c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.

3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

World Englishes, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 269±279, 2002. 0883±2919

Chinese pragmatic norms and `China English'

ANDY KIRKPATRICK* and XU ZHICHANG**

ABSTRACT: In this paper we shall first consider a selection of discourse and rhetorical norms of Modern
Standard Chinese and then contrast them with a comparable selection of discourse and rhetorical norms of
an `inner circle' variety of English. As the transfer of discourse and rhetorical norms from a first to a
second language commonly occurs, we predict that a Chinese variety of English is characterised by a
number of discourse and rhetorical norms derived from Chinese. We argue that the presence of these L1
discourse and rhetorical norms should not be seen as `deviations' from Anglo norms, but that, as Chinese
speakers are more likely to use the language with other English speakers in the East Asian region rather
than with speakers of inner circle varieties of English, the Chinese variety of English is actually a more
culturally appropriate model of English than any superimposed `Anglo' norm. Our discussion also
considers the importance in China traditionally attached to `models' and `standards' and speculates on
the extent to which educators and officials in China are likely to accept a Chinese variety of English as a
model for the classroom.

INTRODUCTION
The concept of `China English' has been the subject of debate in Chinese journals for over
20 years and a useful overview is provided by Du and Jiang (2001). The concept was first
raised by Ge (Du and Jiang, 2001). Wang Rongpei (1991) has defined China English as `the
English used by the Chinese people in China, being based on standard English and having
Chinese characteristics' (Du and Jiang, 2001: 38). Li Wenzhong (1993) takes the definition
a little further in proposing that China English is based on a standard English, expresses
Chinese culture, has Chinese characteristics in lexis, sentence structure and discourse but
does not show any L1 interference. This, according to Li, is the crucial distinction between
China English and what he calls Chinese-style English or Chinese English and we return to
considering what Li means by L1 interference below.
It is instructive to compare these definitions of China English with Butler's (1997) five
criteria for the existence of a native variety of English. These five criteria are: (1) a standard
and recognisable pronunciation handed down from one generation to another; (2) words
and phrases that express key features of the physical and social environment and which are
regarded as peculiar to the variety; (3) a history in the sense that the variety is seen as part
of a speech community; (4) a literature written in that variety without apology; and (5) the
existence of reference works.
Bolton (2000) has evaluated the existence of a Hong Kong variety of English against
these criteria and concluded that it meets all but the final criterion of the existence of works
of reference. He also points out, however, that many established varieties of English would
fall down against Butler's fifth criterion, and on that basis argues for the existence of a
Hong Kong variety of English. Not all agree, however, that Hong Kong English represents

* School of Languages and Intercultural Education, Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987,
Perth, Western Australia 6845. E-mail: A. Kirkpatrick@curtin.edu.au
** Department of Astronautics and Aeronautics, Peking University, Beijing, The People's Republic of
China. E-mail: marcxu@95777.com

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

270 Andy Kirkpatrick and Xu Zhichang

a variety of English. For example, Li (2000) argues that Hong Kong English more rightly
represents an `interlanguage' rather than a new variety.
While agreeing with Butler's criteria, we point out that criteria 4 and 5 provide strong
evidence for an established variety. In the context of China, however, it is clear that we are
considering a developing variety. In this context, recalling Kachru's `phases' through which
non-native institutionalised varieties seem to pass is useful. It will be remembered that
Kachru (1992: 56) suggested that the first phase was `non-recognition' of the local variety.
This phase is exemplified by conscious identification with native speakers by local users of
English. The second phase sees the `development of varieties within a variety' when the
local model may be widely used but remains socially unacceptable. The third phase occurs
when the non-native variety is accepted as the norm and becomes socially acceptable. In
the context of China English it is our contention that while officials and many language
professionals and educators within China would like to see phase one maintained, China
English is slowly moving towards phase two. We tested this assumption by surveying a
group of Chinese university students and report on these findings later. In the next part of
the paper we present examples of how China English may adopt the pragmatic norms of
Chinese. In the final section of this paper, we argue that, although China has a long
traditional attachment to standards and, in the case of English, a long attachment to
exonormative models, China English will continue to develop. As standards themselves
inexorably change and as China moves towards international self-assurance, hundreds of
millions of China English speakers will inevitably create a Chinese variety of English that
will be socially accepted as the norm within China.

CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS IN CHINA ENGLISH

Li Wenzhong (1993) argues that the crucial distinction between China English and
Chinese English is that the former bears no trace of L1 interference, but that the latter
does. Clearly, Li is not saying that China English can bear no trace of Chinese. As Wang
(1991), Li himself (1993) and others (cf. Gu and Xiang, 1997) have argued, the presence of
Chinese characteristics is an essential component of China English and can be seen in the
lexis, sentence structure and discourse of China English. By L1 interference we suggest that
Li Wenzhong means interlanguage or learner English and that this is what he terms
`Chinese English', as opposed to a new variety of English or `China English'.
In passing, we note here that the varied pronunciation of Chinese dialects and the
resultant varied pronunciation of Putonghua, the Chinese lingua franca, strongly suggests
that the pronunciation of China English will also be varied. This would seem to run
counter to Butler's first criterion of a recognisable and standard pronunciation handed
down from one generation to another. In the complex linguistic context of China, however,
where even the standard Putonghua is spoken with a variety of different accents and
phonological features, a standard pronunciation of China English will be a long time in the
making. Nevertheless, certain phonological features are predictable and include a tendency
for syllable as opposed to stress timing.
Chinese characteristics of China English are currently obvious in certain words and
expressions. Cheng (1992) has made the important point that the nativisation of Chinese
occurs most obviously in the political register. Many examples of `English' words from a
variety of domains can be seen, from Chinese words or terms that have been transliterated
into English script, such as, putonghua, taichi, maotai, fengshui, falungong, to those that

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

Chinese pragmatic norms and `China English' 271

have been translated into English, such as `four modernisations', `one country two
systems', `running dogs', `the May 4th Movement' and `to get rich quick is glorious'.
When Chinese speakers of English refer to things Chinese, they naturally have to use
certain expressions that may not have existed in other varieties of English, such as `Four
Books', `Gang of Four', `the Cultural Revolution', `special economic zone', `open-door
policy' and `iron rice bowl'.
The following e-mail, which was received by one of the authors, provides examples of
both `China English' and `Chinese English', to borrow Li's (1993) terms. It is also
interesting to note that the writer chose to use English, even though both sender and
receiver are Chinese.

Xu Sir:
How are you ?
Anything new?
Very glad to write to you again.
I want to imagine your life there. It must be full of challenges and opportunities, isn't it?
Recently I have read a book named `My experences in west and east'. It was writed by Wang
Yaohui, a diplomat and a successful bussinessman.
The book descripted his experences from a Zhiqing in China to a respectable man in Canada. It
also told me the big differences between East and West, including the history, culture, government
style. I learned a lot from it, and knew the hardships living in a west country for a Chinese.
Wherever merges lots of cultures, It must be a developed country. For instances The U.S.A.
Canada and Austrilia. It excites me to go abroad to adapt myself from receiving different cultures.
But now I know that I have not enough capacity to birng about my dreams. I have a lot of things
to do in which there is something not important for me. I'd like to get some advice from. you..
You know, your ideas are very precious for me. How about the possibilities and What's the
correct way for high efficient.
That some ideas puzzled me these days.
Good luck with you and please convey my best wishes for your family.
Yours Johnny

