The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2396-7404.htm

Exploring the standard language Exploring the

standard
ideology in China’s language policy language
ideology
Xu Ning and Jeannet Stephen
University of Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
193
Abstract
Received 5 April 2022
Purpose – This research explores the standard language ideology in Chinese foreign language education Revised 25 June 2022
policies. The most substantial in relation to language policy and management in regard to language ideology 30 August 2022
are beliefs associated with the values on the named language and its varieties (Spolsky, 2009). In the standard Accepted 23 September 2022
language ideology, the standard is treated as being valuable linguistic capital and possessing prestige as well
as authority. Mandarin is the most well-accepted standard Chinese, and similarly, UK English or US English is
the most popular and Standard English (SE) in China.
Design/methodology/approach – The theoretical framework in this research is critical discourse analysis
(CDA) and discourse-historical approach (DHA) to guide the data collection and data analysis. This research
will review recent and seminal literature obtained from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) on
language policy in China in relation to standard language ideology. The literature also investigates Chinese
state’s English language ideologies using official language education policies (FLEPs).
Findings – The results show that standard language ideology is a common mindset found within official state
policies in regard to SE. The authors argue that the Chinese trust on the ideology of standard language appears
to not be aligned to recent worldwide trends such as globalization and multilingualism.
Originality/value – This research can provide insights into future language planning and language policy in
China and shows that the future research could do more on language planning in China.
Keywords Standard language ideology, Mandarin, Standard English, Language policy, China
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Does Standard English (SE) exist? Many scholars and language users might have the same
doubts. Greenbaum (1990) notes that SE was first attested in 1836 and is understood to mean
what educated speakers accepted as correct. Davies (1999) also asks that “Is there a Standard
English and what is it?” He insists that a complete description of SE is not possible and what
distinguishes one standard from another is not substantial. Similarly, Honey (1997) claims SE
is never merely one variety among many, but with a set of qualities not shared by by non-
standard dialects. As for the population of speakers, Davies (1999) states that what passes for
standard so-called correct English is not what is spoken by millions of people, black or white,
but what only a small group. Therefore, it could be concluded that the definition and the
existing of SE are both undecided issues.
Van Dijk (2009) mentions that wherever we have truth, we have ideology. Hence, when one
thinks the existence of a standard language, he or she is holding a standard language
ideology. Some researchers believe that SE is an ideology. Van Dijk (2009) mentions that the
ideology in our minds always goes hand in hand with the truth in our minds. Hence, when one
thinks the existence of SE, he or she is holding an ideology and the ideology which would
have impacts on people’ evaluation of events, control their discourses and social practices
(Van Dijk, 2009). Ali (2017) mentions that people’s ideologies on language could inevitably
influence their social, cultural and political views on language including their purposes in
mastering a language and making judgments about a language. As for the situation in China, International Journal of
Comparative Education and
the standard language ideology especially on SE would influence their opinions on English Development
learning and teaching, their language preference in social discourses. For example, people Vol. 24 No. 3/4, 2022
pp. 193-205
would try to avoid speaking so-called nonstandard Chinese or English when in social © Emerald Publishing Limited
2396-7404
communication and people would feel upset when they cannot speak so-called standard DOI 10.1108/IJCED-04-2022-0024
IJCED languages when in public. Milroy (2001) figures that this standard language ideology is to
24,3/4 view language standards as tools of hegemony instead of liberation. When we mention a
standard language, we imply a notion of standard compared to non-standard and prestigious
compared to less prestigious between SE and other varieties of English. This status
comparison hints at hidden discrimination among languages. A single national language has
been considered to be harmful to the diverse forms of everyday speech of the masses
(Tam, 2016).
194 Standard language ideology is a popular concept in China. Mandarin, which is the
language spoken by more than 80% of the population, is the national language and the
officially prescribed medium of instruction. As for the origin of the word “Mandarin”, it comes
from the Portuguese verb which means the function of commanding (Oxford English
Dictionary, 2000). Weng (2018) argues that the promotion of Mandarin as a standard Chinese
