Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China Linda Tsung Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communit...

Author: Linda Tsung

55 downloads 1641 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China Linda Tsung

Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities Series Editor: Gabrielle Hogan-Brun, University of Bristol, UK Titles include: Jean-Bernard Adrey DISCOURSE AND STRUGGLE IN MINORITY LANGUAGE POLICY FORMATION Corsican Language Policy in the EU Context of Governance Nancy H. Hornberger (editor) CAN SCHOOLS SAVE INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES? Policy and Practice on Four Continents Anne Judge LINGUISTIC POLICIES AND THE SURVIVAL OF REGIONAL LANGUAGES IN FRANCE AND BRITAIN Yasuko Kanno LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN JAPAN Unequal Access to Bilingualism Máiréad Nic Craith EUROPE AND THE POLITICS OF LANGUAGE Citizens, Migrants and Outsiders Máiréad Nic Craith (editor) LANGUAGE, POWER AND IDENTITY POLITICS Anne Pauwels, Joanne Winter and Joseph Lo Bianco (editors) MAINTAINING MINORITY LANGUAGES IN TRANSNATIONAL CONTEXTS Australian and European Perspectives Susanna Pertot, Tom M. S. Priestly and Colin H. Williams (editors) RIGHTS, PROMOTION AND INTEGRATION ISSUES FOR MINORITY LANGUAGES IN EUROPE Linda Tsung MINORITY LANGUAGES, EDUCATION AND COMMUNITIES IN CHINA Glyn Williams SUSTAINING LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN EUROPE Evidence from the Euromosaic project Forthcoming titles: Maya Khemlani David, Vanithamani Saravanan and Peter Sercombe (editors) LANGUAGE, IDENTITIES AND EDUCATION IN ASIA Yasuko Kanno LANGUAGE AND EDUCATION IN JAPAN Dovid Katz ~ YÍDDISH AND POWER Ten Overhauls of a Stateless Language

Vanessa Pupavac (editor) LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN CONFLICT Serbo-Croatian Language Politics Graham Hodson Turner A SOCIOLINGUISTIC HISTORY OF BRITISH SIGN LANGUAGE

Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities Series Standing Order ISBN 978–1–4039–3732–2 (outside North America only) You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order. Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address below with your name and address, the title of the series and the ISBN quoted above. Customer Services Department, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, England

Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China

Linda Tsung University of Hong Kong

© Linda T. H. Tsung 2009 Foreword © John Cleverley 2009 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted her right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2009 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin's Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN-13: 978–0–230–55148–0 hardback ISBN-10: 0–230–55148–3 hardback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tsung, Linda T. H., 1953– Minority languages, education and communities in China / Linda T. H. Tsung. p. cm.—(Palgrave studies in minority languages and communities) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978–0–230–55148–0 1. Linguistic minorities – China. 2. Language and education – China. 3. Language policy – China. I. Title. II. Series. P119.315.T78 2009 306.44⬘951—dc22 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 Printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Antony Rowe, Chippenham and Eastbourne

2008045146

Contents List of Map and Figures

vi

List of Tables

vii

Foreword by John Cleverley

viii

Preface

x

Series Editor’s Preface

xiii

List of Abbreviations

xiv

1

Introduction

1

2

Minority Communities and Languages

7

3

Minorities in the Past: Historical Experience

34

4

New Policies and Practices under Communism

66

5

Minority Language Issues under the Open Door

98

6

Language, Education and Communities in Xinjiang

7

Bilingual Models of Minority Education in Yunnan

157

8

Minority Communities in Post-colonial Hong Kong

177

9

Progress, Challenges and Prospects

194

130

Appendix 1: Population of Ethnic Groups from China’s Fifth Census in 2000

207

Appendix 2: Numbers of Autonomous Prefectures/Counties/ Banners and Population in Autonomous Areas of Some Regions

209

Notes

210

Bibliography

215

Index

224

v

Map and Figures Map Map 1

Distribution of minority communities in China

13

Figures 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Naxi and Putonghua instruction at Huiyuan School Yi and Putonghua instruction at Hongda School Tibetan and Putonghua instruction at Lanping School Dai and Putonghua instruction at Zaining School

vi

160 162 163 164

Tables 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.2

Five autonomous regions in China Classification of minority languages Ethnic groups in the northeast (2000 census) Ethnic groups in the north (2000 census) Ethnic groups in the northwest (2000 census) Ethnic groups in the central west (2000 census) Ethnic groups in the southwest (2000 census) Ethnic groups in the south (2000 census) Schools in minority areas from 1918 to 1921 Schools in non-Han nationality areas from 1935 to 1942 5.1 The pyramid model 5.2 The time allocation (hours) for teaching Yi and Han languages 5.3 Language distribution in schools 5.4 Weekly teaching hours allocation in primary schools in Xinjiang 5.5 Weekly teaching hours allocation in primary schools in Yanbian 5.6 Weekly teaching hours allocation in primary schools in Tibet 5.7 Comparison between the Tibetan and the Han mediums of instruction 5.8 Weekly teaching hours allocation in high schools in Tibet 5.9 Schools that use the Mongolian language as the medium of instruction 5.10 Students studying the Mongolian language 5.11 Decline in ethnic schools in IMAR 6.1 Mother tongue instruction in primary, junior secondary and senior secondary schools 7.1 Major minority ethnic populations of Yunnan 7.2 Comparative school data summary

vii

10 12 14 17 18 22 24 27 55 59 108 111 115 116 116 118 118 119 125 126 126 132 157 165

Foreword The vibrant lives of China’s minority nationalities have at their heart their own distinctive languages and customs. Today, these communities are facing demands to become literate in languages other than their own, including continuing pressure from the dominant tongue, Chinese, and from new imperatives like English and other foreign languages. In turn, this has forced communities to reassess the value of the mother tongue. It is a sad fact, as Linda Tsung shows us, that some of China’s minority languages are little used today and could face extinction. Others, more happily, have strengthened their status drawing on revived community interest and spirit, and fresh opportunities. While the maintenance of the distinctive minority languages of China, well over 100 in number, represents a significant achievement, this dynamic cannot be taken for granted. It is a hard won thing, outlasting war, cultural occupation and economic expansion. Linda’s writing of the interaction of language and the apparatus of power is based on historical and contemporary perspectives and on empirical research in classrooms in north and south China, including Hong Kong. It demonstrates how education, a popular cause in China from the days of Confucius, has served as an important agent of conservatism and change. The arrival of the modern nation state saw the dominant language promoted through mass schooling, an instrument of standardization, spreading Putonghua, the national form, and its alphabetic script, Hanyu Pinyin. Yet it has also valued and transmitted the mother tongue in particular situations. Although Chinese governments have used schools for language imposition, this is not to say that the country’s top policy makers do not esteem the continuance of minority languages, especially among its bigger and strategically located communities. Official policies have both supported and inhibited language maintenance at different times and in intricate ways. For all the good and other intentions of the centre and of the periphery, communities must confront the raw force of China’s economic growth, the present day driver of the claims of Chinese and foreign language learning as the route for individual and community wealth. Voices that normally speak up for the mother tongue may be suborned with minorities struggling to retain their natural possession. viii

Foreword ix

It is indisputable that the languages of China’s nationalities, carriers of their culture and achievements, represent a great world treasure. As past and present reveal, the minority/dominant dichotomy is not simply a choice between two options, rather it is an unending dialogue in the cause of retaining the essence of cultural difference. I am impressed by the way Linda depicts both the big picture and the small, the latter showing us how policies take their meaning from their intimate consequences among China’s minority people. JOHN CLEVERLEY The University of Sydney