Zhiqing in the sentence `The book descripted his experences from a Zhiqing in China to a
respectable man in Canada', is China English. It literally means `intellectual youth', who in
the time of the Chinese Cultural Revolution would have been sent from a city to a rural
area for educational reform by working with peasants. Clearly, many of the linguistic
features of this e-mail would be classified as errors and this is what we take Li Wengzhong
(1993) to mean by L1 interference. In the same sentence `descripted' may be an example of
Li's `Chinese English' while `experences' appears to be a simple spelling mistake.
Chinese characteristics are also likely to emerge in syntax. Deterding (2000) has
identified potential influences of Chinese on the written English of Singapore. Universal
grammar argues that variation between languages can be explained in terms of parameters
which may have different settings in different languages. One such parameter that has
different settings in English and Chinese is the Null Subject parameter in that English
demands a subject but Chinese may omit it. Deterding's examples are of finite clauses in
headlines in Singapore English that omit their subjects, as in Pushed URA Officer Down,
and Hurt Girlfriend With Lighted Butt. Even allowing for the special syntax of newspaper
headlines, these headlines would not be acceptable in British English. In the British
context, readers might well try to parse these into subject noun phrases to produce
headlines like Hurt Girlfriend With Lighted Butt Leapt Into Bath. In standard British

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

272 Andy Kirkpatrick and Xu Zhichang

English, then, headlines would typically follow the pattern [Subject] Pushed URA Officer
Down, [Subject] Hurt Girlfriend With Lighted Butt, and these change the original meaning
considerably. This use of subject-less sentences is very common in spoken Singapore
English, and we might also expect subject-less sentences to be a syntactic feature of China
English. In fact, the e-mail above contains a typical example of a subject-free sentence in
line 4 `Very glad to write to you again.' Such sentences are possible in other varieties of
English, but when used in British English at least, signal intimacy, and could not be used in
headlines or in the context of the e-mail.
While considering the influence of Chinese upon the sentence structure of China
English, we need to remember that the influence of Western languages upon the sentence
structure of Chinese has been significant. Here we focus on just one aspect, the influence of
a preferred main clause to subordinate clause order in complex sentences in English
(Prideaux, 1989) upon Chinese clause sequencing in complex sentences. While this is the
normal or unmarked sequence in English, English word order is flexible and allows a
subordinate clause to main clause sequence in complex sentences. In contrast, Chinese
word order was, traditionally, less flexible and, in conditional, concessive and cause-effect
sentences, the subordinate clause preceded the main clause (Wang, 1958). This, in turn,
meant that Chinese was a more paratactic language than English because explicit
connectors were not necessary to show the relationship between clauses. For example, a
sentence in Chinese like `It was raining, the match was postponed', must mean `Because it
was raining the match was postponed.'
The translation into Chinese of Western books around the time of the May 4th Move-
ment of 1919 led to language change, as sentences with the preferred English clause sequence
of main clause to subordinate were translated into Chinese. This necessitated the addition of
an explicit connector to show the relationship between the clauses. Thus, sentences
following the clause sequence of `the match was postponed because it was raining' started
appearing in Chinese, together with an explicit connector that shows the relationship
between the two clauses. The result has been the acceptance of this type of sentence and the
concomitant use of explicit connectors in Modern Standard Chinese (Xie, 1989). This
example thus illustrates that language change is a natural consequence of languages in
contact. However, the Chinese preference for a sequence that proceeds from subordinate to
main or from modifier to modified remains a fundamental principle of sequencing in
Modern Standard Chinese and, as we shall see, operates at the levels of extended spoken
discourse and text (Kirkpatrick, 1991, 1993). In this context, we suggest that China English
is likely to be characterised by the transfer of this `frame-main' sequence, and are able to
present examples of this operating at the level of text and discourse.
The example below demonstrates the use of yinwei (because) when it is used as a discourse
marker in Chinese. Kirkpatrick (1993) has analysed this use in data of extended spoken
discourse, so here we provide just two representative uses from the data. The first example
occurs 13 lines into the speaker's answer to a question. Here the speaker states:
Yinwei women meiyou miandui zhege wenti
Because we [Neg.] face this question
Wo he wo-de taitai dou you Beijing hukou
I and I-[Poss.] wife both have Beijing residence permit
Suoyi wo zhege wenti meiyou geng xiangxi-de kaocha
Therefore I this question [Neg.] more close-[Part.] study

