for a script.So the students are provided with all the teaching materials，and substantial quantities of reading matter，transcribed into an alphabetic system such as GR（Gwoyeu Romatzyh），and this is what they use as the medium through which to learn the Chinese language.Then，when they have become reasonably fluent in speaking and listening，and in reading and writing in transcription，they start to work on the charac-ters；and then they are able to learn them very fast，just as the Chi-nese children do.

I know this，because that’s how I learnt Chinese；and that is how Chinese was generally taught at the time，in London and other cen-tres.On a course lasting three years，characters would be introduced about half way through.In this approach，not only did the students know the language better，at the end of their three-year course，than if they had had to struggle with the characters from the beginning；they also knew far more characters—to judge by what I have been a-ble to discover about the situation today.There is nothing mysterious about this；it illustrates a basic principle about foreign language teach-ing.In the terms used by I.A.Richards，over half a century ago，the language learner has to cope with the three eases，Sight，Sound and Sense；and you cannot do this all at the same time if all three are to-tally unfamiliar.When the foreigner learns Chinese，the sound and the sense are inevitably new to him；so you make the sight familiar， by using written symbols he already knows.

There were no failures on my course；people learned at different speeds，but they all mastered Chinese up to a level where they could use it effectively. Comparing this with the very high rates of failure in the teaching of Chinese today，I feel strongly about this，because I know people who have had experience of courses of the other kind，in which characters were introduced right at the start，and they tend to feel as Francois Gouin did about his German—that the enterprise had been largely a waste of time.I do not think Chinese will ever become a global language if it continues to be taught like this—you will have to go on teaching English for a long time to come！

If the aim is to enable foreigners to learn Chinese，it would be best of all if they didn’t need to learn the characters at all. This does not mean that the Chinese would have to abandon them；it would mean that both systems were in use.However effective the teaching of the language，most foreign adults are never going to find the time that is needed for studying Chinese characters，even though they might be keen to study and use the language.What is required is a certain amount of electronic wizardry，to produce software that will automati-cally convert any text from characters to letters，in whatever transcrip-tion is adopted，and from letters into characters.There are already va-rious systems whereby standard keyboard symbols—letters and/or numerals—are used to input Chinese characters；but these are for the use of people who already know and use characters，whereas what are needed are systems which can be used by those who don’t.Once such systems are available，written Chinese will become accessible to anyone willing to learn the language.

Detaching the language from the script in this way goes againstthe intuition of the majority of Chinese people（unless they are general linguists，or perhaps illiterate）；and this in turn is symbolic of a dee-per conviction，that there is an inseparable connection between the Chinese language and Chinese culture.Of course，the Chinese lan-guage evolved in the context of，and as the medium of，Chinese cul-ture，just as the English language evolved in the context of and as the medium of English culture.But in the process of expanding，becom-ing international and now global，English has evolved far outside its cultural borders，and become the vehicle of other，quite different cul-tures，both traditional cultures of Asia，Africa and the Pacific，and also the modern occupational and professional cultures of science，medicine，law，government and so on—and now the global culture of corporate capitalism and all the elaborated subcultures that go with it.Only a small fraction of those who study English in the world today have any conception of，or any interest in，English or North Ameri-can，or Australasian culture.Probably most have a somewhat mytho-logical view of“the west”as a style of living featured on United States television；but that is as likely to have been imbibed through their own languages as much as through English.

Chinese also has long since transcended its links with the tradi-tional culture of China；it has been a language of science and all the other international disciplines for at least the last hundred years.When people talk of the relation between language and culture，they usually seem to be thinking of culture in the traditional sense—the culture inherited from a distant past.But the cultural context of con-temporary discourse，whether in English or in Chinese，is usually that of the situations of modern life：the College，the factory，the office，the laboratory，or else the home with its refrigerator and television，or the street with its cars and trucks and all the man-made noises and lights that clutter up our daily lives.And this is global，whether it is activated in English or in Chinese.The main difference between a street in Shanghai and a street in Sydney is in fact the language itself，in its spoken and written manifestations，rather than any supposedly“cultural”factors that lie behind it.

It is above all the writing system，the charactery，that lies behind the Chinese feeling of being unique. Of course the Chinese language is unique；so is the English language unique.So is Mongolian，and Korean，and Vietnamese—every language is unique.But Chinese is no“more unique”than any other.Everyone likes to proclaim their own uniqueness：I have an article from a Japanese newspaper that be-gins with the words“Unlike westerners（including Koreans and Chi-nese），we Japanese…”You may be surprised to learn that China is to be included in the west！What makes Chinese seem more different is the script.But Vietnamese didn’t become any less distinctive when it changed from a charactery to an alphabet；and nor does Chinese if you choose to write it in Pinyin，or in GR.Chinese is a typical lan-guage of the eastern end of the Eurasian continent，just as English is a typical language of the western end.Both have their unique features；what is much more interesting is how much they are alike.

4.The Value of Knowing about Language

I have been speaking at some length about Chinese，but also about features of language in general，because in any complex opera-tion such as the design of a foreign language course it is essential，in my opinion，to have a clear picture of what a language is and how itworks：not just about this or that particular language，but about the nature and functioning of human language as such.This is not always easy here in China，because your universities hardly ever have depart-ments of linguistics.You have a department of Chinese，a department of English or maybe of“western”or of foreign languages；but no-one is responsible for investigating and teaching about language as a whole，as a phenomenon in its own right.Each language is treated in isolation，as if it was the only language in existence；there is“English linguistics”and“Chinese linguistics”，but no place for a general lin-guistic theory.This is in contrast，for example，with the situation in India：in India every major university has a linguistics programme，and the standard of research on language is very high.So also is the standard of the teaching of English.If I was founding a university，I would start with a department of linguistics，because language is at the centre of all human knowledge and human understanding.

A language is a resource for making meaning. By using lan-guage，we transform our collective experiences into meaning，and we enact our relationships with each other by exchanging meaning.Since both of these involve a speaker and a listener，meaning is inherently an interactive process.It is something that comes into being through interaction in dialogue，in the reciprocity of giving and receiving.But this can be misunderstood，and it has led to a rather impoverished view of language，dominant in sane western philosophy，according to which language is a means of communication，of sending a message from one individual to another；this has made it seem as if meanings somehow existed independently of language，in some mysterious region of their own，and that language was just a channel，a conduit of some kind，by which the meanings got transported across.But the meanings are not transported by language；they are created by language，and the speaker-listener circuit is where they come into being.