Preface Constructive language policies and practices enable minorities to realize their social, cultural and economic potential, thereby enriching individuals and their communities. In contrast, an inadequate language situation sees people excluded from basic civil rights, education and career opportunities. An important component for any nation in its pursuit of a language program is the quality of its civil foresight; national policy can create a script if none exists and determine its status whether it is official or not. The extent of interaction and acceptance with its stakeholder community will be proven crucial in its outcomes. Here, the educational system has a unique role to play insofar as it recognizes both the mother tongue and the economic drivers that favour the dominant language. Community language and education are linked as young people use language to explore concepts, solve problems, express their personal views and reconstruct national life. Such outcomes are important elements in the good health of communities and civil society. Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China outlines and reflects on the status and situation of minority languages in communities and different regions over varying time frames. The work is based on studies in language policy implementation processes and results, and contains case-study material from fieldwork in educational institutions of Yunnan, Hunan, Guizhou, Xinjiang and the Tibet region, undertaken in 1995–2007. It also explores current research and programs for foreign minorities in Hong Kong and elsewhere. Attention is paid both to the attributes of minorities and to the mediation of policy and performance, recognizing that national and local policies may be conceived for rhetorical or political reasons. The study identifies challenges resulting from recent economic and social changes in China, particularly the impact of globalization and concerns over human rights issues and democratic expression. It is also timely to reflect on minority education in China to understand what experiences are positive and which are best discarded. By identifying routes taken in different regions, issues such as resource allocation, changes in emphases, application of foreign experiences, and levels of local, regional and national government input can be identified and evaluated. This work recognizes the complexity of the current situation which allows no single recipe. x

Preface

xi

The nine chapters of this work discuss a range of interlocking themes. Chapter 1, the Introduction, which sets the backdrop to the discussion, is followed by an account of significant minority communities and languages, their locations and varying cultures in Chapter 2. Language policies and practices are reviewed from a historical perspective in Chapter 3, which also discusses six watershed periods as they point to the genealogy of the language policy as well as its implementation and consequence for the Han (Chinese) people. This is followed by a review of nationalist and communist language policies in the early period. Meanwhile, Chapter 4 discusses communist concepts of minorities in the early years of the establishment of the Peoples Republic of China (PRC). This includes the language fusion policy of the Anti-rightist campaign, the Great Leap Forward movement, and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Language policies and practices under “the open door” policy are explored in Chapter 5, when economic reform impacts policy making and implementation in a major way. The experiments in the North and South as experienced by stakeholders, focusing on Xinjiang and Yunnan are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. In Chapter 8, the situation facing foreign minorities in China’s international cities is taken up with special attention to Hong Kong and other foreign locations. Chapter 9 concludes with a perspective on the future challenges and prospects in the new millennium. This book would have been impossible without the help, support and encouragement of many people. First, I wish to express my deepest appreciation to Professor John Cleverley for his encouragement throughout this endeavour, his valuable suggestions while reviewing the text, and for his Foreword. I am also indebted to many Chinese government officials, academics, educational administrators and teachers, who lent me tremendous assistance and valuable time. In particular, I am indebted to Professors Ma Xueliang, Wang Jun, Dai Qingxia, Lu Yi, Chen Jianming, Chen Zhantai and Zhou Qingsheng. I would also like to thank Ms Lisa Steward, Mr Tom Patrick, and Dr Qunying Zhang for their assistance in proofreading and formatting the book. I also wish to extend my thanks to my former colleagues, Dr Ken Cruckshank and Professor Mabel Lee at the University of Sydney for their valuable advice, ideas and interest in my project. Professor Colin Mackerras at Griffith University and Dr Barry Sautman of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology also helped with their knowledge and insights on China’s minorities. I owe my appreciation particularly to Palgrave Macmillan, Ms Pathak Priyana, and Dr Gabrielle Hogan-Brun, the Series Editor of the Palgrave

xii Preface

Studies in Minority Languages and Communities for their enthusiasm in the book and their support at every stage. Lastly, my family has provided me with much support. Special thanks to Annie, Katie and Geoff for gracefully tolerating the time I spent collecting data in China, and while I was working on my text at the office. They have been a constant source of inspiration. My parents gave me much support and encouragement and this book is dedicated to them. LINDA TSUNG The University of Hong Kong

Series Editor’s Preface Worldwide migration and unprecedented economic, political and social integration in Europe present serious challenges to the nature and position of language minorities. Some communities enjoy protective legislation and active support from states through policies that promote and sustain cultural and linguistic diversity; others succumb to global homogenization and assimilation. At the same time, discourses on diversity and emancipation have produced greater demands for the management of difference. This book series has been designed to bring together different strands of work on minority languages in regions with immigrant or traditional minorities or with shifting borders. We give prominence to case studies of particular language groups or varieties, focusing on their vitality, status and prospects within and beyond their communities. Considering this insider picture from a broader perspective, the series explores the effectiveness, desirability and viability of worldwide initiatives at various levels of policy and planning to promote cultural and linguistic pluralism. Thus it touches on cross-theme issues of citizenship, social inclusion and exclusion, empowerment and mutual tolerance. Work in the above areas is drawn together in this series to provide books that are interdisciplinary and international in scope, considering a wide range of minority contexts. Furthermore, by combining single and comparative case studies that provide in-depth analyses of particular aspects of the socio-political and cultural contexts in which languages are used, we intend to take significant steps towards the fusing of theoretical and practical discourses on linguistic and cultural heterogeneity. GABRIELLE HOGAN-BRUN

xiii

Abbreviations CASS CCP CINS CMI CSL CUN EMI GZAR HKSAR IMAR IPA KMT MOI NCS NHAR PLA PRC ROC SA TAR USSR WWI WWII XUAR YKAP YMCA

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Chinese Communist Party Central Institute for Nationality Studies Chinese Medium Instruction Chinese as a Second Language Central University for Nationalities English Medium Instruction Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region International Phonetic Alphabet Kuo Min Tang, the National Party Medium of Instruction Non-Chinese Speaking Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region People’s Liberation Army People’s Republic of China Republic of China South Asian Tibet Autonomous Region Union of Soviet Socialist Republics World War I World War II Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture Young Men’s Christian Association

xiv

1 Introduction

There is a total of 56 officially recognized “nationalities” in China. The term “nationalities” is often used to identify the diverse ethnic and sociolinguistic groups within the country that represent over 100 different languages. It is inclusive of the Han (Chinese)1 majority which comprises around 91 percent of the population. However, this kind of recognition towards minorities is the effect of past decisions which are still felt today. Historically, communities living within China’s respective boundaries and kingdoms have had their own spoken language to use. Regardless of written scripts, they have used their mother tongue for their frequent interaction with their neighbours, either through trade or warfare. A significant number of such minorities actually occupy strategic locations in China’s frontier regions, and the creation of policies and practices to efficiently manage important community affairs, education and language issues has been a constant feature of Chinese history. These aspects have been viewed in the context of these regions’ relationship with the central government. Since China is a great civilization, it is not surprising that decisions made through the years continue to exert influence on the contemporary setting as various living traditions are continuously being reshaped in the present. In the country’s outer regions, discrete communities established themselves in ancient times, giving rise to separate languages and dialects within their areas. It was not even surprising that some groups’ languages were considered unintelligible to others despite close geographical proximity to one another. Meanwhile, native religions often also served as binding forces in language maintenance. A second language still gained acceptance as dominant religions like Buddhism or Islam entered the country. Nonetheless, challenges of competing language domains occurred, particularly during the periods of Han expansionism and 1

2


when China was ruled by non-Han people like the Mongols or Manchu. The spread of the Han language was not necessarily due to the enforcement by Han rulers, but more because of the communities’ choice. The underlying motivation was based on the premise that its user would gain status and utility by speaking an elite language. It is widely believed that Han enabled good communication in governance as well as improved trade opportunities. Also, if the Han occupation lasted for generations, then a minority’s language would have weakened or even fallen into neglect. Furthermore, Han ideology and customs were carried by its language. Hence, this exposed the works of its great thinkers by utilizing technologies of paper and the printing press. The concept of minority, as distinct from native, tribe or clan, is a cultural artefact by itself. It is also regarded as a relatively modern invention. The middle kingdom, China’s name for itself, viewed its people according to one of two relationships. The people either belonged to the superior center or to the inferior periphery of the kingdom. Here, individual kinship, ethnic group, language family, frequently signposts for differentiation, were all over-ridden by whether an individual was considered Chinese or not. In order to become one, the individual had to submit to the direct sovereignty of the emperor, or else, he or she was placed in the category of a barbarian who lived beyond the pale. In English, the use of the word minority draws back at least to medieval times when it meant “part of a whole”. Later, its meaning stressed the idea of separateness and deficiency, and was even associated with the affirmative action by governments. During the late nineteenth century, the Chinese combined the words min (people) and zu (race), to form a name for its minorities, minzu. Five autonomous regions have been designated as China’s minorities. The first was established in 1947, and was followed by a number of provinces having autonomous prefectures, counties and townships. However, the identification of a minority has corresponded disproportionately with the actual situation. While the ruling state may prescribe a check list of pre-determined traits like location, size of population, beliefs and language, the identified groups do not always suit the cultural, linguistic or political criteria. In most cases, these designated minorities carry with them the stigma of backwardness and poverty, though some minority stakeholders may consider the Han as the backward party. This sense of deficiency carries a notion of social improvement in terms of majority culture acceptance through external urging and intervention. In contrast, the state would have to accept the fact that minorities represent its