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

Chinese pragmatic norms and `China English' 273

In close translation, this might then read `because we haven't faced this question, I and my
wife both have Beijing residence permits, therefore I haven't more thoroughly investigated
this problem' (Kirkpatrick, 1993: 432). To translate this example of Chinese clause
sequencing into English we would need to alter the sequence of the clauses to get
something along the lines of `I haven't investigated this problem more thoroughly because
my wife and I both have Beijing residence permits and haven't faced this question.'
In the second example, the speaker responds to another question by saying that there are
`two reasons, two points, the first point', continuing:
Yinwei- ba wo-ne zai zhongxue shidai-ba
because-[Part.] I-[Part.] at middle school time-[Part.]
`there are two reasons, two points, the first point, because that was the time I was at middle school
. . .' (Kirkpatrick, 1993: 436)

This again demonstrates normal `forward pointing' or cataphoric use of yinwei in

Chinese. Here yinwei is used to begin an utterance. The speaker provides seven lines of
reasons, all of which are `controlled' by this initial yinwei before concluding
Wo keneng ba yixie shiwu tebie yixie dongxi [. . .] kan-de dan-le yidian
I perhapsNOM some things special some things [. . .] see-[Resultative] trivial-[Part.] a little
`(so) I possibly trivialise these things a little'

When transferred to English, this use of yinwei as a forward pointing marker can cause
misunderstanding among native speakers of English. For example, Young (1982) showed
that when Chinese police in Hong Kong used `because' in this way when speaking in
English, they caused misunderstanding among native speakers who expect `because' to
signal backward links. In other words, when native speakers hear `because' they tend to
assume the result has already been mentioned. They are not expecting `because' to signal
forwards as in Chinese.
This `frame-main' principle also appears to operate at the level of written text.
Kirkpatrick (1991, 1995) has analysed a range of written Chinese texts and described a
preferred schema in certain Chinese texts. Here we present just one example. This is the
translation of a letter of request written to the China Service of Radio Australia
Respected Radio Australia producers.
I have been a loyal listener to Radio Australia's English teaching programmes and to `Songs You
Like' for several years. I consider both programmes to be extremely well produced.
Let me describe myself a little: I am a middle school student, I am eighteen and my home is inÐ, a
small border city. The cultural life really isn't too bad. Because I like studying English, I therefore
follow those programmes closely. But because the Central Broadcasting Station's English
programmes are rather abstruse, they are not really suitable for me and therefore I get all my
practice in listening comprehension and dialogue from Radio Australia's English programmes.
This practice has been of great benefit. As I progress, step by step through the course, I am keenly
aware that not having the teaching materials presents several difficulties. Because of this, I have
taken time to write this letter to you, in the hope that I can obtain a set of Radio Australia's
English programme's teaching materials. Please let me know the cost of the materials.
In addition, I hope to obtain a radio Australia calendar. Wishing Radio Australia's Mandarin
programmes even more interest.
Listener (date)

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

274 Andy Kirkpatrick and Xu Zhichang

The schema of this letter is as follows:

Salutation
Intro `Me and Radio Australia ` (RA); praise RA
Intro `Me'
Reasons RA good and RA good for me
Explain `because no teaching materials'
Request 1 (therefore) hope can obtain
one RA English programme materials
Offer Pay
Request 2 `in addition hope obtain RA calendar'
Sign off/date.

Kirkpatrick (1991) found that this was a very common schema in letters of this type. The
first half of the letter is taken up with what Scollon and Scollon (1991) have called
`facework'. Then the writer introduces the reasons for a particular request and then,
finally, makes the actual request. We could simplify the schema to:
Salutation
Facework
Reason/Justification
Request
Sign off