Children learn their first language as a way of making sense of the world and getting on with the other people around；for them this is all one integrated process of learning. They retain this strategy—both learning language and using language to learn—more or less up to the age of puberty，which is why“immersion”programmes in a for-eign language usually work well in primary schools.But for adoles-cents and adults，learning a foreign language is a very different experi-ence：they already have a well-developed，functionally rich resource for meaning—they have their first language，and maybe more than one；they find it frustrating to have to construct a new mechanism for expressing meanings that they feel they already have.This is particu-larly so with those who are still monolingual，because they have no personal experience of moving between different languages.

This is why，for adolescent and adult beginners，the role of the teacher is so important；and it shows why the teacher should，if possi-ble，be a speaker of their own language.A native speaker（that is，a teacher who is a native speaker of the language that is being taught）is very good for primary school children，because he can’t be caught out（children soon discover if the teacher gets something wrong，or is at all unsure of himself！），and he provides a valuable model for pronun-ciation，which the children are able to imitate.The native speaker is also a very good resource for advanced adolescents and adults，who can take advantage of his deeper awareness of the meaning potential of the language—he will have many different ways of introducing and explaining small and subtle variations.But the native speaker is likely to be less successful in teaching adult beginners，because he cannotshare the learning experience with them；they need a teacher who speaks their own language and has himself faced the problems of learning the foreign one.And unlike the other two contexts，where the teacher has to know the language supremely well，with adolescents and adults in the early stages this factor is much less important；they need a high level of expertise in how to teach a language，but can get away with less than perfect control over the language itself—the students often feel quite encouraged when they find that their teacher is not always completely self-assured.

A knowledge of how to teach is of course a must for all language teachers；it is not unknown for authorities to introduce a foreign lan-guage curriculum without providing the resources for training the teachers！But no less important than this—or perhaps one should say，an essential component of this training—is that they have an understanding of the nature of language.They need to be aware of how languages make meaning.I would say that one of the important func-tions of the textbook is to raise the language awareness of the teachers.No matter how much pre-service training they have had，it is only when they arrive at the coal face，when they face the actual problems that arise all the time in a foreign language class，that they can see the point of theorizing about language and can ask the questions to which they now want to find an answer.The in-service training they receive during their careers，or regular sessions set aside for ongoing profes-sional development，are of very great value in this regard；but the textbooks can be consciously designed so that，while organized and formulated for the learner，they at the same time guide the teacher to-wards further insights into the nature of what they are teaching.

I have stressed the importance of a general awareness about lan-guage，because that is something that is not always put on the agenda when decisions are being made about language education.Of course，the teachers are expected to“know”the lexicogrammar and the pho-nology of the language they are teaching；that is something that is nor-mally assumed.This implies that they have mastered the language，up to a certain level，and have a good idea of what is acceptable and what is not.But it does not necessarily mean that they can describe the va-rious features of the language，or explain why something that seems plausible may be unacceptable.In particular，it does not necessarily mean that they can explain how two related expressions both of which are acceptable may actually differ in meaning.And for this level of competence it does help to have some theoretical knowledge about the design and the workings of a language.

Let me give the example of a number of questions about English which a College English teacher might be called upon to answer：that might be brought up by a thoughtful student，or at least—since learners are seldom able to pinpoint exactly what is it that is puzzling them—that the teacher himself would like to be able to explain. These are not in any particular order，although some of them are put together because they are related.

1.Why do English finite clauses have to have a subject？

2.But then why does an imperative clause not need a subject？3.Why are particular question tags used（haven’t they，were you，doesn’t she，etc.），rather than just one all-purpose tag like eh（or isn’t it）？

4.Why does spoken English prefer phrasal verbs，whereas writ-ten English favours verbs that are single words？

throw away=discard

bring up=mention

put back=replace

take in=deceive

call off=cancel

turn down=reject

show up=expose

come back=return

—as well as hundreds of others.

5.Why does a pronoun object of a phrasal verb have to come be-

fore the adverb？

eat up your dinner！

eat it up！

eat your dinner up！（but not*eat up it！）（A question at a more advanced level would be：why is the last one in fact not quite impossible，but very rare；and when would it actually occur？）

6.Why do some verbs take simple present tense，while others take present in present（“present continuous”）？

7.What is the difference in meaning between such pairs as these？

the days are longer in summer

in summer the days are longer

8.What is the meaning of“the”，and why is English so fond of it？

9.When，and why，do speakers of English use the passive？

10.Why do“WH-”items come at the beginning of the clause？

11.Why no-s with：s/he can，may，might，will？

12.Why is interrogative expressed by inverting the Subject and finite verb：you can…/can you…？

13.Why is there a“to”in one of the two sentences but not in the other？

I gave John the book

I gave the book to John？

—and what is the difference in meaning？

You may say：well，these things just have to be learned；and that is true：of course they have. But adult learners like to have ex-planations—at least some of them do：the ones that favour the“top down”approach in my chart of the various learning styles.Native speakers will often try and guess the underlying principle，but unless they have training in linguistics they will very often be wrong，and this can be misleading for a learner.There are various types of explana-tion：one way of explaining features in a language is historical，explai-ning the present by saying how it has derived from the past.But for a foreign language learner this is not usually very helpful.The signifi-cant type of explanation is a functional one：where does this fit in，and make sense，in the overall structure of the language？

I find it useful to adopt what I call a“trinocular”perspective：to look at the question from above，from round about，and from below. If the question is one concerning grammar，“from above”means from the point of view of what it means—the standpoint of semantics；“from below”means from the point of view of how it is expressed—the standpoint of morphology and/or phonology.Most important，perhaps，is“from round about”：from the point of view of its place in the lexicogrammar，the environment of other features to which it is systematically related.

