Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:37:36.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Practical’ English and the crisis of English studies

Is the recent focus on ‘practical’ English undermining the academic quality of English studies at China's universities?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2012

Weiguo Qu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Perhaps there is no better illustration of Bourdieu's view that language can be converted to political or economic power (1991) than the success of the New Oriental School, which started as an English teaching organization, with the motto ‘Language is power’, mainly to prepare Chinese students for the TOFEL and the GRE tests. They have been so successful that they have now expanded into a full-scale educational institution, with English as its key component. Also, many people in China have prospered through English, including the world-famous teacher Li Yang, who achieved phenomenal success with his ‘Crazy English’ method, whose approach pushes a language-as-power message. In addition, the prosperity of the publishing houses selling English materials, the huge number of the teachers, and the enormous English-learning population in China all seem to contribute to the belief that English can enrich anyone who can find a way to capitalize on the language. However, despite the booming success of various English training agencies, it is ironic that English departments at Chinese universities now face an unprecedented crisis for survival. One major reason for this is that the recent craze for English in China has been accompanied by a parallel and steep decline of interest in the study of English as a ‘major’ at university level. In this article, I will address the problems that English departments in universities have in their response to the practical turn in English studies, with reference to the teaching of writing to English majors in particular.

Type
Original Article
Information
English Today , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 15 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, L. J. 1987. ‘A sense of audience or conventional wisdom?’ Journal of Advanced Composition, 7(1), 112–20.Google Scholar
Beaufort, A. 1998. ‘Transferring writing knowledge to the workplace, are we on track?’ In Garay, M. S. & Bernhardt, S. A. (eds), Expanding Literacies: English Teaching and the New Workplace. State University of New York Press, pp. 179–99.Google Scholar
Booth, W. 1956. ‘Imaginative literature is indispensable.’ College English 7, 35–8.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, J. C. 2001. ‘Writing without reading: the decline of literature in the composition classroom.’ Online at <http://www.nationalgreatbooks.com/pdf/ALSC%20report%20by%20John%20Briggs.pdf> (Accessed March 15, 2012).+(Accessed+March+15,+2012).>Google Scholar
Davis, C. & Maria, B. 2000. ‘What do people need to know about writing in order to write in their jobs?’ British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(4), 429–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Z. 2002. Research on Rhetoric and Composition: towards a Rhetorical Model. Changchun: Jilin People's Publishing House.Google Scholar
Faigley, L. & Miller, T. P. 1982. ‘What we learn from writing on the job.’ College English, 44(6), 557–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, K.A History of Foreign Language Teaching in China. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Press.Google Scholar
Gong, X. & Mao, H. 2004. ‘On the reform in English writing class for the English majors.’ Sino-US English Teaching, 1(5), 41–9.Google Scholar
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. 1996. Theory and Practice of Writing: an Applied Linguistic Perspective. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Langaker, M. G. 2005. ‘The economics of exposition: managerialism, current-traditional rhetoric, and Henry Noble Day.’ College English, 67(5), 508–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. 2003. ‘An inquiry into the writing ability of the English Majors.’ Jiangsu Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1, 49–53.Google Scholar
Lu, M. Z. & Horner, B. 2008. Writing Conventions. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Qu, W. 2009. ‘Identity politics and re-politicization of English learning.’ In Peikai, C. & Yan, J. X. (eds), Cultural Identity and Language Anxiety. Guangxi Normal University Press, pp. 145–78.Google Scholar
Raimes, A. 1991. ‘Out of the woods: emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.’ TESL Quarterly, 25(3), 407–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasuda, S. 2011. ‘Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: developing writers' genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence.’ Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Y. 2004. An Integrated English Course. Book 4. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Google Scholar