The e-mail we considered above also follows a similar schema. The request `I'd like to
get some advice from you' is preceded by facework and the reasons for the request. The e-
mail is thus an example of China English in that the discourse pattern it follows derives
from Chinese.
We propose, therefore, that the `frame-main' sequence is a fundamental principle of
information sequencing in Chinese and we would therefore expect it to be transferred from
Chinese into China English. We further suggest that its transfer into China English will be
appropriate when China English is used as a means of communication with fellow non-
native speakers in the Asian region. In support of this, Scollon and Scollon (1991) have
proposed that the conversational model of Call-Answer-Topic is preferred in Anglo
societies, but many speakers of Asian languages prefer the model of Call-Answer-Face-
work-Topic, where the topic is delayed until after facework. However, it may cause
misunderstanding when used with Anglo native speakers.
The transfer of discourse and rhetorical norms from an L1 to an L2 is well-established
(Gumperz, 1982; Odlin, 1989). In the context of the development of new varieties of
English, Li has argued that `there is no reason to see systematic deviations from Anglo-
American norms at the pragmatic and discourse level as errors' (1998: 39). Indeed, the
transfer of such norms is an essential criterion if the new variety of English is to achieve
acceptance as a marker of identity among its speakers. A good example of this is
Australian Aboriginal English where the transfer of pragmatic norms from Aboriginal
languages into Australian Aboriginal English is well-documented (Eades, 1991; Harkins,
2000). Aboriginal English thus becomes acceptable as a marker of Aboriginal identity for
use as a lingua franca across Aboriginal communities that are linguistically highly diverse.
By the same token, however, Aboriginal English does not operate very successfully as a
lingua franca between the Australian Aboriginal community and migrant Australia, as the
pragmatic norms of Aboriginal English are easily misinterpreted by speakers of standard

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

Chinese pragmatic norms and `China English' 275

Australian English and vice versa. The use of story telling as a key way of educating
children as opposed to the direct question and answer style common in most Australian
classrooms is just one example. Aboriginal children find the direct questioning style
threatening, and Australian teachers find story telling inappropriate as a method of
instruction (Malcolm and Rochecouste, 1998).
The function to which English is to be put is therefore crucial in determining which
variety is the most appropriate. In societies where a new variety serves as a lingua franca
for intraethnic communication as in India and Aboriginal Australia, the transfer of L1
pragmatic norms to the nativised variety make the nativised variety a culturally appro-
priate medium of communication. In circumstances where the variety serves as a lingua
franca between non-native speakers within a particular region, as English does within Asia
and ASEAN, for example (Krasnick, 1995), the transfer of the speakers' L1 pragmatic
norms and cultural conventions into the nativised variety can also make that variety the
appropriate medium, especially when speakers share certain cultural traits. The only
circumstance in which the nativised variety may not be the appropriate medium of
communication is when the primary function of English is as a means of communication
with native speakers of English from the inner circle. We consider this issue again later. We
now turn to the final part of our paper which deals with the educational and social
acceptability of a notion of `China English'.

CHINA ENGLISH ± AN ACCEPTABLE STANDARD?

In this section we consider the extent to which China English with Chinese character-
istics will be politically acceptable to Chinese officialdom and socially acceptable among
the Chinese themselves.
Models and standards have always been of particular importance in Chinese culture.
The Confucian philosopher Xunzi taught that `To be without a fixed standard in your
actions is called inconstancy' (Watson, 1967: 27). The frequently quoted excerpt from the
Analects below shows that standards depend upon the correct use of language:
If the names are not correct, language is without an object. When language is without an object,
no affair can be effected. When no affair can be effected, rites and music wither. When rites and
music wither, punishments and penalties miss their target. When punishments and penalties miss
their target, the people do not know where they stand. Therefore, whatever a gentleman conceives
of, he must be able to say; and whatever he says, he must be able to do. In the matter of language,
a gentleman leaves nothing to chance. (Leys, 1997: 60)

Confucianism is associated with conservatism and a reverence for things past. An esteem
for age over youth, for the past over the present and for established authority over
innovation means Confucianism provides one of the great historic answers to social
stability (Schurmann and Schell, 1967). But while cultural tradition is of the utmost
importance to Confucianism, Confucius never advised attempting to re-create or hang
onto the past at the expense of the present. `To be born into the modern era yet attempt to
return to ancient ways ± a person like this will suffer disaster in his own lifetime' (Ames,
1983: 4). While it was important to acquire the knowledge of previous generations, it was
crucial to apply that knowledge to present conditions.
So, while it is true to say that Chinese culture lays great importance on the role of
standards and models, it is not true to say that this necessarily implies stagnation. As Du