To take one of the examples I gave above：if a Chinese learner asks the very reasonable question why English speakers sprinkle all their sentences with the，we might say something like the following：（1）From above：English likes to attach a“deictic”element be-fore objects and events，that locates them in advance，for the listener，in the context of the“here-＆-now”，the present situation.With ob-jects，when you add a“the”in front，you are simply saying to the lis-tener“you know which one I mean”—the identification is some-where in the text or in the situation.（2）From below：such deictic elements carry no unmarked stress and often have a reduced vowel，signalling that they are ancillary to the name of the object itself；and they come right at the beginning of the nominal group.（3）From round about：alternatively，instead of the thing the speaker can say where the object is（this thing，that thing），or who it belongs to（my thing，your thing etc.）；or else leave it entirely indef-inite（a thing，something）or cancel it out altogether（nothing）.There is an analogous deictic element with events，which locates them in time relative to the present：does say（says），did say（said），will say）.Any part of the explanation could be expanded further；for ex-ample，we might explore exactly how the listener will know which thing is being referred to—this is the sort of thing a grammarian real-ly enjoys！But for the students，it is better to get to work on some texts，to comment on and exchange ideas about the reasons for the oc-currences of the，and—an important strategy—to examine what difference it would make to the meaning if you put something else in its place，or if you just left it out.

If the students are interested（and if the teacher is interested，the students are likely to be too），one can discuss with them the ques-tion of what equivalent there is，if any，in Chinese；and see if any of them happen to know Cantonese，because the answer there will be dif-ferent from what it is in Mandarin.

This is one advantage of having monolingual classes（I mean，where the students all share the same mother tongue）：the teacher can compare the two languages，at different levels of generality and detail. Large-scale comparisons relate to a general typology of languages，and can help to dispel some of the myths that get in the way of informed learning：for example，the myth the English is defective in its interper-sonal meanings—the expression of emotional states and so on.This is a con，non myth about second languages，partly because many second language learners never needed to exploit the interpersonal resources，apart from basic systems of speech function，like statement and ques-tion；but it arises expecially with regard to English because in English so much of this domain of meaning is expressed by intonation and so does not get represented in the writing—there is nothing like the final particles that you find in Chinese，especially in a dialect like Canton-ese.At the other end of the scale，you can sometimes make very spe-cific comparisons by constructing unacceptable forms in the mother tongue and using them to draw attention to features that are found in the other language.I have used“Chinese”examples such as these：

我的花水好了没有have my flowers been watered？

哎呀！把我的喝碰倒了　oh！I’ve spilt my drink

这么多人恐怕房不下　I’m afraid we can’t house so many people

他不是小孩子了，你不必　he’s no longer a child；there’s no

母亲他　need to mother him

今年这几棵树都不会水果　none of these trees will fruit this year

他给警察尾巴了两个星期　he was tailed by the police for a fortnight

牛应该每天奶两遍　the cows should be milked twice a day

to highlight the ways in which English tends to transcategorize ordinarywords（to shift such words across syntactic classes）. They also help to dispel the notion that Chinese has no rules！

5.The Issue of Variation

A language is an inherently variable system；there will always be the potential for variation，at any moment in its community’s history. This variation is of two kinds：variation in dialect，and variation in register.Dialect variation is typically regional，or regional and social：you speak the dialect of where you come from，which means which re-gion of the country and also，though more in some communities than others，which social class.Register variation is functional：you use a register not because of where you come from but because of what you are using the language for at the time.In language education we bring together register and genre，using genre as the term for regular cluster-ings of register features that are recognized and given value in the cul-ture，for example，narrative genre，expository genre，procedural genre and so on，corresponding to the established use of the term“genre”in literary studies.A text in some register of classroom sci-ence may include components of procedural，expository and explana-tory genres.The pattern of variation in English has changed signifi-cantly as it has acquired the different statuses I talked of yesterday.

In its original homeland，English had a great range of dialect var-iation；but with standardization this has largely disappeared.People no longer live in the same valley all their lives，nor do their families for countless generations.When I was growing up，the cities and ur-ban areas had already given up their dialects，replacing them with ac-cents…that is，standard English spoken with the phonetics of the old regional dialect，and perhaps a few features of its phonology and lexi-cogrammar；but the dialects were still surviving in the countryside.I was a city boy；but I had relatives in the country，and I learnt to lis-ten to the dialects of my native county in the north；but when，in time of war，I went during school holidays to work on a farm in the south west，no more than 200 miles from where I grew up，it was some time before I could understand what the farm folk were saying.My father，who was a school teacher，spoke both northern standard and the origi-nal dialect of his home town，which I found very pleasing to listen to.…

But this is not serious business for us here. These dialects are mostly lost；and even if there were any still spoken among the old peo-ple they are hardly relevant to a student of College English in China.Now，on the other hand，there are the newer dialects，both those of the countries of the inner circle，Britain，the United States and so on，and those of the different regions of the outer circle；and while in both circles the more standard，“acrolectal”variants differ relatively little，there is considerable variation at the“basilectal”level，both across the regions（Singapore English or“Singlish”，say，compared with Ni-gerian）and also within one region，especially perhaps in the United States.These dialects may be of interest to students specializing in a particular area，like Australian studies，or the post-colonial literatures of the Commonwealth；but for most students they are not likely to be on the agenda.I might just note，however，that one big problem for foreigners learning Chinese is that of coping with the different accents in which putonghua is spoken around the country；they are taught good standard Beijing Mandarin，but they do need to be exposed to the variation.I do not know how much this kind of variation is a prob-lem for Chinese students learning to operate in English.

Register variation，however，is something a high level student of English cannot avoid. Every language will vary according to its func-tional contexts，and English is no exception.The learner has to be a-ble to understand a range of functional varieties，and，at least in some cases—translators，as well as others who are involved in the produc-tion of English，written or spoken—will have to control them，to be able to write in the kind of English that is appropriate to the type of situation.It is not easy to achieve the level of performance that such activities demand.

It is also not easy to describe different registers distinctively，be-cause they tend not to differ in absolute terms but rather in the relative frequency of some features rather than others.But in many cases the variation is predictable，because it relates to the field of the text.To check this out，a few years ago Matthiessen and I studied the language of weather forecasts and of cooking recipes.As we had expected，in the weather forecasts the future tense went from a typical frequency of only about five percent to over fifty percent of all the clauses；while in the recipes，the imperative mood likewise leapt from a norm of not more than one clause in ten to somewhere around two thirds.This kind of variation hardly needs pointing out.