Introduction 3

frontier space. This is characterized by a land rich in natural resources, which is essential for national development. The rise of nationalism during the nineteenth century brought the language issue to the fore. As such, borders were prescribed as barriers for the free movement of people. This increasingly placed the minority groups as subject to the dictates of the nation state including its policies on language and education. Overall, the powerful opinion of the central government aimed to impose its authority on minorities for national unity. The government designed a language policy that would enable a dominant/minority communication through the use of a particular mother tongue, which would also encourage linguistic homogeneity in the name of social cohesion. However, a minority living within the center could still seek a non-coercive path through the recognition or at least a toleration of local languages. Hence, no actual agreement of purpose regarding the policy has ever existed. Because of the increasing impacts of coercion, the minorities came to associate language with their own political demands for autonomy based on minority identity. In addition, the center was unable to exert its dominant language in these areas during the early modern period. This can be attributed to the government’s own uncertain grasp of power as rival administrations contested the vitality of the local communities. The Constitution of the Republic of China stipulated a greater consideration for minority language rights after World War I. In fact, the new government even sought the support of minority peoples, and the Republic itself joined an institution with a policy of protecting the interests of minorities called the League of Nations. However, after some time the Republic veered away from recognizing minority rights. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) decided to follow the example set by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in its establishment of Republics. Following its proclamation of language protection, it attempted to apply Stalin’s definition of language as a guide. Unfortunately, all succeeding Chinese governments violated its own policies at certain times, as some reverted to the old view that minority language is nothing but an expression of disunity. Worse, the lack of a comprehensive legal system in the Republic of China and the CCP entails that there be little redress when language guarantees are flouted. In recent years, most language debates have focused on the relationship between the minority languages and Putonghua, the latter being considered the national language and based on the spoken Beijing dialect, and on the romanized Hanyu Pinyin alphabet.

4


For most young people, learning Putonghua is an arduous and time consuming activity. In addition, most minority languages are very different from the Han language in sentence construction, word order, pronunciation and even in written scripts. The language domains also differ with regards to semantic form and meaning. This can also effectively identify insiders from outsiders who operate at different discourse levels. It is observed that although the Han language has a common Chinese writing system that allows for some script modifications, the Han people themselves may speak seven major dialects: Putonghua (Mandarin), Yue (Cantonese), Wu, Min, Gan, Kejia (Hakka) and Xiang. Thus, a person who is fluent in a Han dialect may be unintelligible in another. According to the country’s history, second language learning occurred through non-formal arrangements across communities and such opportunities led to mutual advantages. Individuals, often young boys, are sent to other places in order to learn a particular ethnic group’s language. The principal purpose of this endeavour is future trade, and girls who married outside their communities eventually became bilingual. Meanwhile, another important carrier of bilingual skills is service in the army. Through time, both extended and bilingual language learning became a function of the school system in modern mass education. China’s use of schools to transmit approved knowledge goes back to the Shang Dynasty at least. By virtue of the power and authority of the Hanlin Academy during its apex, the Han language was dominated by the classical script and works of Confucius. The prestige of learning was further enhanced by the introduction of the imperial civil service examination. It offered successful examinees, which occasionally included minority children, rewards for high office. Undoubtedly, these structural arrangements reinforced the power of the dominant language. Simultaneously, alternative language opportunities were facilitated within the minority community through Taoist and Buddhist temples and Islam’s mosques. Modern period language learning through educational programs and language teachers would eventually overwhelm the non formal modes. Missionaries from overseas learned both the Han Chinese and minority languages to communicate with the community folk. In turn, they taught their native languages for religious and commercial purposes. On the other hand, foreign powers among Chinese enclaves taught the homeland language, and the Chinese authorities commonly taught French or English in new middle (secondary) schools. Overall, foreign language learning became increasingly popular with its usefulness for

Introduction 5

statecraft, trade and technological applications. The demand for second language learning resulted in particular methodologies for foreign language teaching such as the Guoyin system, a system introduced in the late nineteenth century, and based on meaning and themes rather than rote memorization. The most important objective for modern China’s leadership is the use of the school system in order to spread the common language, Putonghua, and the alphabetic script, Hanyu Pinyin, as a means toward national unity. This national policy has led to the introduction of a vernacular Chinese that is supported by script, grammar, lexicon and pronunciation. It has been argued that the national language is crucial in exploring concepts, solving problems, organizing information, and in the sharing of knowledge and experiences across communities. Thus, various approaches have emerged in the second language policy. These approaches are: isolationist, where the children are taught in their mother tongue; assimilationist, where the dominant supersedes the minority language; and pluralist or integrationist, where groups maintain their identity and yet access the dominant tongue. Generally, the national language policy has become a significant factor in determining which approach should be applied in a particular political climate. Major problems have emerged in attempting to establish a national spoken language. The national policy was inadequately conceptualized and marred by overly political and insufficient financial resources during its promotion. Basically, the new language programs needed time for planning and execution; it has hence become a handicap for policy makers who are in a hurry. Unfortunately, the central government’s common assumption is that a change in policy handed down from its education ministry would immediately impact the ground. Worse, schools that misinterpreted the government policy practice did not follow the central government’s principle sensibly and the feedback from the intended recipients was completely ignored. In some cases, the expected benefits by parents conflicted with the school’s intended outcomes, and the languages learned failed to benefit the student materially. Finally, the school management was capable of working against intended outcomes resulting in the resistance of students and staff alike. It took over half a century for substantial progress to appear. In sum, China’s economic progress has materially aided the spread of Putonghua among the nationalities. This challenged the authority of minority languages particularly among the young generation. Since different policies have operated across minority groups, some languages strengthened at the expense of others while some individuals and age

6


groups have been marginalized. In other places, the minority language has been negatively viewed as a force inciting civil unrest and terrorism. Important questions arise in a developing global economy, such as “Which languages are to be protected and which are not?” “What ‘obligations’ does China have with regards to language usage in the mainland and in Hong Kong?” “Should there be a Charter protecting language heritage and diversity?” As always, sophistically organized and motivated ethnic groups with an established social and cultural base are the most economically developed. Meanwhile, other minority groups exemplify the tail end of the increasing gap between rich and poor. They have not substantially gained from the national government’s willingness to pass the responsibility down to regional groups. This can be attributed to the fact that their communities are ill-equipped to handle the alternatives open to them. While the central government has new plans from the revisions in its political system, the minority stakeholders continue to have their own priorities and expectations. This will now require accommodation and reconciliation between the center and the periphery. Overall, China’s size, historical experience and uneven development are all factors that contribute to these dynamics.