language is a national language reform and the creation of Mandarin is closely related to
politics because when it was being made, it was meant to serve the society according to the
intentions of its inventors and promoters. Therefore, it is not hard to conclude that the
creation of Mandarin in China has political implications.
Standard language ideology is embodied in policy documents. The Chinese government
defines standard Chinese language at the national and constitutional level. It enacted a national
policy named “Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Common Spoken and Written
Language” and in this law, Mandarin is treated as the national standard language and as the
symbol of Chinese citizens (Liu and Cai, 2021). Liu and Cai (2021) concludes that Chinese
linguists in modern times mostly agree that Chinese firmly believe that language
standardization is closely related to national rejuvenation. Another Chinese scholar figures
that in these years although the government has made changes on language policy to show its
tolerance to all languages, national identity and identity awareness are being advocated by
mastering a standard Chinese (Huang, 2015). Given the supreme position allocated to Mandarin
the standard Chinese language, it is easy to understand why SE is perceived as a teaching
model for years and thus the notion of correctness and appropriateness arise (Ruhlemann,
2008). Language promotion invariably interlocks with economic and political interests
(Phillipson, 1998). The most recent joint venture between the China’s Ministry of Education and
the country’s State Language Commission with the British Council via signing a Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) speaks volumes on China’s recognition of the SE of the native speaker
model. The MoU confirms “the cooperation on the mutual recognition between British English
tests (including IELTS and Aptis [1]) and China’s Standards of English Language Ability.
Ironically, however, the British national curriculum document suggests that American English
and Australian English are not SE (Trudgill, 1999). About the MOU, Chinese government is
supporting SE officially by confirming the status of British in China.
SE is still dominated in many expanding circle countries especially in the teaching field.
China has a long history of language standards. Normally, as a high centralized nation, the
China’s central government language policy does not allow variation across the country
(Liang, 2015). However SE is not always the best model in many ways as has been reported by
academics and non-academics alike (Lan, 2021). This linguistic ideology celebrating the
superiority of SE has caused many serious problems in reality. SE does not fit the current
global reality of English use in the world, and SE ideology has caused many adverse
consequences in various domains (Meng, 2020). For example, Chinese government makes
foreign language policies by referring to groups of research institutions or experts but
without comprehensively considering the thoughts of firms and organizations (Yuan, 2000).
In the pursuit of SE, language learners gradually lose confidence and there is in general a low
evaluation on China English among English learners (Gao and Xu, 2015). As for the local
English teachers, they have doubts in their career and identity when it comes to their non-SE.
 The vast English language education industry in China is the largest in the world with Exploring the
millions of English language learners and TOEFL test takers. This situation persists even if standard
“. . .at all levels of the policy regulation, primary, secondary and tertiary, Chinese institutional
policies do not grant clear privilege to any type or variety of English. Instead these varieties
language
are all generalized as ‘the language in English-speaking countries’ (Lin, 2015, p. 86)”. ideology
In terms of employment, mastering a SE does not always bring good results. Shu (2013)
figures that there are over 1,000 universities in China offering English as a major, however
graduates face a challenging situation for finding jobs because of their lack of real English skills 195
as what they have learned at school could hardly meet the requirements of jobs. In this sense, the
authors posit that the push in promoting SE affects the use of other English variants which are
useful in allowing L2 learners to be motivated in their ESL studies (Cushing, 2020, 2021).
The literature from CNKI shows many studies are about Chinese language confidence and
the protection of Chinese and the promotion of a SE. However, the ideology of a standard
language among Chinese is seldom discussed. This paper is a contribution towards that gap
given that “alongside China’s emergence as a world power, has evoked enormous changes in
ideology and posed intriguing ideological questions” (Lin, 2015, p. 3).
Therefore, based on the problems existing in China, the objectives of this research are as
follows:
(1) to review recent and seminal literature obtained from the China National Knowledge
Infrastructure (CNKI) on language policy in China in relation to SE and standard
language ideology;
(2) to investigate Chinese state’s standard language ideologies using official language
education policies (FLEPs).