Sometimes such variation is the feature of a broader genre：the high frequency of imperative clauses is a feature of procedural texts as a whole. Similarly descriptive texts，as used in tourist guidebooks，have a high proportion of clauses with locative Themes：that is，ex-pressions of place occurring in first position in the clause.In some ed-ucational contexts—science textbooks，for example—different reg-isters within the text will be clearly identifiable by regular distinctive clusterings of linguistic features.This has been studied extensively by Martin and his colleagues in Sydney；and also，in Chinese science textbooks，by Mark Shum（Shen Shaoji）at the University of Hong Kong.

There are other cases of register variation where the explanation is rather less obvious. Such variation often seems like a kind of meaning-less ritual；the learner is told“when you are writing in a formal con-text，you must always use a noun if there is one：write‘there was much confusion’rather than‘many people were confused’…”And it often is a matter of ritual：there are contexts where it is more or less required to adopt a certain form of wording as a symbol，certifying the text as a specimen of a type of discourse that has prestige and power within the society.But—in language as in other aspects of human behaviour—nothing is invented as ritual：all ritual practices are functional in origin，but then become ritualized as circumstances change and their original purpose is obscured.

This is one example. In the ideational domain（the ideational“metafunction”in systemic terms），which is that part of the lexico-grammar that construes our experience of the phenomenal world，there is a very pervasive alternation between two modes of construal，the clausal and the nominal；we can refer to them as clausal and nominal styles.Consider the way we talk about an event and the entities that are involved in it.We may say recently a hurricane devastated New Orleans，construing this as a clause with the process“devastate”ex-pressed as a verb；or we may say the recent devastation of New Orle-ans by a hurricane；here，“devastate”has been construed as a noun，as if it was a thing not an event，and the two entities“New Orleans”and“hurricane”have been attached to this thing indirectly as qualifi-ers，the whole lot making up one nominal group—which then comes to be part of another clause.If we now expand these two by adding a consequence，we get a pair of agnate wordings as follows：

When a hurricane recently devastated New Orleans，every Ameri-can was shocked.

The recent devastation of New Orleans by a hurricane shocked every American. We know that these belong to different registers：the first is informal and non-technical，the second official and technical；and we could alternate between these two styles with a high proportion of all such propositions in English.Chinese students will have little difficulty in recognizing the distinction between a clausal and a nomi-nal style，because virtually the same alternation also takes place in Chinese；and they will have little difficulty in assigning each to parti-cular types and contexts of discourse.But because this feature，the use of a nominalizing structure to talk about an event，has become rit-ualized as the marker of a weighty and often unnecessarily pompous text，they may not realize that it was（and still is，in appropriate con-texts）highly functional.In the discourse of the natural sciences，where it first became prominent some 400—500 years ago，it was mo-tivated by the need to construct a reasoned scientific argument and to organize the findings into a coherent and powerful theory.I shall not discuss this any further here；both I and others have written about it at some length，and both Hu Zhuanglin and Zhu Yongsheng have written about it in Chinese.Much more research is needed in this area，both in English and in Chinese，work that is grounded both in extensive da-ta and in what Hasan calls“exotropic”，or outward-facing，linguistic theory；and this leads me into my final observations for today.

6.Conclusion

Linguistics is the general science of language，in the way that bi-ology is the general science of life.Neither has clearly defined bound-aries；scientific inquiry is always likely to move outwards as it raises new questions and comes to grips with new problems.Language is at the centre of human meaning-making；but since humans make mean-ings in other ways，and creatures other than humans also make mean-ings，linguistics expands to become semiotics，the science of meaning in all its manifestations.But language will remain as the focus，be-cause it is the most comprehensive，and the most complex，of known semogenic systems.

Much of the work of any science consists in finding out facts. This seems obvious；but there are two things I would like to say about it.One is that，until quite recently，linguistics has been very short of facts.There was very little data in the form of natural speech（and ex-perimental data provides only limited insight into a process that is typi-cally below the level of conscious awareness）；linguists relied largely on written data，and on their own intuitions.This situation has now been transformed，as a result of the technological innovations I re-ferred to yesterday；we now have access to corpuses of indefinite size，including spoken as well as written discourse，and linguistics is now on a par with the other sciences in being able to deal with facts.The corpus is also an important resource for foreign language learners；it would be valuable to College-level students to have access to a corpus on line.

But a fact—and this is my second point—is not something thatis given to us by the data. Facts do not stand out，identify and define themselves；they have to be construed and interpreted by a theory.There is no such thing as a non-theoretical description of language；we cannot avoid adopting and adapting some theory，even if we are not aware that we are doing so.In my personal opinion，much of the lin-guistic theory of the last half century has been obsessed with formal structures in language，treating them as autonomous and immanent，rather than deriving from the functions that language serves in human life.This has kept linguistics detached from people’s uses of language and from the linguistic problems that arise—educational，medical，legal and so on—in the course of people’s everyday lives.

I have always tried to work with a functional orientation to lan-guage；not eschewing theory，because without theory there can be no consistent and effective practice，but treating a theory as a problem-solving enterprise and trying to develop a theoretical approach，and a theoretical model of language，which can be brought to bear on every-day activities and tasks.I call this an“applicable”linguistics：appli-cable rather than applicable，because the word“applicable”refers to one particular purpose，whereas“applicable”means having the gen-eral property that it can be put to use in different operational contexts.I have usually found myself more interested in other people’s questions about language than in the questions that are formulated and pursued by linguists themselves.So I have always greatly appreciated working with teachers—although here my experience has been mainly in mother tongue education，including children’s language，initial litera-cy（learning to read and write），and language across the curriculum—linguistic problems that arise in the learning of met-hematics，science and other subjects in the school curriculum.My colleagues such as Ruqaiya Hasan，Robin Fawcett，Jim Martin，Christian Matthiessen，as well as their own colleagues and former students in many countries around the world，have worked in a variety of different fields where language is a critical factor，clinical，compu-tational and forensic as well as educational；and most recently they have found themselves called upon to work in brain science，now that it is recognized that language plays a unique and fundamental role in the evolution and development of the human brain.In all these areas linguistics is a primary resource.

It has always been a particular pleasure and a privilege for me to be able to work together with Chinese colleagues，scholars such as Hu Zhuanglin，Hu Wenzhong，Fang Yan，Zhang Delu，Huang Guowen，and，of course，here in Fudan University，Zhu Yongsheng. They have now trained another generation of their own students who continue to apply their ideas and develop them in new directions.Now in the year of the Beijing Olympics，2008，the 35th annual International Systemic Functional Congress will be held at Tsinghua University in Beijing，convened by Fang Yan and Liu Shisheng.We are calling this event the Systemic Olympics.I hope many of your colleagues in the tertiary English profession will find the time and the opportunity to take part.