2 Minority Communities and Languages

Like many Han Chinese, I grew up knowing little about China’s minority communities, except for the impressions I gained from a few films. One of them called Wu duo Jinhua, (Five Golden Flowers), was about five beautiful Bai girls in Dali, Yunnan, who shared the same name, Jinhua (golden flower). The film followed their lives through the social changes in the late 1950s as they became bureaucrats and professionals and conducted their individual love lives. Another film called Bingshan shang de Laike (Visitors to the Ice Mountain) told the touching love story of a young Tajik man named Amir, who was a brave PLA (People’s Liberation Army) soldier, and a very beautiful Tajik girl, who was actually played by a Uyghur actress. Thus, my earliest impressions of minorities were that all the girls were beautiful, talented and romantic, wore beautiful and exotic clothes, and spent much of their time singing and dancing. I did not even know that they spoke different languages as everyone in these films spoke Putonghua (Mandarin). Later in 1995, while visiting the Central University for Nationalities (CUN) in Beijing, I met Professor Muha, a Uyghur from the city of Akesu in Xinjiang. Although he spoke Uyghur and fluent Putonghua, Professor Muha said that his first years at CUN had been very difficult because having completed his primary and secondary education and his university entrance examination entirely in Uyghur his Putonghua and Chinese literacy had been very limited: I had never left Xinjiang, or even Akesu before. Coming to Beijing was like going overseas for me. I knew very little Putonghua, because in my primary and secondary schools in Akesu we did not have Chinese teachers. We did not learn Chinese at all. I started learning Chinese when I arrived in Beijing. From the very basics, I had to work 7

8


twice as hard as my classmates. I was scared to go out because I did not know Putonghua and I looked different from Chinese. People called me a foreigner. Although Muha had to complete a year of intensive classes in Chinese before entering normal classes, after years of hard work he succeeded in reaching the top of his class and was selected to work at CUN as a lecturer where he has been teaching Uyghur language and culture for more than 20 years. Even so, Muha feels that he has yet to be accepted by local Beijing residents. Even though he speaks Putonghua with a Beijing accent, people in the streets and in shops still ask him which country he comes from. He laughs and says: “In Beijing, people always call me a waiguo ren (foreigner).” At home Muha speaks Uyghur to his wife and daughter and maintains the Uyghur way of life and the Islamic religion. He teaches his daughter to write in Uyghur since schools in Beijing do not offer classes in Uyghur. During holidays Muha sends his daughter back to his hometown to learn Uyghur culture from her grandparents. When Muha invited me to a nearby Xinjiang restaurant for lunch, speaking to the waitresses in Uyghur he ordered a selection of typical Uyghur dishes including the famous Uyghur naan, lamb kebabs, and zhua fan, a rice dish mixed with lamb and carrots which we ate with our hands in plastic gloves which he said were not normally used at home. The meal brought home to me how different the Uyghurs were from the Chinese. Uyghurs do not eat pork, they mainly have lamb and mutton; they do not use chopsticks, eating most foods by hand; they are Muslim and do not intermarry with Chinese; they speak a language belonging to the Turkic family and write in script based on Arabic. Women dress differently to Han women and enjoy different customs and culture. Later that same month I went to Yunnan where I visited the Naxi in Lijiang, the Yi in Ninglang, the Mosuo on Lugu Lake, the Tibetan in Zhongdian (which has since been renamed Shangri-la), and the Dai from Dehong and Xishuangbanna. I was struck by the great diversity among these different ethnic groups. All spoke different languages and used different scripts for writing. All belonged to different religions, ate different foods and followed different customs and cultures. Interestingly, the Naxi continued to preserve two kinds of primeval pictographs: the Dongba and Geba scripts which are known as living pictographs and are rare in the world today. Although most minority groups in China follow strong patrilineal traditions, the Mosuo emphasize matrilineal


9

ties, with matrilineally related kin assisting one another with farming, fishing and child rearing. Women also head most households and control most family property. In China, such diversity does not arise by chance but is a historic and contemporary artifact. Multilingualism and multiculturalism are realities and although the PRC has always emphasized national unity, it also officially recognizes and promotes diversity in different ways with varying effectiveness.

Minority communities and their autonomy The PRC declared China a united country with 56 nationalities in 1979. According to the 2000 national census, the 1159 million Han (Chinese) constitute the majority nationality, comprising 91.6 percent of the total population. The remaining 55 nationalities are referred to as minority nationalities (shaoshu minzu) and form 8.4 percent of the nation’s population. China’s minorities are significant, not only because there are 106 million of them, but also because of their political, economic and strategic influences on the country’s national unity and security. Geographically, many minority nationalities live in border regions and although constituting less than 10 percent of China’s total population, they occupy 64 percent of its area, much of it containing rich natural resources essential for national economic development. From the perspective of social cohesion and internal security, centuries of hostility and distrust between minority nationalities and the dominant Han population have shaped central government attitudes. Nonetheless, they have learnt to co-exist at least. In 1947, the CCP created an administrative system of autonomy for minority areas, aimed at protecting China’s territorial integrity while providing due consideration to the rights of minorities. This framework for autonomy differs from the one applied in the Soviet Union and, after the Sino-Soviet split in the late 1950s, Soviet authors also denounced China’s system as a betrayal of socialist principles. Early in 1957, Premier Zhou Enlai defended China against Soviet criticism, saying “We are different from the Soviet Union. We cannot have a republic. We have autonomous regions.”1 Nevertheless, by establishing autonomous regions, the CCP government formally acknowledged territorial boundaries and the autonomy of the identified minority groups. The state also allocated resources to help maintain distinct group identities, enhance group solidarity and sanction a framework for political engagement. Leaders of autonomous governments must by law be of non-Han origin, although, deputies and holders of senior government positions

10 Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China

can be Han. Scholars have argued that this system provides truncated territorial autonomy and little actual political autonomy (Dreyer, 1976; Heberer, 1989; Mackerras, 1994). Autonomous regions, prefectures, counties and banners are covered under Section 6 Articles 111–122 of the Constitution of the PRC, and in more detail under the 1984 PRC Law on Regional Autonomy which was revised in 2001. Autonomous regions are top-level administrative subdivisions of China with their own local government and some legislative rights. China has five autonomous regions (see Table 2.1): the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR); the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (GZAR); the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR); the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR); and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (NHAR). The constitution states that the governmental head of each autonomous area must belong to the ethnic group identified with that area and guarantees a range of rights including: economic, financial, scientific, artistic and cultural independence, plus the right to organize local police forces and the right to use their own languages. Governmental heads of autonomous regions are known as zhuxi (chairmen), unlike provincial heads which are known as shengzhang (governors). By 2006 four levels of autonomous government had been established in China. The second administrative levels are autonomous prefectures which have been established in eight provinces: Gansu, Guizhou, Hubei, Hunan, Jilin, Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan, which has the largest number of autonomous prefectures. The third administrative levels are autonomous counties and autonomous banners. There are 120 distributed Table 2.1

Five autonomous regions in China2

Autonomous regions Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region Tibet Autonomous Region Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region

Established dates

Minority nationalities (population)

Minority nationalities (%)

15.3.1958

17,940,000

38.54

1.10.1955

12,101,200

60.26

1.5.1947

5,158,000

21.62

1.9.1965

2,580,000

93.46

25.10.1958

2,140,000

35.98


11

among 15 provinces and three of the autonomous regions. Yunnan has 29 autonomous counties. The fourth administrative levels are ethnic townships and although they are not considered autonomous and do not enjoy laws pertaining to larger ethnic autonomous areas, over 270 have been identified.

Minority languages The government has carried out five national censuses since 1953, which have included questions targeting ethnic identity and educational level, but language use has never been surveyed. The number of minority languages spoken in China is still not definitively known. The State Language Commission (1995, p. 159) has recognized over 80 to 120 minority languages while Sun, Hu and Huang (2007) in their recent publication The Languages of China claim that China has 129 languages. Although some scholars have argued that more minority languages should be recognized because many so called “minority languages” contain phonologically and grammatically distinct variants, some minority elites have complained that their languages have been artificially splintered by the recognition of related dialects as distinct languages. For example, although the Tibetan language is said to comprise eleven or twelve “related languages”, including Jiarong, Kemu, Kemei, Wulin and Lhoba, elites argue that these so-called “related languages” are in fact dialects of Tibetan. Some minorities such as the Hui have adopted Chinese while other such as the Manchu and the She have switched to Chinese. The remaining 52 ethnic groups have their own languages, with some speaking two or more. Within every minority group, there are a certain number of individuals who use Chinese or other ethnic languages in addition to their own. There are also members of minority communities who have abandoned their own language and switched to another. For example, the Xiandao community in Yunnan, who are identified as Achang, previously lived in a mountain village 1400 meters above sea level and was considered one of the poorest and most primitive groups in Yunnan. Their living conditions were very harsh, with a high incidence of such diseases as smallpox and malaria. After the government built houses and moved them to another village in 1995, they came under the influence of Jingpo culture and customs and began using the Jingpo language to practice Christianity. As a result of their close contact with the Jingpo, the Xiandao have begun using the Jingpo language for much of their daily communication (Tsung, 2004).