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

276 Andy Kirkpatrick and Xu Zhichang

and Jiang (2001) point out, Chinese has used different models and standards over time.
For example, models have been provided from the Four Books, the eight-legged essay, the
literary language (wenyan) and the vernacular language (baihua). These models are all very
different. The current adoption of Putonghua as the national standard language is another
example of how the standard can change. As Chen (1999) reminds us, in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries Putonghua meant `general language' and had the negative
association of substandard. The term Guoyu (national language) was used to refer to the
standard, as it still is in Taiwan. Putonghua only came into favour in Mainland China from
the time of the 1949 revolution. In 1956, Putonghua was defined as the `standard form of
modern Chinese with the Beijing phonological system as its norm of pronunciation, and
northern dialects as its base dialect, and looking to exemplary modern works in baihua for
its grammatical forms' (cited in Chen, 1999: 24). The comprehensive Ci Hai dictionary is
judgemental in its assessment of the variety:
Putonghua is not equal to Northern dialects or Beijing dialect because it has also absorbed
features from other dialects, Classical Chinese and other national languages. It is richer and more
complete than other dialects. (Xia, 1999: 362)

Language change and change of the standard occurs in China as elsewhere. The models
and standards, as well as their names, have changed over time and will continue to change.
China English will also be subject to this change. While officials may demand an
exonormative model such as British or American English, we suggest that the natural
processes of language change will inexorably lead to a shift away from an exornormative
model to a model based on China English. A parallel might be drawn between the shift that
took place at the beginning of the twentieth century away from the wenyan or literary
model used by the educated elite to the baihua or vernacular model used by the general
population. Similarly then we might see a shift away from an exornormative model of
English used exclusively by an educated elite to a vernacular model, China English, used by
the general population.
In order to ascertain a sample of Chinese university students' attitudes to standards and
varieties of both Chinese and English, a questionnaire was given to 171 students at a key
Chinese university in Beijing. All university students in China need to study English, as
they must pass band 4 of the College English exam before they can graduate. However, 88
of our student sample were actually English majors, made up of 58 women and 30 men.
The remaining 83 students were engineering majors, only 6 of whom were women. There
were thus a total of 64 women and 107 men. The ages of the students ranged between 19
and 21. The questionnaire listed 14 statements and students were asked to respond using a
five-point scale (`strongly agree', `agree', `neutral', `disagree', `strongly disagree'). We
received a 100 per cent return and all the students also answered all questions.
The first statement they were asked to respond to was `I am a native speaker of standard
Putonghua'. The majority felt themselves to be speakers of standard Putonghua, with 113
of the sample either strongly agreeing or agreeing. Only 13 students strongly disagreed
with the statement. Four of these were from Sichuan, 2 were from Shaanxi, 2 from Hunan
and one each from Hubei, Hebei, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Guangdong and Guangxi.
The students also supported the proposition that `Only people from certain areas can
speak standard Putonghua', with 106 agreeing and 49 disagreeing. The remainder were
`neutral'. Interestingly, the comparable statement `Only native speakers can speak
standard English' was strongly rejected. Sixty of the 88 English majors disagreed with