References

[1]Albrow，Kenneth. The English Writing System：Notes towards a Description SCPLET.Papers Series II，Vol.3.London：Longman（for the Schools Council）.1972.

[2]Braj，B. Kachru.“World Englishes and Applied Linguistics”.World Engli-shes.9（1），1990.

[3]Burns，Anne＆Coffin，Caroline（Eds.）Analysing English in a Global Con-text.London＆New York：Routledge，in assoc.with the Open University＆Macquarie University.2001.

[4]Caffarel，Alice；Martin，J. R.＆Matthiessen，Christian M.I.M.（Eds.）Language Typology：A Functional Perspective.Amsterdam＆Philadelphia：John Benjamins.

[5]Matthiessen，Christian M. I.M.Descriptive Motifs and Generalizations.In Caffarel，et al.（Eds.）2004.

[6]Halliday，M. A.K.“Applied Linguistics as an Evolving Theme”，Plenary lecture at AILA 2002 Singapore.2003.

[7]Halliday，M. A.K.＆Matthiessen，Christian M.I.M.Construing Experience Through Meaning：A Language-based Approach to Cognition.London：Con-tinuum.1999.

[8]Halliday，M. A.K.Collected Works.Jonathan Webster（Ed.），Vol.5：The Language of Science；Vol.8：Studies in Chinese Language.London：Contin-uum.2002-2005.

[9]Halliday，M. A.K.＆Martin，J.R.Writing Science：Literacy and Discursive Power.London：Falmer Press；Pittsburgh：Univ.of Pittsburgh Press.1993.

[10]Halliday，M. A.K.＆McDonald，Edward Metafunctional Profile of the Grammar of Chinese.In Caffarel，et al.（Eds.）

[11]Halliday，M. A.K.＆Greaves，William S.Intonation in the Grammar of English.London：Equinox.In press.

[12]Halliday，M. A.K.“Written Language，Standard Language，Global Lan-guage”，World Englishes.22（4），2003.

[13]Hasan，Ruqaiya.“Globalization，Literacy and Ideology”，World Englishes. 22（4），2003.

[14]Huang Guowen（Ed.）Yupian，Yuyan Gongneng，Yuyan Jiaoxue. Guang-zhou：Zhongshan Daxue Chubanshe.2002.

[15]Huang，Guowen＆Wang，Zongyan（Eds.）Discourse and Language Func-tions.Beiging：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.2000.

[16]Hu，Zhuanglin. Gongnengzhuyi Zonghengtan.Beijing：Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu Chubanshe.2002.

[17]Lloyd，G. E.R.The Ambitions of Curiosity：Understanding the World in Ancient Greece and China.Cambridge：Cambridge University Press.2002.

[18]Shen，Shaoji. Yuyan Gongneng yu Zhongwen Jiaoxue.Xianggang：Xiang-gang Daxue Chubanshe.2003.

[19]Thumboo，Edwin.（Ed.）The Three Circles of English：Language Special-ists Talk about the English Language.Singapore：UniPress.2001.

[20]Zhu，Yongsheng＆YAN，Shiqing.“Cihui Yinyu yu Yufa Yinyu”. In Zhu Yongsheng＆Yan，Shiqing.Xitong Gongneng Yuyanxue Duowei Sikao.Shanghai：Shanghai Waiyu Jiaoyu Chubanshe.2001.

2.大学英语教材的新视角和新体验

摘要：《大学英语教材的新视角和新体验》一文分为两大部分：一是对我国解放后不同时期有代表性和有较大影响力的大学英语教材进行了简要的分析，从中理出大学英语教材的发展走向；二是介绍作者任总主编和教材策划的《大学体验英语》的编写理念、遵循的编写原则和它所展现的新视角。通过这些，本文力求说明大学英语教材的编写理念与原则不是孤立随意发展的，而是与国家对外改革开放的需求和各个时期的教学大纲紧密相关的。大学英语教材的发展过程从一个重要侧面反映了我国大学英语教学改革的全貌。一代代新教材都不是对以往教材的否定，而是前期发展的继承和继续。教改和教材的改革的过程是渐进的、积累的、革新的。对各代教材采取激进的、否定的态度既不是可取的，当然也不是科学的。

关键词：

大学英语教材；编写思路；编写原则；新视角

引语

1）我国大学英语教材的编写理念与原则不是孤立的纯学术性的，而是与国家对外改革开放的需求和各个时期的教学大纲的要求紧密相关的。

2）大学英语教材的发展过程从一个重要侧面反映了我国大学英语教学改革的全貌。

3）一代代新教材都不是对以往教材的否定，而是前期发展的继承和继续。教学和教材的改革过程是渐进的、积累的、革新的。

4）解放后我国大学外语教材取得了辉煌的成就，为大学外语教学做出了重大的贡献。

一、大学英语教材回顾

1.文革前

以凌渭民教授为主编的《英语》：

这是20世纪60年代初期为适应我国高等学校开始恢复英语教学编写的第一套大学英语教材，它使大学英语教学开始了有序化发展。

2.文革后

1）以大连海运学院主编的《基础英语》为代表的低起点（或零起点）的教材。（1）编写环境和依据：适应恢复高考后我国大学英语教学的需要；依据教育部1978年于湖南长沙召开的大学英语教材会议关于编写零起点教材的决定编写。这套教材当时使用面极宽，对恢复我国高等教育的英语教学起到了铺路石的作用。（2）教材特点：以结构法为主线，以句型训练为主导，并针对理工科大学生阅读科技英语的需要进行编写。

2）以吴银庚教授为主编的高起点《英语》教程。（1）编写环境和依据：适应恢复高考后我国中学英语教学逐步提高的需要；为1985年《大学英语教学大纲》的制订提供了依据。（2）教材特点：实现了由以语法结构为主线的教学体系向既重视语法结构又重视交际能力的教学体系的转变。

3.1985年我国第一部《大学英语教学大纲》颁布后

以复旦大学董亚芬教授为主编的《大学英语》，以及上海交大的《大学核心英语》、清华大学的《新英语教程》、中英合编的《现代英语》，标志着我国大学英语教学走上了全面提高和蓬勃发展的时期。