Methodology
This study adopted Wodak (1996)’s DHA, one approach of CDA for the data analysis and
research design guidance. Wodak was the one who termed the discourse historical approach
which was unique that it denoted an attempt on the part of this approach to explore all
background information comprehensively by considering many layers of discourse (Wodak,
1996) and DHA has advantages in identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms
that contributed to those disorders in discourse which were embedded in a particular context
(Wodak, 1996). As Van Dijk (2009) states that CDA is a field that is concerned with studying
and analyzing written and spoken texts to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance,
inequality and bias. The policy of SE embedded a series of power and dominance of the
authorities. CDA is applicable to explore a deeper meaning hidden behind ordinary discourse.
Similarly, Fairclough (1993) states CDA as it explores the relations of causality and
determination between discursive practices, events, texts and wider social structures,
relations and process, to explore how such practices, events, texts arise out of and be shaped
by relations of power and struggles over power, to explore how such opacity relations
between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.
According to Wodak’s (1996) theory, DHA could triangulate the historical sources,
social and political backgrounds and related discursive events to manage the discourse
analysis. Therefore, in this research, the researcher applied DHA to discover standard
language ideology by referring to Chinese language histories, current political and social
situations especially on language issues, language polices on Chinese language and
English language. In this research, it conducted analysis on language policy discourses on
languages in China and on English language abilities. Meanwhile, it explored analysis on
data of CNKI.
In this way, a comprehensive exploration could be managed with fruitful outcomes.
IJCED Reviews on recent and seminal literature obtained from the CNKI
24,3/4 This research searched documents from CNKI. The search key words were “Standard
English(标准英语)”, “Standard English Ideology (标准英语意识形态)”, “Language
Policy(语言政策)”, “Language Ideology(语言意识形态)” and ”Mandarin(普通话)”. This
research collected data documents and noted the availability and treatment of the search
results from these keywords in CNKI. The two sets of documents were compared to determine
the depth of discussion on the topics of SE and Mandarin discovering the context of standard
196 language ideology.