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

Chinese pragmatic norms and `China English' 277

this, and only 17 supported it. The engineers rejected the notion even more vigorously with
64 of the 83 disagreeing and only 9 supporting it. Overall then, this notion was
comprehensively rejected with 124 disagreeing, 26 agreeing and 21 neutral. Not surpris-
ingly, therefore, the students supported the notion that `There are many standard
Englishes', with 91 in favour and 41 against. However, this apparently liberal approach
did not extend to supporting the statement `When I speak English, I want people to know
I'm from China.' This notion was very strongly rejected with 104 disagreeing and only 30
agreeing. The women were particularly firm on this with 60 out of the 64 not wishing to
sound Chinese. As a group, the students also rejected the notion that `One day there will be
a variety of English called Chinese English', with 78 disagreeing and 48 agreeing. Among
the English majors, however, the men were actually in agreement with the notion of a
Chinese variety of English, albeit by the slenderest of margins, with 11 agreeing, 9
disagreeing and 10 neutral. In contrast, the women English majors strongly rejected the
notion with 30 disagreeing, 19 neutral and only 9 agreeing.
British English received short shrift. The English majors were particularly strong in their
opposition with only 5 in support of learning British English. Overall, only 25 people
supported the learning of British English. American English, however, fared much better
and the proposition that the students should be learning American English was supported
by the overall group, with 64 agreeing and 47 disagreeing. More than a third of the sample
(60), however, did not seem to be able to decide, giving the `neutral' answer. Finally, the
students showed more or less equal support for both statements 13 and 14, namely `Most
Chinese need English so that they can communicate with English native speakers' and
`Most Chinese need English so that they can communicate with other non-native speakers
of English', with 110 students supporting the first notion and 101 supporting the second.
In summary, therefore, the students felt that non-native speakers could speak standard
English, but that only people from certain areas of China could speak standard Putonghua.
This seems contradictory. They also felt that there were many standards of English and that
British English should not be the standard they should learn. In contrast, slightly more
respondents than not felt they should be learning American English. The majority felt it was
unlikely that there would be a Chinese variety of English and that they did not want to
sound Chinese when they spoke English. This was particularly true of the women students.
This is a tiny sample of Chinese university students and we would not claim any
generalisability for these findings. However, it seems evident that these students are open
to the idea of the existence of several varieties of English and feel standard English is not
the sole preserve of native speakers. At the same time, they seem to be unimpressed by the
notion of a Chinese variety of English, and very few appear happy to sound Chinese when
they speak English. Our results suggest that these students recognise the development of
varieties within a variety, but feel that the variety `China English' is not yet socially
acceptable. This meets the criteria for Kachru's (1992) second phase through which `non-
institutionalised' varieties pass. It will be interesting to repeat this study with a comparable
cohort of students in future, perhaps in five years' time.

CONCLUSION

The crucial question remains `Why are the Chinese learning English?' They are definitely
not learning it as a lingua franca for intraethnic communication, as is the case in India or
Nigeria. Is English primarily used to communicate with other non-native speakers in the

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

278 Andy Kirkpatrick and Xu Zhichang

region? This may well be the most important role of English in many countries in Asia. If
so, then we would argue that a local variety such as China English will serve this role better
than an exonormative native speaker variety. If, on the other hand, the primary goal is to
communicate with native speakers, then a variety based on `Anglo' norms might be more
appropriate. However, the number of non-native speakers of English in the world
currently exceeds the numbers of native speakers. As the numbers of non-native speakers
continue to grow at an extremely fast rate, it is unlikely, in our view, that communication
with native speakers will be the primary goal for learning English, except for a minority of
users. The great majority of the estimated 350 million Chinese who are currently learning
English are far more likely to use it with other non-native speakers. It will be recalled that
the students recognised the need to use English with other non-native speakers. We would
therefore suggest that the development of a China English `with Chinese characteristics'
may be an inevitable result. We have also suggested that a preference for `frame-main'
sequencing will be one characteristic of this variety. In closing, we predict that the
increasing numbers of non-native speakers in Asia and the world will mean that native
speakers will need to make the accommodation to nativised varieties of English. We
therefore propose the following simple code of conduct, that: `Speakers of Variety X must
accommodate to speakers of Variety Y when in the cultural domains of Variety Y speakers
and vice versa. When in ``neutral'' domains, speakers must accommodate to each other.'