1）编写环境和依据：国家对大学英语教学提出了更高的要求，颁布了《大学英语教学大纲》，引入了大学英语4/6级考试，成立了大学英语教学指导委员会（其前身为大学英语教材编审组）。在课委会统筹下根据教学大纲编写的这一代新教材形成了“一纲多本”的良好的教材局面。

2）教材特点：严格贯彻教学大纲的4级和6级要求，以培养阅读能力为主线，兼顾一定的听译和初步的说写训练。

4.1998年《大学英语教学大纲》修订后

1）《新编大学英语》《大学英语全新版》《21世纪大学英语》《新视野大学英语》：这些为体现新修订的大学英语教学大纲而编写的最新一代大学英语教材将我国大学英语教材在内容、要求、深度和难度等方面推上了一个新的高度。（1）编写环境和依据：（i）将原大学英语教学大纲的3项基本要求合并为2项，也即由“较强的阅读能力，一定的听译能力，初步的写说能力”过渡到“较强的阅读能力和一定的听、说、写、译能力”。（ii）英语教学的最终目的：“能用英语交流信息”，而不只是“以英语为工具，获取专业所需要的信息”。（2）教材特点：严格贯彻新修订的教学大纲，阅读和听力得到了进一步的加强。但除《新编大学英语》外，其他教材受新修订教学大纲要求的限制，依然把培养阅读能力作为第一要务。

2）《大学体验英语》。（1）编写环境和依据：面对改革开放新形势对大学英语加强应用能力培养的迫切要求，以及如何突破新修订的教学大纲以培养阅读能力为主的教学框架，着力培养学生实际使用所学英语进行涉外交际的能力，这就是《大学体验英语》所追求的目标。（2）教材特点：加强听说、加强表达、加强实用，让学生在实际参与、使用和体验英语过程来学习英语。

结语：

文革以后到今天，我国大学英语教材有如下几个特点：

1）与我国改革开放保持同步，紧跟教学大纲的变化与要求。

2）教育部大学英语教材编审组（后转为大学英语教学指导委员会）对我国大学英语教材编写与建设起了核心指导和推动作用。

3）从结构法逐步发展到交际法到功能法到任务法。

4）从培养获取信息的阅读能力逐步发展到培养既获取信息又交流信息的全面交际能力，特别是口头交际能力。

5）从侧重培养语言能力到更加注意培养语用能力，将更多的文化因素引入外语教学中。

6）从侧重打语言基础重视语言基本技能训练到努力培养实用交际能力。

二、大学英语教材的新视角

1.教育部高教司已经启动的“大学英语教学改革工程”

这项改革工程加强实用性英语教学，注重培养学生的综合运用英语的能力，特别是听说能力。

这一改革方向和思路体现了社会发展的需求，在科技进步、经济全球化的国际大环境下，是对实现我国大学英语教学跨越式发展的有力推动。

2.以阅读为主的教学思路需要进行调整，以满足我国加入WTO以后更加融入世界的新局面

1）培养较强的阅读能力这一教学目标是大学英语教学大纲于上世纪80年代提出的，符合我国当时的实际。但面对今天全面开放的中国，如果不花大力气加强听说写等方面表达能力的培养，显然会使大学英语教学落后于社会需求，处于孤芳自赏的尴尬局面。

2）新的一代大学英语教材必须突出表达能力的培养，以适应新大纲对“用英语交流信息”的要求。

3.“交际工具”和“文化载体”

1）外语教学处理好语言作为“交际工具”和“文化载体”的关系十分重要。

2）过分强调语言的自身体系和特性就会使外语教学拘泥于自身的封闭体系之中，成为“学究式”的英语。

3）今天的外语教学应更加重视外语的“工具性功能”，也即大学生实际使用外语作为语言工具去“交流信息”的“工具性”，也可以称做“实用性”，因此，外语教学还必须面对大学生的实际外语交际需求。

4）把外语作为外国文化载体的特性与其“实用工具性”紧密结合起来是大学英语教学当前需要认真研究解决的课题。

4.学英语为欣赏还是为交际

1）经典著作与当代题材：经典著作侧重欣赏；当代题材注重实用交际。

2）理解能力与表达能力：理解能力追求的目标是欣赏；表达能力追求的目标是交际。

3）语言材料的难度与长度：材料难、深、长，有利于培养语言欣赏能力；易、浅、短有利于培养交际能力。

三、《大学体验英语》

1.《大学体验英语》所侧重遵循的编写理念：学习、使用、体验

1）加强听说、表达和实用：这是大学外语教学发展到今天的必然。（1）忽视听说和表达能力的培养，则无法适应直接与外国人进行面对面的交流，而这却是今天中国大学外语教学需要加强的第一能力。（2）在中国环境下与外国人进行面对面的交流任务和环境不是无限制的，并且我们学生实际能达到的水平也很有限，因此突出交流表达能力培养的针对性和实用性是必由之路。（3）“实用”是指广义上的“针对性”，是指针对大学生这一群体的总体需求，是指他们在中国环境下会遇到的涉外交际需求。《大学体验英语》所提出的“加强实用”的原则就是指教学内容要反映大学生目前所面临的或近期会面临的实际涉外需求。（4）涉外交际需求有轻重缓急，虽然这不是绝对的，但却由社会需求所控制和调节。另外，涉外需求又有一定的共性，这就为教学将涉外实际需求与基础教学结合起来创造了前提。