12


Table 2.2 Classification of minority languages Language groups

Minorities

1. Altaic: – Turkic

Uyghur, Kazak, Kirgiz, Uzbek, Tatar, Salar Mongol, Daur, Dongxiang, Tu, Bonan, Yugur Manchu, Xibe, Hezhe, Oroque, Ewenki

– Mongolian – Tungusic 2. Korean

Korean

3. Indo-European: – Iranian – Slavic

Tajik Russian

4. Sino-Tibetan: – Tibetan-Burmese

– Thai – Miao-Yao 5. Austric: – Austro-Asiatic – Austronesian

Achang, Drung, Jingpo, Jino, Hani, Lisu, Lahu, Naxi, Lhoba, Monba, Nu, Tibetan, Tujia, Qiang, Pumi, Yi Zhuang, Dong, Bouyei, Dai, Li, Mulam, Shui Miao, Yao

Locations of speakers

Northwest, North and Northeast

South and Southwest

Va, Blang, De’ang Gaoshan

The linguistic structures and systems of writing of the various minority languages differ greatly from Chinese in sentence structure, word order and pronunciation. Dai (1994) and Ma (1954) have grouped China’s main languages into five language families: Sino-Tibetan, Altaic, Austric, Korean and Indo-European (see Table 2.2).

Minority communities in different regions The location of national minority communities can be divided into six regions: the northeast, the north, the northwest, the southwest, the central west and the south (see Map 1). Manchu and Korean communities dominate in the northeast along with small Tungusic speaking communities: Hezhe and Oroqen. The Mongol community dominates in the north with smaller Daur, Dongxiang, Tu, Bonan, Ewenki and Yugur communities. The Uyghur is the major community in the northwest although there are also Turkic speaking Kazak, Kirgiz, Uzebek and Tartar communities as well as Indo-European speaking Tajik and

Map 1 Distribution of minority communities in China Notes: Northeast: Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning provinces; North: Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region; Northwest: Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; Central West: Qinghai and Gansu provinces, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region; Southwest: Tibet Autonomous Region; South: Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Yunnan, Sichuan, Guizhou, Hunan and Hainan provinces

14


Table 2.3

Ethnic groups in the northeast (2000 census)3

Ethnic groups

Heilongjiang

%

Jilin

%

Liaoning

%

Manchu Korean Mongol Hui Daur Xibe Hezhe Oroqen

1,037,080 388,458 141,495 124,003 43,608 8,886 3,910 3,871

2.86 1.07 0.39 0.34 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.01

993,112 1,145,688 172,026 125,620

3.71 4.27 0.64 0.47

5,385,287 241,052 669,972 264,407

12.88 0.58 1.60 0.63

132,615

0.32

Russian communities. In the central west there are Tibetan, Hui and Salar communities while in the southwest the Tibetan is the dominant group, with small communities of Monba and Lhoba. The southern area is linguistically and socially more complex with 31 official minority communities although the Zhuang community dominates, followed by the Miao, Yi and Yao communities. Given the comparatively large number of minority communities and their location, the major groups and others, including some representative minorities, are selected for mention here. Tables 2.3 to 2.8 provide more specific population details. The northeast region: Manchu, Korean, Hezhe and Oroqen The northeast region, composed of three provinces, Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning, is the home mainly to communities of Manchu and Korean, as well as small communities of Mongol, Xibe, Hui, Daur, Hezhe and Oroqen (see Table 2.3). As one of the earliest regions to industrialize, the northeast became China’s industrial heartland producing coal and steel, refining petroleum and manufacturing automobiles, ships and airplanes. For many Chinese, the northeast brings to mind images of factory workers with bright smiles and cheery attitudes. With the downfall of the planned economy the northeast became known, with just cause, as the “rust belt”. High unemployment in the late 1980s and deteriorating social order led the Central Government to launch its “Revitalize the Northeast Campaign” in an attempt to revive the region by means of new industries and tourism. In spite of its industrial history, the northeast claims the nation’s largest natural forests. It also boasts uncontaminated grasslands and Tian Chi, one of China’s most spiritual lakes. Rural populations are concentrated in the southern part of the northeast where summers permit high yielding crops such as maize, millet and soybean. Although the


15

northern half of Heilongjiang is cold and ill drained, the Amur River provides rich fishing. Following the establishment of the Chinese Republic in 1912, the once-elite Manchus found themselves identified as one of China’s 55 ethnic minorities. The Manchu became China’s second largest minority nationality when due to a 1980 government policy allowing peoples to resume their minority status the Manchu population abruptly increased almost seven and half times its 1953 size. Indistinguishable in appearance from the Han, and with their language on the verge of extinction, the Manchu may be losing their awareness of themselves as a distinct people. Although exact numbers are difficult to obtain, there are probably fewer than a hundred native speakers of Manchu left in China, almost all of whom are over 70 years of age. The number of those also literate in Manchu is even lower. However, the Xibe language, which is related to Manchu, is spoken in Xibe communities in Xinjiang, and Manchu is also taught at the Beijing Manchu School established in 1984. Most people studying Manchu at the Beijing Manchu School do so out of a sense of responsibility and obligation. While there is an urgent need to salvage Manchu and to conduct historical research, which has attracted financial aid from the state, most young Manchus today prefer to seek employment and a future in Chinese-speaking communities. Ancestors of the Korean community in China migrated from the Korean peninsula in the late seventeenth century and are today concentrated in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture in Jilin Province. Parts of this region is well endowed, for example, the Changbai Korean Autonomous County in southeastern Jilin is one of China’s major sources of timber and forest products, including ginseng, marten pelts and deer antlers, and has rich deposits of iron, quartz, limestone, copper, lead, zinc and gold. There are also major Korean communities in the cities of Shenyang and Changchun. Following the establishment of diplomatic relations between South Korea and China in 1992, communities of South Koreans have been emerging in Beijing, Shanghai and Qingdao where they come to work for South Korean corporations on short-term international assignments. Although many Koreans are atheists or Buddhists, increasing numbers have been converting to Christianity and there are over 25 times as many Christians today as there were 20 years ago. The reputation of China’s Korean community for mother tongue education, high literacy and bilingual skills exceeds that of the Han with most fluent and literate in both Korean and Chinese. In compact Korean communities the Korean script is widely used along with

16


Chinese characters on all government documents and in a wide variety of publications. Over the last 20 years, Koreans have benefited greatly from China’s economic boom especially as employees of joint Chinese-Korean companies. Many young Koreans have also gone to work in South Korea. In 2007, a number of social problems were created when 134,000 Koreans left their hometowns in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, to work overseas or in other Chinese cities leaving many primary and secondary school children in the care of their grandparents or relatives.4 The northeast is also home to small Hezhe and Oroqen communities. One of the smallest minority communities in China, the Hezhe, live in Heilongjiang. Fish is the main staple and their traditional clothes are visually distinctive and decorated with shells, fish bones and cloudshaped patterns. They use bear hide and birch bark to make thick boots worn in winter. The Hezhe are also skilled in carpentry, tanning, iron smelting and embroidery. The Hezhe practice Shamanism accepting the power of nature, ancestors and totems and are known for their Wurigong Festival, a celebration of singing, traditional sports and feasting that is held every two years. The Hezhe language, which is related to Manchu, belongs to the Tungusic branch of the Altaic family. There is no written script and most Hezhe use Chinese. The small Oroqen community lives primarily in the mountainous areas of Heilongjiang and in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region. Like the Hezhe they are expert hunters with both males and females are able to shoot accurately on horseback. They consider horses and dogs to be faithful friends and refuse to eat the meat of either animal. The Oroqen, like the Hezhe, practice Shamanism and are known for their creativity in oral literature, singing and dancing, especially a dance with masks that is featured in sacrificial occasions. Oroqen is spoken and it has no script. Like Hezhe and Manchu, the Oroqen belongs to the Tungusic branch of the Altaic family. Most Oroqens have learned to read and write Chinese and their children attend Chinese schools. The northern region: Mongol, Daur and Ewenki The Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR) in northern China was the first autonomous region to be created in 1947, following the Soviet model of nationalities policy, two years before the establishment of the PRC. As the third largest region of China spanning almost 1.18 million square kilometers or 12 percent of China’s land, it is the homeland of among others the Mongols and the Daur whose languages belong to the Mongolian branch of the Altaic language family (see Table 2.4).