Reviews on Chinese state’s English language ideologies using official Chinese FLEPs
In addition, official national language policy documents were analyzed to gain greater
understanding on official state’s views on language policies. The documents were the “Report
on China Language Development and China Language Status in the year of 2020 (hereafter
referred to the Report)” retrieved from the website of China’s Ministry of Education, “Law of
the People’s Republic of China on The Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language
(hereafter referred to the Law)” retrieved from the website of The Central People’s
Government of People’s Republic of China and “China’s Standards of English Language
Ability (see Table 1) (hereafter refers to the Standards)” retrieved from the website of China
Ministry of Education. By discourse analysis on the above policies, this research was aiming
at discovering the standard language ideology in Chinese education policies and trying to
figure out a brighter future for language planning in China.

Results and discussion

Results and discussion on recent and seminal literature obtained from the CNKI
We will first discuss the results and findings from reviews on recent and seminal literature
obtained from the CNKI.
Table 2 shows the numbers of the articles on CNKI, when searching the above key words
with all the key words related to the research topic. Since CNKI is the largest and popular
academic search platform, most of the articles are written in Chinese or by Chinese scholars.

English ability development stages Level

Advanced Stage Level 9; Level 8; Level 7

Table 1. Intermediate Stage Level 6; Level 5; Level 4
English language Elementary Stage Level 3; Level 2; Level 1
ability standards Source(s): data collection from official Foreign Language Education Policies

Total In In
Key words No. Chinese English Journal Thesis Newspaper Book

Mandarin 54,800 41,400 13,200 34,400 6,608 1,887 298

SE 9,918 6,105 925 4,321 735 64 106
SE Ideology 37 6 31 32 4 0 1
Standard Language 91 4 30 87 2 0 1
Ideology
Table 2. Language Policy(LP) 10,200 3,540 5,399 8,149 672 43 686
Article data from CNKI Source(s): data collection from CNKI
When “Mandarin” was the search term, there were a total of 54,800 articles on this topic. Exploring the
41,400 articles are in Chinese and written by Chinese scholars. standard
“Mandarin” is the topic for most of the articles compared to other key words. Second is
“LP” with a total number of 10,200 articles. However, the total number of articles with the
language
topic of “Standard Language Ideology” is only 91. This shows that studies on LP are very ideology
popular in China whereas standard language ideology is rarely mentioned or not found. In
total, 91 articles for “standard language ideology” compared to 54,800 for “Mandarin” and
10,200 for “LP” is a huge difference indeed in researchers’ interest for a research topic 197
in China.
Another search term, “SE” resulted in 9,981 articles with over 6,000 of the articles in
Chinese. It could be seen that SE has gained the attention of Chinese scholars and experts
from the education area. However, the total search results for the search term “ SE ideology”
was only 37. The vast difference between the two key words tells us that SE is popular among
Chinese researchers and well-accepted by the public whereas the SE ideology is a topic the
scholars seldom mention or care to write about.
On the “Books” category, there are about 700 books in the topic for LP, 298 for Mandarin
and 106 for SE. Compared to the above three topics, there is only one book on SE ideology and
one book on Standard Language ideology. The search results show that language policy,
Mandarin and SE topics are well accepted by the public whereas ideology-related works are
very rarely reported. As we all know that books are long lasting wisdom and they have
everlasting effects on their readers. Chen (2013) argues that back in the 1920 and 1930s,
Mandarin was almost a foreign and alien language to the Chinese public. It could be predicted
that Mandarin was promoted to the public into everyday life through a variety of means like
books, magazines, textbooks and the media. Language policy includes all the practices,
beliefs and management where issues of language are concerned (Spolsky, 2009). Therefore,
this research explored data of different resources including books, newspapers, journals and
so on, and in this way, a comprehensive analysis could be managed. David (2016) notes that
language policy is the product of certain social and historical backgrounds, of vital necessity
to conduct a thorough analysis on its targets and processes, and that there are several
different ways to study the discourses of language policy which include the media,
publications, promotion files, booklets, guidance for teaching, syllabus and even the letters to
parents. All of the above are important resources to discover the historical backgrounds and
the changes of language policy.
Lin (2015) painstakingly details the historical features of language ideology in China. This
includes the observation that the Chinese government has placed regulations and even laws
to promote the significance of English learning. English is being widely treated as a tool to get
into the upper levels of society, and there is a widely accepted notion that in English language
teaching (ELT) in China the SE language ideology does not exist which is not in accordance
with the realities sadly. Even though the standard language ideology is existing in China,
however, quite amount of population does not believe its existence or just ignore its existence
and in this way, the language hegemony could be developed. The above two phenomena are
the manifestation of English language hegemony.