2）“基础”和“实用”：打好语言基础和培养实际使用能力是相辅相成的。（1）没有语言基础的实际运用是难以长久的，培养出来的能力也是有局限性的，否定基础而片面强调实用是“短视”的，是违背语言教学的规律的。纯粹的“用”中学只能在具有语言自然“习得”的环境下才能实现，脱离了实际使用的外语教学又会是无生气的，教学的成果无法直接得到社会的承认，反而会备受指责。外语教学既不能“孤芳自赏”，又不是“一无是处”。从改革要“与时俱进”的思想出发，大学外语教学的出路必须是走出“自我陶醉”的怪圈而勇敢地面对社会需求，使基础英语教学尽量与实用英语需求有机地结合起来。（2）外语学习的有效途径应该是“既重视基础，又重视应用，边学边用”，而不是先打好扎实基础然后再去应用。随着我国外语使用环境的日益改善，“实用外语”不仅成为一种社交需要，更是学习外语的有效环境，我国外语教学多年来侧重打好语言基础而忽视实际应用能力培养的做法，是缺少语言环境所造成的后果，今后涉外交际语言环境会越来越有利于“边学边用”原则的贯彻实施。这也是加强实用英语能力培养的出发点和依据，及时地使用所学基础英语知识和技能于实际交际环境之中会更加激励学生学习英语基本技能的积极性。大学英语教学应力求把“基础”与“实用”结合起来。大学英语教师应注意学习英语的实际应用，才能把英语教学的主动权抓在自己手里。（3）“学懂”还是“学会”：从培养“读听”理解能力向“说写”表达能力转变。（i）“较强的阅读能力”和“一定的听说写能力”是大学英语教学大纲根据我国外语环境而规定的大多数大学生应该达到的水平，应该说这一目标是无可厚非的。要求大学英语“以听说为主”进行教学的想法是天真的，也是难以实现的，姑且不论其理论依据的合理性。（ii）多年来，大学英语教学受教学条件和外语环境的限制，故而更多地突出阅读能力的培养，而忽视了“说写”表达能力的训练，这也是不争的事实。（iii）造成所谓“哑巴”英语的根本原因不全在于微观教学，而更大程度上是在于宏观环境的不开放。一旦有了客观的英语口头交际的需求，没有注意培养听说能力的大学外语也培养出了国家所需要的“听说”尖子。这就是部分大学生能以优异成绩通过四六级口语考试的原因。但另一方面，我们必须清醒地看到加强“说与写”的表达能力的训练，特别是听说交际能力的训练已经成为大学英语教学今天面临的迫切任务之一。

2.《大学体验英语》的选材考虑

1）题材：贴近大学生的生活现实、需求、兴趣、追求和理想。（1）校园生活（第1册，相当于1级）。（2）走进社会（第2册，相当于2级）。（3）放眼世界（第3册，相当于3级）。（4）热点反思（第4册，相当于4级）。

2）体裁：丰富多彩、短小精悍、生动活泼、现代实用。（1）现代文体。（2）记叙、报道、议论、争辩、小说、散文等多种文体。（3）短小精悍、生动活泼；同一单元内的文体尽量有所区别。（4）给予网络文体以应有的地位。

3.《大学体验英语》的编排考虑

1）以题材为基础（Topic-based）。

2）以技能训练为核心（Skill training-centered）。

3）以跨文化交际为目标（Cross-cultural communication-orien-ted）。

4）以表达技能为主导（Productive skill-dominated）。

5）以因特网为支持（Internet-supported）。

4.《大学体验英语》所追求的角色体验和课堂互动学生：

◆积极参与者。

◆大胆的表演者。

◆有效的语言的使用者。

◆教师指导下的自主学习者。

教师：

◆教学的组织者和引导者。

◆知识传授的筛选者。

◆技能训练的导演。

◆舞台演员“提词”（prompter）。

总之，《大学体验英语》所追求的体验理念就是要教师和学生“动”起来，“做”起来，参与进来，自己去使用英语，自己去体验英语学习和交际的酸甜苦辣，真正成为学习过程的主人。

3.Approaches to Teaching Writing and College English Textbooks

Abstract：

This paper discusses the development of approaches to teaching second and foreign language writing and what this means for College English textbooks. It does this in both theoretical and practical terms.It commences with a discussion of controlled composition，or guided writing.It then continues with a discussion of rhetorical functions，the process approach，content-based，and genre-based approaches to teaching writing.Critical perspectives and an academic literacies per-spective on teaching writing will also be discussed.The underlying philosophies of each of these approaches as well as implications for the classroom will be discussed.A proposal for focusing on writing in Col-lege English textbooks which draws together of a number of these per-spectives will then be presented.

Key words：

teaching writing；College English textbook

Introduction

Earliest work in the teaching of writing was based on the notion of controlled，or guided，composition. This was the predominant ap-proach from the mid 1940s to the mid 1960s.In the mid 1960s，how-ever，teachers began to feel that controlled composition was not enough.This led to a focus on“rhetorical functions”which took tex-tual manipulation beyond the sentence level to the discourse level，and focused on teaching types of texts such as descriptions，narra-tives，definitions，exemplification，classification，comparison and contrast，cause and effect，and generalisations.The process approach of the 1970s that followed mirrored a similar development in the first language writing instruction.The process approach was not，however，universally accepted by language teachers with writers such as Reid（1984a，1984b）arguing that it did not address issues such as the re-quirements of particular writing tasks，the development of schemata for producing written discourse，and variation in individual writing situa-tions.Others，such as Horowitz（1986），questioned whether the process approach realistically prepared students for the demands of writing in particular settings.This led to a focus on examining what is expected of students in academic and professional settings and the kinds of genres they need to have control of to succeed in these set-tings.

The Genre Approach

The“genre approach”to teaching writing has taken place in dif-ferent ways in different parts of the world.It has also had different un-derlying goals as well as focused on different teaching situations.In Britain and the United States，for example，the second language teachers have been mostly concerned with teaching international students in English medium universities.In the United States，the no-tion of genre has also been influential in undergraduate composition studies classrooms.Genre-based classrooms in Australia，on the other hand，have had a rather different ideological focus.This，in part，draws from the underlying concern in Australian genre work with em-powering underprivileged members of the community and providing them with necessary resources for success.The genre approach in Australia also emerged as a response to the process approach’s over-emphasis on narrative texts in school education when，at later stages of learning，it is factual texts that are more highly valued，and required，to succeed in higher levels of study.

The genre approach to teaching writing focuses，as the terms sug-gests，on teaching particular genres that students need control of in or-der to succeed in particular settings.This might include a focus on language and discourse features of the texts，as well as the context in which the text is produced.

Approach，Design and Procedure

A helpful way of summarizing a genre-based approach is through Richards and Rodgers’notions of“approach”，“design”and“proce-dure”（Richards＆Rodgers，1986）.“Approach”refers to the theory of language and language learning which underlies the particular ap-proach or methodology.“Design”includes the objectives，organiza-tion，and content of the particular syllabus type，kinds of teaching and learning activities，teacher and learners’roles，and the role of instruc-tional materials.“Procedure”describes the actual classroom tech-niques and practices that might be employed within the particular method or approach.