REFERENCES
Ames, Roger, T. (1983) The Art of Rulership: A Study in Ancient Chinese Political Thought. Honolulu: Hawaii
University Press.
Bolton, Kingsley (2000) The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English. World
Englishes, 19(3), 256±86.
Butler, Susan (1997) Corpus of English in Southeast Asia: Implications for a regional dictionary. In English is
an Asian Language: The Philippine Context. Edited by M. L. S. Bautista, Manila: The Macquarie Library,
pp. 103±24.
Chen, Ping (1999) Modern Chinese: Its History and Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, Chin-Chuan (1992) Chinese varieties of English. In The Other Tongue. English Across Cultures. Edited by
Braj B. Kachru. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 162±77.
Deterding, David H. (2000) Potential influences of Chinese on the written English of Singapore. In English in
South East Asia: Proceedings of the 4th English in South East Asia Conference. Edited by Adam Brown.
Singapore: National Institute of Education, pp. 201±9.
Du, Ruiqing and Jiang, Yajun (2001) Jin ershi nian `Zhongguo Yingyu' yanjiu shuping [An overview of studies of
`China English' in the last two decades]. Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Foreign languages teaching and research],
33(1), 37±41.
Eades, Diana (1991) Communicative strategies in Aboriginal Australia. In Language in Australia. Edited by
Suzanne Romaine, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 84±93.
Gu, Guanjie and Xiang, Mingyou (1997) Wei zhongguo yingyu yibian [An argument for China English]. Waiyu
Yu Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign languages and foreign-language teaching], 5, 11±13.
Gumperz, John J. (ed.) (1982) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harkins, Jean (2000) Structure and meaning in Australian Aboriginal English. Asian Englishes, 3(2), 60±81.
Kachru, Braj B. (1992) The Other Tongue. English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (2nd
edition)
Kirkpatrick, Andy (1991) Information sequencing in Mandarin in letters of request. Anthropological Linguistics,
33(2), 1±20.
Kirkpatrick, Andy (1993) Information sequencing in modern standard Chinese in a genre of extended spoken
discourse. Text, 13(3), 422±52.
Kirkpatrick, Andy (1995) Chinese rhetoric: Methods of argument. Multilingua, 14(3), 271±95.
Krasnick, H. (1995) The role of linguaculture and intercultural communication in ASEAN in the year 2020:
prospects and predictions. In Language and Culture in Multilingual Societies. Edited by Makhan L. Tickoo.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, pp. 81±93.
Leys, Simon (1997) The Analects of Confucius. New York: W. W. Norton.

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002

c:/3weng/21-2/08-kirkpatrick.3d ± 22/7/2 ± 9:38 ± disk/mp

Chinese pragmatic norms and `China English' 279

Li, David C. S. (1998) Incorporating L1 pragmatic norms and cultural values in L2: developing English language
curricula for EIL in the Asia Pacific region. Asian Englishes, 1(1), 5±30.
Li, David C. S. (2000) Hong Kong English: New variety of English or interlanguage? English Australia Journal,
18(1), 50±9.
Li, Wenzhong (1993) Zhongguo yingyu yu zhongguo shi yingyu [China English and Chinese-style English]. Waiyu
Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Foreign languages and foreign-language teaching], 25(4), 18±24.
Malcolm, Ian and Rochecouste, Judith (1998) Australian Aboriginal Students in Higher Education. Perth, WA:
Centre for Applied Language Research: Edith Cowan University.
Odlin, Terence (1989) Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prideaux, Gary D. (1989) Text data as evidence for language processing principles: the grammar of ordered
events. Language Sciences, 11(1), 27±42.
Schurmann, Franz and Schell, Orville (1967) Imperial China. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Scollon, Ron and Scollon, Suzanne W. (1991) Topic confusion in Asian-English discourse. World Englishes, 10(2),
113±25.
Wang, Li (1958) Hanyu Shigao [History of the Chinese language]. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe.
Wang, Rongpei (1991) Zhongguo yingyu shi keguan cunzai [China English is real]. Jiefangjun Waiyu Xueyuan
Xuebao [Journal of the PLA Institute of Foreign Languages], 1.
Watson, Burton (1967) Basic writings of MoTzu, Hsun Tzu, and Han FeiTzu. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Xia, Zheng Nong (ed.) (1999) Ci Hai [`Ocean of words' dictionary]. Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe.
Xie, Yaoji (1989) Xiandai Hanyu Ouhua Yufa Gailun [Of Europeanized Chinese grammar]. Hong Kong:
Guangming Tushu Gongsi.
Young, Linda Wai-ling (1982) Inscrutability revisited. In Language and Social Identity. Edited by John
J. Gumperz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 72±84.

A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2002