Results and discussion on Chinese state’s English language ideologies using official
Chinese FLEPs
We next provide our findings for the second objective that of a review on Chinese state’s
English language ideologies using official Foreign Language Education Policies (FLEPs).
From the frequency of the words from the Report and the Law documents, it is not difficult
to find that “standard” is a crucially important word in language policies in China. As shown
in Plate 1, the frequency of STANDARD (标准) in the Report is 15 and in the Law is 21.
IJCED 80
24,3/4 70
60
50
40
30
198 20
10
Plate 1. 0
Frequency of The Report The Law
“STANDARD”,
“STANDARDIZE” STANDARD STANDARDIZE
AND “NATIONAL”
Na onal(国家的)

Meanwhile, the frequency of STANDARDIZE (规范) in the Report is 25 and in the Law is 17.
The frequency of NATIONAL (国家的) in the Report is 74 and in the Law is 39.
Standardization is a process to make a certain language to be the so-called standard thus to
elevate it apart from other languages. Lippi-Green (2012) and Milroy (2001) stated that
standard language ideology a language ideology, a belief that a language has no changeable
settings and there is a clear distinction between standard and non-standard. Therefore, we
argue that both the Report and the Law push for the standardization of languages in China on
a national level. As Wang (2014) mentions, language policies are the national disciplines and
laws for general citizens to follow which are closely aligned to language planning contents.
The excerpts below from both the Report and the Law documents all show that the
standardization of languages in China has a prestige on both the national and constitutional
level. As we all know that the Constitution has superior position that all the laws and this
language planning and language policy will definitely impose a notion of standard language
ideology among Chinese including teachers and learners.
State Council nominates the documents of language policies in modern times, and this is the first time
for the State Council to publish guiding documents for language policies . . .. (The Report, 2020) (my
translation)
In order to promote the standardization of languages in China, the law should be effective in every
tracks of life, and the law was made according to national constitution. (The Law, 2001) (my
translation)
The government, and schools should apply Mandarin as their working languages. The working
languages for media should get permission from the State Council. (The Law, 2001) (my translation)
The excerpt below shows that Mandarin is popular in most areas in China. China has a very
large population in the whole world and 80.72% of the population means a large amount of
people. Therefore, the standard language ideology of the State possibly means that the
ideology is influencing almost one fifth of the whole population on the planet.
According to the national data, there are 80.72% of the population mastering Mandarin covering 31
provinces and 245 counties . . . (The Report, 2020) (my translation)
Liang (2015) in his book also mentions that the laws and regulations aim to prevent regional
dialects from entering the public domain, but do not prevent Mandarin from entering the
private domain. Many Mandarin promotion measures actually encourage people to use
Mandarin more frequently in the private domain. And Liang also mentions that in the 1950s
after the People’s Republic of China was founded, Mandarin was officially redefined as and Exploring the
promoted as the common speech across the country. It was not hard to find that there are standard
slogans on the walls as evidence of this promotion such as “If you have a good command of
Mandarin, you will have no fear to live well in China”.
language
The excerpt below shows that Chinese government has enacted a language policy for ideology
foreigner learners of Chinese language. In accordance with globalization and the
establishments of Confucius Institutes around the world, Chinese becomes increasingly
popular among citizens of the world and this promotion is a testament of State’s language 199
ideology transferred to the global population,
The publishing of ‘International Chinese Language Education Chinese language proficiency level
standards’ is a language standardization policy which is available for foreigners who want to study
Chinese language. There are specific standards for foreign learners to follow. (The Report, 2020) (my
translation)
The excerpt below shows that the Chinese government tries to respect the local realities by
maintaining the local languages. As we all know that Hong Kong was governed by Britain for
years and thus English is in every track of life in Hong Kong and Hong Kong local citizens
also master Cantonese as their local dialect. In Hong Kong therefore, English, Cantonese and
Chinese are all applied simultaneously which sets a good example for other places in China.
To some extent, to give up the notion of simply mastering one standard language is beneficial
to the development of multilingualism.
in Hong Kong, they could keep the ‘ Biliteracy and Trilingualism language policy. (The Report, 2020)
(my translation)
The excerpt below shows the importance of schools in the promotion of the State’s
language ideology and policy. Schools are the best places to conduct research on
language policy since most language learning occur at schools. Policies influenced by the
tradition of standardization would have great impact in teaching and learning activities
and this applies to the English language in China as well. Since China is a socialist
country and US is a capitalist country, there are big differences between the two
countries. If we set the aim of learning and teaching English is to express ourselves to the
world and a better self-development, relying on too much on original English textbooks
and regarding them as the best way to improve English proficiency should be doubted.
Shohamy (2006) argues that textbooks are full of examples related to ideologies. As we all
know that teachers mainly prepare teaching materials based on the textbooks. If we insist
on using original English textbooks from native English speaking countries, we might
unavoidably be influenced by their language ideology. Zhang (2008) argues that students
should be given chances to experience various varieties of English by all means. The
monolithic situation of UK English and US English in China is not in accordance with the
trend of globalization.