The view of language that underlies a genre-based approach is that language is functional；that is，it is through language that we“get things done”and we achieve certain goals.Another important aspect of this view is the position that language occurs in particular cultural and social contexts and can only be understood in relation to these contexts.Speakers and writers，thus，use particular genres in order to fulfil certain social functions and to achieve certain goals within parti-cular social and cultural contexts.Language，then，in a genre per-spective，is both purposeful and inseparable from the social and cul-tural context in which it occurs.The goals and objectives of genre-based approach are to enable learners to use genres which are impor-tant for them to be able to participate in，and have access to.A genre-based syllabus will，then，be made up of a list of genres learn-ers need to acquire，including relevant discourse and language level features and contextual information in relation to them.The starting point of the syllabus，however，is the genre，or whole text，even though lower-level aspects of language are focused on as well in the course of the program.

A Process Approach to Genre-based TeachingDrawing together genre and process approaches，Flowerdew（1993）and Badger and White（2000）argue for a procedure which focuses on the process of learning about，and acquiring genres，rather than one which focuses solely on the end product，or specific variety of genre. Flowerdew（1993）and Johns（1997）argue that we cannot hope to predict the range of genres our students will，in time，need to be able to participate in.In their view，we need to help our learners see how they can go about discovering how genres differ from one an-other，how the same genre may vary，as well as what the particular expectations of the writing they are engaged in might actually be.

Audience and Second Language Writing

Johns（1993）discusses the importance of audience in the teach-ing of second language writing.She discusses the expert，“all-power-ful reader”of students’texts who can either accept or reject students’writing as coherent and consistent with the conventions of the target discourse community，or not（Johns，1990）.In her view knowledge of this audience’s attitudes，beliefs，and expectations is not only possi-ble but essential for students writing in a second language.

Critical Perspectives on Second Language Writing

One further and important development in the teaching of writing is what is sometimes called a“critical perspective”on second lan-guage writing.A critical perspective on teaching writing，among other things，explores issues such as ideology，and identity，and how these are reflected in texts.This perspective goes beyond description and explanation of texts to“deconstructing”and，at times，even“chal-lenging”texts.Classroom tasks aim to unpack ideologies，relation-ships，and identities as a way of helping students make choices in their writing that reflect who they are，and who they want to be.

An Academic Literacies Perspective on Second Lan-guage Writing

Linked，in some ways to a critical perspective on teaching writing is the academic literacies perspective on teaching writing. An academ-ic literacies perspective，in the plural sense，sees learning to write as learning to acquire a repertoire of linguistic practices which are based on complex sets of discourses，identities，and values（Lea，1994；Lea＆Street，1998，1999；Starfield，2004）.Here，students learn to switch practices between one setting and another，learning to under-stand，as they go，why they are doing this，and what each position implies.As Johns（1997）and Samraj（2004）have observed，there is，sadly，no such thing as the one-size-fits-all academic essay that can be written in all areas of study.As Zamel and Spack，further，have argued，“it is no longer possible to assume that there is one type of literacy in the academy”（1998：ix）and that there is one“cul-ture”in the university whose norms and practices simply have to be learnt in order for our students to have access to academic institutions.

Students as Researchers

Johns（1997）and Canagarajah（2002）recognize the difficulty this presents for our students by suggesting that we train our students to“act as researchers”（Johns，1997）as a way of helping them write texts that consider the institutional and audience expectations of their particular fields of study. Students can be trained，they argue，to un-pack the knowledge and skills that are necessary for membership of their particular academic community.We should give them，they ar-gue，the skills to ask questions of the texts they are required to pro-duce，of the context the texts are located in，and the people who will be reading（and evaluating）their texts.Students may then decide to produce a text that fits in with these expectations，or they may write a text which challenges，or indeed resists，what is expected of them.

An Ethnography of Writing

Grabe and Kaplan’s（1996）notion of an“ethnography of writ-ing”，based on the work of Dell Hymes，I have found，provides a useful way of drawing a number of these perspectives together.In the case of teaching academic writing，students can be asked to undertake an analysis of the social and cultural context in which the text they are writing occurs，and consider how the various components of the situa-tion in which they are writing impacts upon what they write and how they write it.They can do this by looking at the assessment criteria for the piece of writing they are asked to produce，looking at successful students’texts，by interviewing their professors and by talking to previ-ous students who have studied in their particular program.Their analysis might include a discussion of：

*The setting of the text—for example，is the text written in a high school，or a first year university course？Is it undergrad-uate or postgraduate？

*The purpose of the text—is the purpose to display knowledgeand understanding in a particular area，to demonstrate parti-cular skills，to convince the reader，to argue a case，and at more advanced levels，to critique，and break new ground？

*The content of the text—for example，what points of view and claims are acceptable in the students’area of study，and what points of view and claims are not，and why？What are they expected to say，and what are they not expected to say？

*The intended audience for the text，their role and purpose in reading the text—including how they will react to the text，and the criteria they will use for assessing the text.

*The relationship between the reader and writer of the text and how this impacts about what they say and how they say it.This is often one of the most difficult things for second lan-guage students in that they often have to write to tell someone something they already know（or know better than they do）.

*General expectations and conventions for the text，as well as particular expectations，conventions and requirements of the students’field of study—for example，how they are expected to reference in their area of study，how they use source texts，how they should quote，how they should paraphrase，the level of critical analysis required（or not required）of them，the level of originality expected of them，and the amount of nego-tiation that is possible（or not）in terms of assessment re-quirements（eg.Benesch，1999）.

*The background knowledge，values，and understandings it is assumed they will share with their readers，including what’s important to their readers and what’s not.

*The relationship the text has with other genres（such as lec-tures，set texts，journal articles，research reports etc.）and how they will be used to support an argument.

Implications for College English Textbooks

So what does this mean for College English Textbooks？The aim of College English is both to improve students’language proficiency as well as to prepare students for College English Tests. Both of these aims are important need to be considered in the teaching of College English and the writing of College English textbooks.

What，then，could an ethnography of writing add to College Eng-lish textbooks？That is，what are the key components of social and cultural setting of College English writing and what does this mean for the teaching and assessing of College English writing and，in turn，the writing of College English textbooks？For example：

*The setting of the texts—undergraduate and graduate Chi-nese

试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]

下载完整电子书