Minority Communities and Languages Table 2.4

Ethnic groups in the north (2000 census)

Ethnic groups Mongol Manchu Hui Daur Ewenki Korean Russian

17

Population

%

3,995,349 499,911 209,850 77,188 26,201 21,859 5,020

17.13 2.14 0.90 0.33 0.11 0.09 0.02

The Mongols once controlled China and are the heirs of Genghis Khan whose Mongol Empire lasted from 1206 to 1405. About seven out of ten Mongols in China live in IMAR, with the rest scattered around China in Haixi Mongol and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Qinghai and in Subei Mongol Autonomous County in Gansu Province. Mongols typically use Mongolian in their daily lives and as the language of instruction in primary and secondary school. Mongols living in Heilongjiang, Jilin, Liaoning and Hebei and in Beijing are usually surrounded by Han communities. Here Chinese is used as the medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools although a few schools provide instruction in Mongolian. About 31 percent of Mongols have already shifted to using Chinese, and Mongolian is now considered to be an endangered language even in IMAR where more and more Mongol parents are sending their children to Chinese schools to learn Chinese and English for their future career prospects. Recently, the IMAR government introduced a policy of cash rewards to Mongols who continue to learn and work to promote the Mongolian language. IMAR is also the home of small Daur and Ewenki communitities. The Daur language is related to Mongolian and the members of this community are said to be the descendants of the brave Qidan tribe of the Liao Dynasty (916–1125). Daur means “cultivators” and the community lives in an area conducive to farming and animal husbandry. The Ewenki, whose self-given name means “people living in mountain forest” make their living by breeding animals, farming and hunting. The staple foods include milk, meat and flour and their favorite dishes are boiled mutton and beef. Traditional Ewenki clothing is made from the hides of deer and sheep. Most are Shamanists or followers of Lamaism. The Ewenki language belongs to the Tungus-Manchu branch of the Altaic family and has no script.


The northwest region: Uyghur and others The northwest (see Table 2.5) is of great political and economic significance to the PRC. Making up about one-sixth of China’s landmass and bordering on eight other Central Asian countries, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) provides a number of critical natural resources for sustaining China’s economic growth. The northwest has three specific social, cultural and linguistic characteristics. First, the Uyghur, Kazak, Kirgiz, Uzbek and Tartar communities all follow Islam and share some similar customs. Second, all communities speak languages belonging to the Turkic branch of the Altaic language family and all use scripts based on the Arabic script. Third, members of these communities frequently live on cross-borders between China and neighboring countries. While all major communities identify themselves as Muslims, what that entails varies considerably depending on locale and education. For instance, although Islam appears to permeate almost all aspects of daily life in rural areas it appears to be significantly less pervasive in the lives of urban dwellers. Nonetheless, Islam is embedded in their daily activities, such as greetings and exclamations, mode of dress, scrupulous personal cleanliness including the consumption of halal food, and a sense of solidarity with other Muslims. The Uyghur, the dominant minority group in the northwest region, hold most of the linguistic and political power in XUAR. Historically the Uyghur have been an important link between China and the outside world. Uyghur communities were typically located in oases or fertile valleys where the people grew cereals and fruit and raised animals. These strategically located settlements enabled many Uyghur traders to Table 2.5

Ethnic groups in the northwest (2000 census)

Ethnic groups Uyghur Kazak Hui Kirgiz Mongol Tajik Xibe Manchu Uzbek Russian Daur Tatar

Population

%

8,345,622 1,245,023 839,837 158,775 149,857 39,493 34,566 19,493 12,096 8,935 5,541 4,501

45.21 6.74 4.55 0.86 0.81 0.21 0.19 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.02


19

act as key middlemen on the Silk Road. Small Uyghur communities can be found in most major cities in the south and east of China and there are even several hundred thousand Uyghurs living in communities in Turkey, Europe, North America and Australia. Traditionally, the Uyghurs made their homes in the Tarim basin, and on the grasslands of the Heavenly Mountains, the Pamirs and the Kunlun Range where they developed the skills and facilities needed to serve the needs of an international trade route. While many Uyghurs today are heavily involved in manufacturing, mining, oil drilling, trade and transportation, their pastoralist past is still apparent in their diet of naan bread, pasta or rice, meat, particularly mutton, and dairy products such as milk tea, butter, cream, yoghurt and khurt. The Uyghur language, which is related to Uzbek, Turkish, Kazak, Kirgiz and Salar, is the common speech in XUAR with more than 11 million native and non-native speakers. It is also widely spoken by other minorities in Xinjiang, such as Kazaks, Tatars, Uzbeks, Kirgiz and Tajiks. Around the 1980s a new Arabic script was introduced and has since become the standard script. The Uyghur script is commonly used in XUAR on official documents and publications. Although Uyghurs are proud of their language and it is unusual to meet an adult or a child who cannot speak it, they are considered to be poor speakers of Chinese. There are Kazak communities in XUAR and close to eight million Kazaks in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Nearly half of all Kazaks were killed during the Russian Civil War of the 1920s and 1930s and the surviving Kazaks found themselves dispersed among many countries, including China, where they are spread over a vast territory from the Tian Shan mountain to the Ural mountain. Despite being widely separated Kazak communities have preserved their language and culture under centralized administrations, such as in the Ili Kazak Autonomous Prefecture in XUAR and the small Kazak community in the Haixi Mongol and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Qinghai Province. There are also three Kazak autonomous counties in XUAR. Whereas Kazak speakers in China use a script derived from Arabic similar to the one used for Uyghur, Kazak speakers in Kazakhstan and the Republic of Mongolia use a script derived from the Cyrillic alphabet. Although there are Kirgiz communities on both sides of China’s border with the largest population living in Kyrgyzstan, seven percent of all Kirgiz live in China with more than three-quarters of them in the Kizilsu Kirgiz Autonomous Prefecture in the southwestern part of XUAR. While 95 percent of all Kirgiz are Muslims, they did not accept the religion until about a century ago and their practice of Islam is considered

20


unorthodox by some. Both Kazaks and the Kirgiz are nomadic, migrating seasonally in search of pasture. During the summer months, they live in round tents called yurts, which are constructed by stretching felt over wooden frames, and in the winter months families move into adobe (concrete block) houses. In addition to their own language, the Kirgiz in the south of Xinjiang speak Uyghur and use the Uyghur script, while the Kirgiz in the north of Xinjiang speak Kazak and use the Kazak script. Small Kirgiz communities are also found in Heilongjiang speaking Chinese or Mongolian. The Kirgiz language and script are commonly used in daily community life and some Kirgiz schools in XUAR use Kirgiz as the language of instruction. While most Uzbek communities are located in Uzbekistan, there are about 123,700 Uzbeks in China, mainly in Xinjiang. Uzbeks come from a predominantly Sunni Muslim background, usually of the Hanafi School, but variations exist between northern and southern Uzbeks. While Uzbeks from the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) practice a more liberal form of Islam, after the independence of Uzbekistan in 1991 an Islamic revival occurred among segments of its population. Uzbek which is spoken in Uzbekistan and other places is written in wide variety of scripts including Arabic, Latin and Cyrillic. The Tatars in China live mainly in the cities of Altay, Changji, Ili, Urumqi and Tacheng in Xinjiang and are fewer in number than their compatriots across the border in the Republic of Tatarstan. Although Tatars speak a language belonging to the Turkic branch of the Altaic language family, they also speak Uyghur and Kazak as a result of frequent contacts with these ethnic groups. The Tatar script is based on Arabic letters but also uses Kazak and Uyghur scripts. Most Tatars are adherents of Islam. The Xibe community is believed to have descended from an eighteenth century Qing dynasty Manchu military garrison. The community has preserved its language through an innovative dialect, which is spoken by upwards of 30,000 people in the Ili area of XUAR. Linguistically it is virtually identical to classical Manchu except for a few variations in pronunciation and writing. Among the Xibe, older people speak only their mother tongue, while younger people usually speak Chinese and use a mixture of Xibe and Chinese. Some Xibe people living in mixed Xibe and Kazak communities speak Kazak. The Xibe communities in the northwest and in the northeast have different characteristics. Communities in the northeast live in more compact communities and have preserved their language and traditional life styles. They send their children to Xibe schools to learn their