for the phases from elementary school to high school, to grasp a standard Chinese is required and
education of standard language should be emphasized. (The Report, 2020) (my translation)
The Standards was designed for description of language ability features of each level which
could be applied to English tests, English language teaching and English language
learning. It could be seen that the higher the level is, the higher requirements for learner
and user.
The excerpt below from the Standards shows that a fully understanding of a SE is the
basic element for the understanding of oral speech and based on that notion only by a good
command of a SE, one could have good performance in daily conversations and being treated
as obtaining SE language ability.
IJCED as for the understanding of oral argumentation, level 6 requires that learners Can follow conference
presentations delivered with standard pronunciation at a normal speed and understand key points
24,3/4 and specific details. (The Standards, 2018)
The excerpt below from the Standards show that native speaker norm is the best model to
imitate and in daily conversations to perform as native English speakers is the best strategy
to improve your English.
200 as for the learning strategy of English language, level 6 requires that the learners can improve
pronunciation by making recordings of his/her own pronunciation for comparison with standard
pronunciation . . .. and can imitate words and sentence patterns used by native speakers and put
them to use creatively. (The Standards, 2018)
These excerpts below from the Standards show that original copies from native English
speaking countries are endorsed as the designated learning materials for English learning.
as for the learning strategy of English language, level 5 requires that English learners can express an
interest in reading authentic English materials and actively accumulate words and idiomatic
expressions. (The Standards, 2018)
However in fact, it is never easy to decide whose expressions are more correct or more pure
since in the UK alone there are several different expressions and accents [2] for example the
expressions and accents are different between England and Scotland. As we all know that
the so-called Received Pronunciation (RP) is only being spoken by a small group of people in
the UK. In a 2018 article in the widely read The Guardian, Laura Barton wrote,
The term RP has murky origins, but it is regarded as the accent of those with power, influence,
money and a fine education – and was adopted as a standard by the BBC in 1922. Today, it is used by
2% of the population.
RP is often the go to variant that EFL language learners are referred to because of it’s the
Queen’s English image, i.e. the utmost model for pronunciation of English. Hence, the idea of
imitating English native speakers’ oral expression and pronunciation, which in the UK itself
contain many regional dialects of English, requires a revisit, such as the excerpt below,
as for the learning strategy of English language, level 1 requires that the learners can learn teachers’
or native speakers’ English pronunciation by observing their mouth movements. (The
Standards, 2018)
The excerpts from the Standards show that even in level 1 which is the most basic level,
learners are being required to imitate the shape of mouth of native English speakers. As we all
know that in India, people are speaking Indian English with a mixture of both English and
Indian language for years and definitely they have a good communication with the outside
world. As for the situation in China, to imitate the shape of mouth of native English speakers
has becoming a basic requirement for learners.
as for writing strategy, level 8 requires that the English learners can appropriately use colloquial [3]
and idiomatic [4] expressions common in British and American English. (The Standards, 2018)
The excerpts from the Standards show that in writing applying the colloquial English is a
good way to maintain the purity, whereas in actual writing colloquial and idiomatic
expressions common in British and American English are not always the best way to express
the writers’ feelings or to match the situation properly especially in the introduction of
traditional Chinese cultures.
as for language ability, level 9 requires that the English learners can express him/herself precisely,
naturally, idiomatically, and in a particular style. (The Standards, 2018)
 as for writing translating, level 9 requires that the English learners Can translate professional texts Exploring the
on a variety of topics with complex language, producing accurate, complete, standard, and idiomatic
translations. (The Standards, 2018) standard
language
The excerpts from the Standards show that the highest level requires learners to translate in a ideology
pure way namely they should translate properly to meet the requirements of the native
English speakers, however in actual translation, the best way is to meet the requirements of
both Chinese and English speakers. Only in that way, the translation could be a bridge for 201
both languages.
In summary, based on the analysis of the Standards documents, we argue that some
corrections should be made to be on par with contemporary use of English instead of simply
promoting native English speakers’ norm. It should be known at the onset of this study that
SE is the main model for English language teaching in China is not at all stated in the
language policies. Lin (2015, p. 86) describes this distancing as such: “. . .at all levels of the
policy regulation, primary, secondary and tertiary, Chinese institutional policies do not grant
clear privilege to any type or variety of English. Instead, these varieties are all generalized as
‘the language in English-speaking countries’. And the requirement for English learning is to
acquire ‘correct, natural, appropriate fluent pronunciation and intonation’ without any
specification of which country’s language model is to be followed”. For the context of this
study, I am interested in the generalization specified as “the language in English-speaking
countries” and the aim for students to acquire “correct, natural, appropriate fluent
pronunciation and intonation”. Interestingly enough, these general descriptions on the type of
English language the students are supposed to acquire are indeed familiar to ELT
professionals particularly in countries which were formerly British colonies as the RP model.

