A phonological study on English loanwords in Mandarin Chinese

The general opinion about the way English borrowings enter Mandarin is that English words are preferably integrated into Mandarin via calquing, which includes a special case called Phonetic-Semantic Matching (PSM) (Zuckermann 2004), meaning words being phonetically assimilated and semantically transferred at the same time. The reason for that is that Mandarin is written in Chinese characters, which each has a single-syllable pronunciation and a self-contained meaning, and the meaning achieved by the selection of characters may match the original English words. There are some cases which are agreed by many scholars to be PSM. However, as this study demonstrates, the semantics of the borrowing and the original word do not really match, the relation considered to be “artificial” by Novotná (1967). This study analyses a corpus of 600 established English loanwords in Mandarin to test the hypothesis that semantic matching is not a significant factor in the loanword adaptation process because there is no semantic relation between the borrowed words and the characters used to record them. To measure the phonological similarity between the English input and the Mandarin output, one of the models in adult second language perception, the Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best 1995a), is used as the framework to judge the phonemic matching between the English word and the adapted Mandarin outcome. The meanings of the characters used in recording the loanwords are referred in The Dictionary of Modern Chinese to see whether there are cases of semantic matching. The phonotactic adaptation of illicit sound sequences is also analysed in Optimality Theory (McCarthy 2002) to give an account of phonetic-phonological analysis of the adaptation process. Thus, the percentage of Phono-Semantic Matching is obtained in the corpus. As the corpus investigation shows, the loanwords that can match up both the phonological and the semantic quality of the original words are very few. The most commonly acknowledged phono-semantic matching cases are only phonetic loanwords. In conclusion, this paper argues that the semantic resource of Chinese writing system is not used as a major factor in the integration of loanwords. Borrowing between languages with different writing systems is not much different than borrowing between languages with same writing system or without a writing system. Though Chinese writing system interferes with the borrowing, it is the linguistic factors that determine the borrowing process and results. Chinese characters are, by a large proportion, conventional graphic signs with a phonetic value being the more significant factor in loanword integration process

The Properties and Use of English Spoken by Non-English Majors in China

At present, China enjoys the largest number of English learners in the world. Moreover, English is used in a variety of domains. There are even signs that English used in China distinguishes itself from Standard English at different linguistic levels. However, the overall low level of competence in the learners’ speech and the limited use of English in intranational communication are at odds with the spread of English in this age of globalization. The complex sociolinguistic profile of English in China raises questions regarding the degree of nativization and the variety status of English within the framework of World Englishes. To answer these questions, this study has adopted the corpus linguistic approach. Oral data and questionnaires were collected from 96 undergraduate students from Wuhan University and the Wuhan University of Science and Technology between September 2014 and December 2014. This study applies the sociolinguistic approach to describe the sociolinguistic profile of English in China and is orientated on the four modified parameters of Schneider’s Dynamic Model (2003, 2007, 2014) for the Expanding Circle. The sociolinguistic profile of English from the Qing Dynasty to the People’s Republic of China demonstrates that English has been alternatively promoted and demoted for either economic or political reasons. Attitudes towards English have been ambivalent throughout China’s history, though at present it is viewed more positively than before. However, even though learning and teaching English have benefited from changes to the sociolinguistic conditions, English has not reached the depth and range to qualify as an ESL. The different sociolinguistic conditions have had different structural effects on English, for example: Chinese Pidgin English, educated varieties of English, and a potential Chinese variety of English. A wide range of features can be identified at the levels of phonology, morphosyntax, and lexico-semantics in 46 transcribed interviews and 46 recordings of a reading passage (The Boy Who Cried Wolf). Due to the infrequent occurrence of the majority of the identified phonological features, it can be said that these features have not nativized or entrenched. The data collected from the attitudinal and supplementary questionnaires show that English is valued highly, even though English is not used frequently outside the educational environment. Moreover, while the importance of different varieties is acknowledged, the preferred teaching model is still oriented towards exonormative models. With respect to the variety status of English in China, reading the findings from the sociolinguistic profile, the oral data, and the questionnaires with the help of the major models of World Englishes, it is found that English in China is neither strictly an EFL nor an ESL, though it has more similarities with an EFL. Therefore, the ENL-ESL-EFL distinction and the Three Circles Model cannot accurately define the current status of English in China. The application of the Dynamic Model to English in China shows that English in China has undergone the foundation phase (1664-1895) and lies at the stabilization phase (1895-present). However, the regression of English (1949-1990s) points to the fact that English does not strictly follow a linear development. In addition, events such as the introduction of English in formal education during the Qing dynasty and the promotion of English in the 1990s show that the evolution of English is not necessarily initiated by exonormative forces alone. The application of Buschfeld and Kautzsch’s (2017) Model of Extra- and Intra-territorial Forces addresses the problems of initiators for the development of English in the expanding-circle countries such as China and unearths other important extra- and intra-territorial forces such as political and cultural factors in the development of English in China, but the model fails to explain the untypical “linear” development of English in China. The examination of the linguistic features and the assessment of the variety status of English contribute to our understanding of the complex sociolinguistic profile of English in China from both a diachronic and a synchronic perspective. The enquiry of the extent to which the major models of World Englishes are applicable to China demonstrates the limitations of the major models of World Englishes to explain the spread of English in China, and this calls for more research on English in the expanding-circle countries