21

own language and are pious worshippers of ancestors, to whom they offer fish in March and melons in July. Tajiks living mainly in Xinjiang are thought to have come to China from Central Asia in the eleventh century. Their origins can be traced to tribes speaking eastern Iranian who settled in the eastern part of the Pamirs. Most Tajiks live in compact communities in Taxkorgan with the rest scattered over areas of southern Xinjiang, including Shache, Zepu, Yecheng and Pishan. The Tajiks in Taxkorgan live alongside Uyghurs, Kirgizs, Xibes and Hans. Their Autonomous County is perched 5–6,000 meters above sea level in the highest part of the Pamirs on the “roof of the world” surrounded by perennially snow-capped peaks, where they practice animal husbandry and farming, making use of luxuriant pastures and abundant water resources. Tajik houses are typically square, flat-roofed structures made of wood and stone with solid thick walls of rock and sod. Traditionally, Tajiks seldom intermarry with other ethnic groups and when they do, they occur with Uygurs and Kirgizs. Excepting siblings, Tajiks are allowed to marry anyone they wish regardless of seniority and kinship. Tajiks speak a language belonging to the Iranian branch of the IndoEuropean language family. Although in China they are generally counted as a homogeneous group, three different languages exist: Sarikol Tajik spoken by perhaps 25–30,000 Tajiks, Wakhan Tajik, spoken by perhaps 5000 Tajiks and Tor Tajik, which is actually a Turkish language closely related to Uzbek and Uyghur. Although many Tajiks speak and write Uyghur few can speak Chinese. Russians are also one of China’s 56 ethnic groups with the first wave of Russians arriving between the nineteenth century and the October Revolution and settling in Xinjiang. A second wave arrived in 1917 and settled in Harbin but most of them moved back to the Soviet Union after World War II. Most present day Russian communities reside in northern Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Heilongjiang. In Xinjiang Russian communities are found in Tacheng, Altay, Yining, and Urumqi. Russians speak a language belonging to the Slav branch of the IndoEuropean language family and use the Russian written language. Some have learned Uyghur, Kazak or Chinese. Their dress and customs are similar to those of Russians on the other side of the border. The central west region: Tibetan, Hui, Tu, Salar and others A number of significant minority communities live in the central west region (see Table 2.6). Qinghai province has a multi-ethnic population, about half of which comprises Tibetans, Hui, Tu, Salar and Mongols.

22


Table 2.6

Ethnic groups in the central west (2000 census)

Ethnic groups

Qinghai

%

Tibetan Hui Tu Salar Dongxiang Bonan Yugur

1,086,592 753,378 187,562 87,043

22.53 15.62 3.89 1.80

Ningxia

%

Gansu

%

1,862,474

33.95

443,228 1,184,930

1.76 4.72

11,784 451,622 15,170 12,962

0.05 1.80 0.06 0.05

More than 70 percent of minority communities are concentrated in the eastern part of Qinghai, in Haidong District whose lower average altitude of 1600 meters above sea level renders it more suitable for agricultural cultivation. A considerable number of Tibetan communities reside in Hainan, Haibei, Guoluo, Huangnan and Yushu, Qinghai’s five Tibetan autonomous prefectures, Haixi, its one Mongol and Tibetan autonomous prefecture, and its one Tibetan autonomous county. These Tibetan communities occupy over nine-tenths of Qinghai’s territory and will be discussed in the description of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The second largest minority community in Qinghai is the Hui who are found in greatest numbers in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. Gansu province is located between Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, and the Huangtu Plateaus, and borders Inner Mongolia to the north and Xinjiang to the west. The Yellow River passes through the southern part of Gansu. Its population includes Hui, Dongxiang, Bonan, Yugur and Tibetans. Hui communities in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (NHAR) are located along the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River and while some Hui are ethnically indistinguishable from the Han, many retain Central Asian and Middle Eastern genetic features, most notably Arab and Persian which are attributable to the influence of Islamic traders. Although this region is comparatively poor, with the third lowest GDP in the PRC (Tibet has lowest GDP) it has an outstanding cultural heritage. Ningxia was a trade and transportation hub between the eastern and western regions of ancient China during the Tang and Han Dynasties (206 BC – AD 907). The Tu, the third largest ethnic community in Qinghai, live mainly in the counties of Huzhu, Minhe and Datong as well as in several counties in Gansu. They earn their living by farming and raising animals,


23

specializing in sheep breeding. Their staple food is Qingke, a kind of highland barley. Their language belongs to the Mongolian group of the Altaic language family and although a Tu script was created in 1979 most Tu write in Chinese. They are animist, practising Lamaism or Taoism and are renowned for their talents in singing and dancing. Every year thousands of Tu gather for a ballad-singing festival in their traditional clothing with distinctive high collars and wide waistbands embroidered with flower patterns. Although different theories of the origins of the Salars have been proposed, the prevalent view is that their ancestors came from the region of Samarkand in Central Asia during the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368). The Salar language is almost identical with that of the Uyghur, with whom they share the Islamic religion. The Salar have a reputation for being the most devout Muslims in China and their villages are dominated by mosques and Muslim clergy. Historically, women of Salar communities suffer under rigid religious strictures and feudal ethics. Unmarried girls are not allowed to appear in public, while married women are required to hide their faces in front of strange men, to avert their faces when answering questions, and to make detours to avoid encounters with unknown men. In recent decades, Salar women have begun abandoning such practices. They actively participate in all local productive activites. While Salar is their official language, only about two-thirds of Salar people can speak it and it appears to be slowly dying out. Approximately 80 percent of the Salar speak and understand Putonghua (Mandarin), while around 50 percent speak Amdo Tibetan. Salar has no script. Prior to the founding of the PRC in 1949, the Dongxiang people were known as the “Dongxiang Hui” or the “Mongol Hui.” Today, they mainly inhabit the Dongxiang Autonomous County in Gansu, with a small number in Xinjiang and Ningxia. The Dongxiang language is similar to Mongolian and contains words borrowed from Chinese. Most Dongxiang speak Chinese and many use Chinese characters as Dongxiang has no script. Dongxiang communities are Islamic and their important festivals, such as the Korban Festival and Kaizhai Festival are all related to Islam. The people live mainly on agriculture and stockbreeding, especially sheep. Families grind yam, which along with chicken, mutton and tea are the most popular foods. Dongxiang men are distinguished by their round white hats, waistcoats and black or blue coats while Dongxiang women are distinguished by their head-covers. The Bonan are one of China’s smallest ethnic minorities and are concentrated in the areas of Mount Jishishan Bonan, Dongxiang and Salar


Autonomous County in the southwest of Gansu. The Bonan practice Islam in the Sunni tradition. Their language belongs to the Mongolian branch of the Altaic language family. The Bonan grow highland barley, wheat and corn and raise cattle and sheep. They are noted for their handicrafts especially for the forging of knives and Bonan women are especially skilled at paper-cutting and engraving flower patterns. Nearly 90 percent of the Yugur community in Gansu lives in the Sunan Yugur Autonomous County with the rest living in the Huangnibao area near the city of Jiuquan in western Gansu. The Yugur live mainly by animal husbandry and eat beef, mutton and chicken as well as camel. Their cereal foods consist primarily of rice, wheat and mixed grains. In addition, milk tea, mixed with fried noodles, is a popular dish. The Yugur practice Lamaism, have a rich oral literary tradition, and music characterized by graceful tunes and ballads. Members of this ethnic minority use three languages: Raohul, from the Turkic branch of the Altaic language family, which is spoken by the Yugurs in the western part of the autonomous county; Engle, from the Mongolian branch of the Altaic language family, which is spoken in the eastern part of the county; and Chinese, which is used by Yugurs living in Huangnibao. Chinese is also a common medium of communication among the Yugur and Chinese characters are widely used as Yugur has no script. The southwest: Tibetan, Monba and Lhoba The southwest is the home to Tibetans, and to small Monba and Lhoba communities. The Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) is the second largest autonomous region in China with over 1.2 million square kilometers and a population nine out of ten of which is Tibetan (see Table 2.7). Tibetan is the lingua franca of the TAR and of Tibet autonomous prefectures in the provinces of Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan and is widely used by most Tibetan communities in cities, towns, villages and pasturing areas, in daily communication and in social and religious activities. There are a number of dialects of Tibetan including Am Kad spoken by Tibetans residing in four of Qinghai’s five Tibetan Table 2.7 Ethnic groups in the southwest (2000 census) Ethnic groups Tibetan Monba Lhoba