Conclusions
Overall, it could be concluded that the standard language ideology is a common mindset
found within official state policies in regard to SE. As we have discussed above, it is not
difficult to find sentences and paragraphs from official stated documents that support the
notion of language standardization. Therefore, this paper recommends for a revisit of the
requirements expected on English language learners such as the idea of imitating the shape of
the native English speaker’s mouth in pronouncing English words. Greenbaum (1990, p. 33)
notes that whenever we mention a standard language, we are promoting a notion that the
language is ‘the prestige variety of the language’ which is the dialect of choice by and for the
educated. We also argue that creating the idea of prestigious vs non-prestigious will surely
negatively affect equal linguistic rights. As we all know that Cet-4 (College English Test Band
4) and Cet-6 (College English Test Band 6) are requirements for graduation in certain regions
in China, and Cai (2012) argues that after 20 years development, CET test has becoming the
SE test with the largest number of participants. Because of this national English language
assessment, it is easy to see that that a great number of students are or will be spending their
time and energy to learn a standard language dreaming of a brighter future without caring
what the actual meaning of learning a language is.
In this article, we posit that the Chinese trust on the ideology of standard language
appears to not be aligned to recent worldwide trends such as multilingualism. According to
the figure from BaiDu (the largest search engine in China) up to the year of 2018, there are
over 960,000 international companies in China. Which brings us to the question: What kind of
employees are these international companies in great need of? It is likely that the international
companies would be more in favor of employees who can speak understandable English with
high accuracy instead of employees who can merely speak a SE but lack actual competent
mastery of the language. Therefore, we propose learners should equip themselves with
mastering accuracy in use to meet the challenge of internationalization instead of simply
IJCED pursuing an imitation version of the RP. Shu (2013) believes that China needs “tons of” talents
24,3/4 who grasp professional and practical English with high levels and “tons of” talents who grasp
average level but applicable English skills. Based on our review of the Standards documents,
it appears that China, which has the most English language learners and users, do not exactly
have a clear plan for English language learning developments. We are of the view that
English language education in China should instead focus more on international aspects of
learning the English language so as to produce talented employees who can successfully
202 participate in international affairs and have a good command of international etiquette. As
for the multilingualism, Cao (2019) suggests that in higher education in China, especially key
universities should apply bilingual education namely students should be given courses in
both Chinese and English at the same time. And based on the bilingual education expectation,
English language teaching and learning in China could have the chance to meet the recent
worldwide trends such as multilingualism. SE is still dominating in many expanding circle
countries especially in the teaching field. China has a long history of language standards.
Normally, as a highly centralized nation, the China’s central government language policy
does not allow for any sensitivity or variation across the country (Liang, 2015). Accompanied
with popularizing Chinese Han language and English language across the country, some
minorities’ languages are disappearing from use in China (Liang, 2015).
This paper thus recommends for recognition of the role of English variants that are not
necessarily UK or American standard so as to address the huge pressure on Chinese learners
of English to master the language. As we all know that, in Asian countries, non-SE is popular
like Singapore English or Indian English. Chinese learners of English should be confident to
speak their own English. In fact, for international communication, what you said is much
more important than how you speak. Standard language ideology has been very functional in
making the world dependent on native speaker norms, expertise, textbooks and
methodologies by native speakers, even though these are unlikely to be culturally,
linguistically or pedagogically appropriate and formed a pillar-stone of global linguistic
hegemony, conforming to the classic pattern of such practices and ideologies being largely
covert, so that their nature and function and the injustice they entail often goes unnoticed
(Phillipson, 1998).
Language should be a tool instead of simply a standard. Wright (2012), a British writer,
suggests that the language competence of citizens is crucial in the construction of a country.
Therefore, a long term language policy planning should target at benefiting the people. As for
individual, citizens could benefit from applying English or its varieties. Haugen’s (1966, 1983)
offers a conclusion on language planning processes and there are in total four procedures
including selecting a norm or a variety, developing an accepted form, attempting to spread
the form and updating the form to meet new needs. Therefore, language planning should be
more tolerant of non-standard varieties. This research can provide insights into future
language planning and language policy in China.
Generally speaking, this research aims to shed lights on the language planning and
language policy by exploring the SE ideology and standard language ideology in China. As
China has becoming one of the top economies, a more open language policy could help China
to embrace the world and even benefit the world. Understanding language policy as it relates
to SE can provide insights into matters related to international teaching staff, international
students, internationalization goals of the university, and in the end I hope for my study to be
able to offer reference to policy making and policy evaluation to these fields in higher
education institutions (HEIs) in China. This paper also aims to discover the standard
language ideology which could make more Chinese to realize this language ideology and get
rid of the ideology control possibly especially when they are learning a language.
However, there are limitations for this research. First, besides the discourse analysis on
language policy documents, analysis on English teachers’ language attitudes should be
added thus to manage a comprehensive understanding on standard language ideology. As Exploring the
we all know that English teachers are at the very front of English language policy standard
implementation and they might have more practical experiences and comprehensive
thoughts on language policy and language ideology. Secondly, this research is mainly
language
focusing on the social level instead of linguistic level. Therefore, when talking about SE and ideology
standard language, this research mainly explores the notion of standard language ideology
without considering the specific language pronunciation and writing issues. In the future
research, more details of pronunciation and writing issues should be considered more when 203
talking about SE and standard language ideology.

Notes
1. Aptis and CSE. https://www.britishcouncil.cn/en/exams/aptis/cse
2. Accent: a way of pronouncing the words of a language that shows which country or area where a
person comes from (Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary, 2004).
3. Colloquial: used in conversation but not in formal speech and writhing. (Oxford Advanced Learner’s
English-Chinese Dictionary, 2004).
4. Idiomatic: containing expressions that are natural to a native speaker of a language. (Oxford
Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary, 2004).

References
Ali, K. (2017), “Students’ perceptions of ‘Good English’ and the underlying ideologies behind their
perceptions”, Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 487-509.
Cai, J. (2012), “The adjustment of foreign language teaching objectives in China from the perspective
of college English teaching in Japan”, Theory and Practice of Foreign Language Teaching, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 5-7.
Cao, X.F. (2019). Strengthening practical English teaching and improving college students’
comprehensive English ability.
Chen, J.Y. (2013), “Voices of a new nation: learning to speak ‘Mandarin’ in China, 1928-1937”, paper
presented at the Association for Asian Studies Annual Conference, San Diego.
Crushing, I. (2021), The Policy and Policing of Language in Schools, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Cushing, I. (2020), “‘Say it like the Queen’: the standard language ideology and language policy
making in English primary schools”, Language, Culture and Curriculum, Vol. 34, doi: 10.1080/
07908318.2020.1840578.
David, C.J. (2016), Language Policy, Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press, Beijing.
Davies, A. (1999), “Standard English–discordant voice”, World Englishes, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 171-186.
Fairclough, N. (1993), “Critical discourse analysis and the Marketization of public discourse : the
universities”, Discourse and Society, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 133.
Gao, Y.H. and Xu, H.C. (2015), “A comprehensive research on English varieties”, Foreign Languages
Teaching and Research, Vol. 6, p. 850.
Greenbaum, S. (1990), “Whose English?”, The State of the Language. Christopher Ricks and Leonard
Michaels, Faber and Faber, London.
Haugen, E. (1966), “Linguistics and language planning”, in Bright, W. (Ed.), Sociolinguistics, Mouton,
Berlin, pp. 50-71.
Haugen, E. (1983), “The implementation of corpus planning: theory and practice”, in Cobarrubias, J
and Fishman, J.A. (Eds), Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, Mouton,
Berlin, pp. 269-289.
IJCED Honey, J. (1997), Language Is Power: The Story of Standard English and its Enemies, Faber and Faber,
London.
24,3/4
Huang, X. (2015), “China social linguistics”, National Ethic Policy and Ethic Language Policy”, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 12-20.
Lan, S. (2021), “Between privileges and precariousness: remaking whiteness in China’s teaching
English as a second language industry”, American Anthropologist, Vol. 124, pp. 118-129, doi: 10.
1111/aman.13657.
204
Law of the People’s Republic of China on The Common Spoken and Written Chinese Language (2001),
Available at: http://www.gov.cn/ (accessed 20 October 2021).
Liang, S.H. (2015), Language Attitudes and Identities in Multilingual China - A Linguistic Ethnography,
Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
Lin, P. (2015), English as a “Global Language” in China: Deconstructing the Ideological Discourses of
English in Language Education, Springer, London.
Lippi-Green, R. (2012), English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United
States, Routledge, London.
Liu, Y. and Cai, Y. (2021), “New developments in language policy and planning research, from A language
order perspective”, China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 195.
Meng, Y.L. (2020), “Problems and critique of the dissemination of standard English as language
ideology”, Journal of Guizhou Normal University, Vol. 1. doi: 10.16614/j.gznuj.skb.2020.01.008.
Milroy, J. (2001), “Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization”, Journal of
Sociolinguistics, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 530-555.
Oxford English Dictionary (2000), Mandarin, n.1. OED Online, Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1998), “Globalizing English: are linguistic human rights an alternative to linguistic
imperialism?”, Language Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 101-110.
Report from Ministry of Commerce : International Companies in China numbered One Million (2018),
Available at: https://baijiahao.baidu.com/ (accessed 20 June 2021).
Report on China Language Development and China Language Status in the year of 2020 (2020),
Available at: http://www.moe.gov.cn/ (accessed 20 October 2021).
Ruhlemann, C. (2008), “A register approach to teaching conversation: farewell to standard English?”,
Applied Linguistics, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 672-693.
Shohamy, E. (2006), Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches, Routledge, London &
New York.
Shu, D.F. (2013), “Thoughts on foreign language planning and arrangement”, Foreign Language
Teaching and Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, China Academic Journal Electronic Publishing House.
Spolsky, B. (2009), Language Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tam, G.A. (2016), “‘Orbiting the core’: politics and the meaning of dialect in Chinese linguistics, 1927-
1957”, Twentieth-Century China, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 280-303. doi: 10.1353/tcc.2016.0021.
Trudgill, P. (1999), Standard English: What it Isn’t”, Standard English: The Widening Debate,
Routledge, London, pp. 117-128.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2009), Society and Discourse, How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Wang, Y. (2014), “Language planning and language policy”, Journal of Chinese, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 170.
Weng, J. (2018), “What is Mandarin? The social project of language standardization in early
republican China”, The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 77, pp. 611-633.
Wodak, R. (1996), Disorders of Discourse, Longman, London, p. 20.
Wright, S. (2012), Language Policy and Language Planning from Nationalism to Globalization, The
Commercial Press, Beijing.
Yuan, Z.G. (2000), Education Policy Studies, Jiangsu Education Press, Nanjing. Exploring the
Zhang, M. (2008), “China English and ELT for English majors”, English Language Teaching, Vol. 1 standard
No. 2, pp. 143-145.
language
ideology
Further reading
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
205
China National Knowledge Infrastructure (2021), Available at: https://kns.cnki.net/kns8/defaultresult/
index (accessed 20 October 2021).
Marr, V.H. (1991), “What is a Chinese ‘dialect/topolect’? Reflections on some key sino-English
linguistic terms”, Sino-Platonic Papers, Vol. 1 No. 2, p. 19.
Waters, A. (2007), “ELT and ‘the spirit of the times”, ELT Journal, Oxford University Press, Vol. 61
No. 4, pp. 353-359.
Wodak, R. (2001), “What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its
developments”, Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Sage, London.

Corresponding author
Xu Ning can be contacted at: 869067933@qq.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com