Population

%

2,427,168 8,481 2,691

92.77 0.32 0.10


25

autonomous prefectures, and Kham Kad spoken by Tibetans in Yushu, its fifth prefecture. Although all the languages in the TAR belong to the Sino-Tibetan language family, only Tibetan has had a highly sophisticated written script which has existed for over a thousand years (Chodag, 1988). Originating during the reign of Songsten Gampo in the sixth century, this script has developed over the last fourteen centuries. Tibetan has the status of an official language in TAR, though it is in fact used at a very “superficial level” while Chinese dominates the media and is used in every governmental domain (see Zhou, 2003). For instance, government documents in autonomous regions are issued in Chinese, under letterheads in both Chinese and Tibetan. The names of all work units must be written in both languages. In the judiciary, the language of the courts and of all court documents are required to be in Chinese, although translations and interpretations in Tibetan are available upon request. In rural areas, government documents and laws are written in Chinese although Tibetan bureaucrats often provide villagers with oral interpretations in Tibetan. Tibetan continues to be used in traditional settings such as in religious practices and in daily life, and there are radio and television programs available in Tibetan. Historically, monasteries have been centers of religious study and literacy for Tibetans. A modern secular school system was established in the 1950s and although it was interrupted for nearly 20 years by political factionalism it has been steadily expanding since the 1980s. Although in the past, Buddhist temples provided Tibetan children with their only access to literacy, Tibetan is now the medium of instruction in primary schools in TAR. However, Tibetan has yet to be adequately developed as a medium of instruction in junior and senior (high) schools. The Tibet University also provides courses in Tibetan language and literature. Nonetheless, educational development varies across different Tibetan areas due to the difference in policies and practices. Education for Tibetans in the provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan has been developing more rapidly than in TAR, especially in terms of Tibetan medium instruction. Monba communities live mainly in TAR and speak two types of Monba. Cona Monba is spoken by Monba communities in the southern part of Tibet, especially in Cona County, and Cangluo Monba is spoken by Monba communities in the southeastern part of Tibet especially in Motuo County and Linzhi County. There are many more Cona Monba speakers than Cangluo Monba speakers. Congluo Monba and Cona Monba differ so greatly that their speakers must use Tibetan as a common language.


Although Monba usually speak their own languages in daily life and on social occasions, they speak Tibetan as a second language, and frequently Chinese as a third. The Monba belong to the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism and the sixth Dalai Lama, Tsangyang Gyatso, was a Monba. With a population of around 3000, the Lhoba are the smallest officially recognized ethnic group in China, although another 8000 Lhoba live in India in the Debang Valley. Lhoba communities are located in southeastern Tibet, notably in Milin, Motuo, Longzi and Lang counties of Linzhi Prefecture. A small number of the community lives in Luoyu in southern Tibet. Few Lhoba know Tibetan and with no written script Lhobas keep track of their history through oral records and knot codes telling their past. The Lhoba engage in barter, trading goods like animal hides, musk, bear paws, dye and captured animals for farm tools, salt, wool, clothing, grain and tea. As a result of constant trading, the Lhoba have been increasingly influenced by Tibetan dress and have converted to Tibetan Buddhism while maintaining their animist beliefs. The Lhoba community has integrated with the dominant Tibetan culture and has begun to abandon its rigid class system which divides people into two distinct castes – aristocrats (maide) and peasants (nieba). Though small in number the community is represented in government at the regional, county and township levels. The southern region: Zhuang and others The southern region comprising the provinces of Yunnan, Guizhou, Sichuan, Hainan, Hunan and Guangxi, is the home of 31 official minority communities. These communities live in close proximity, characterized by cultural integration and linguistic contact, with no significant dominant community except the Zhuang, who have integrated well with the Han for centuries. These minority communities are multilingual and highly conscious of their unique identities, which they eagerly express through distinct forms of dress, song and dance. Most of the languages of minority communities in the south belong to the SinoTibetan language family with a small number belonging to the AustroAsiatic language family. The distribution and populations of major minority communities are indicated in the Table 2.8. The Zhuang, the largest minority group in China, live mainly in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (GZAR) and having maintained close ties with the Han for centuries are one of the best-integrated ethnic communities in China. The name of the Zhuang used to be written in Chinese with an “animal” radical, the character referring to a variety of wild dogs. This was considered an ethnic slur and in 1949 the “animal”

Table 2.8

Ethnic groups in the south (2000 census)

Ethnic groups Zhuang Yi Tujia Miao Yao Li Bai Hani Dai Tibetan Qiang Bouyei Dong

Guangxi

%

Yunnan

%

Sichuan

%

14,207,143

31.7

1,144,021 4,705,658

2.7 11.1

2,122,389

2.6

1,043,535

2.5

1,505,644 1,424,990 1,142,139

3.6 3.4 2.7

462,956 1,471,946

1.0 3.3

Hunan

2,639,534 1,921,495 704,564

1,269,120 300,757

%

4.1 3.0 1.1

Guizhou

%

843,554 1,430,286 4,299,954

2.4 4.1 12.2

187,362

0.5

2,798,200 1,628,568

7.9 4.6

1.5 0.4 842,123

1.3

Hainan

%

50,507

0.6

1,172,181

14.9

28


radical was replaced by the “human” radical. Besides sharing similar festivals with the Han, Zhuang communities have their own Devil, Ox Soul and Singing festivals. Their various religions include Buddhism, Daoism, Christianity and ancestor worship. Zhuang women are skilled at weaving and embroidery and are well known for both their distinctive designs in cotton and yarn and for their brocades. Dying with wax is another popular skill. The Zhung language belongs to the Thai branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Prior to 1957 there was an indigenous Zhuang written language, Gu Zhuangzi, composed of Zhuang logograms based on Chinese characters. However, this script was replaced by one based on the Latin alphabet and created in 1957. Although the Zhuang script is currently the only one of the 16 created scripts that is officially approved of by the State Council, it has achieved only limited success among the Zhuang community. Today most Zhuang are bilingual in Chinese and Zhuang with Zhuang spoken in most social and public activities, including media and broadcasting and Chinese used as the medium of instruction in schools and tertiary institutions. The Miao form China’s fourth largest minority group with their communities scattered over seven provinces in south China. Generally, large Miao communities can be found in three centralized areas: Xiangxi (western Hunan Province), Qiandong (eastern Guizhou Province), and Chuan Qian Dian (Sichuan, Guizhou and Yunnan). Some members of Miao sub-groups, most notably of the Hmong/Mong, have migrated into northern Vietnam, Laos, Burma and Thailand with large groups of Hmong/Mong refugees now resettled in several Western nations. According to Chinese legend, the Miao are descended from the Jiuli tribe led by Chiyou who had three sons. After the fall of the Jiuli tribe, Chiyou’s eldest son led some people south, his middle son led some people north, and his youngest son remained in Zhuolu where they were assimilated into the Huaxia culture. The Chinese character for Miao, means “grass shoots” and the term “Miao” has been applied to a variety of non-Han peoples often with the connotation of “barbarian”. The Miao language, which belongs to the Miao-Yao branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family, has three dialects spoken in the western Hunan, the eastern Guizhou and Chuan Qian Dian (Sichuan, Guizhou and Yunnan) respectively. These dialects differ so much from each other that speakers of different dialects cannot communicate. Because they have lived for a long period with the Han and others ethnic groups, the Miao are usually able to speak Chinese and Dong or Zhuang. Since


29

1956, they have been using several Miao romanized scripts, one created by the government and others by missionaries. Three types of regional scripts have been created for the Miao people by the state. Miao communities in different areas differ both socially and culturally. The Chinese have traditionally classified the Miao according to the most characteristic style and color of the women’s clothing. There are the Long Skirt Miao, the Short Skirt Miao, the Black Miao, the Red Miao, the White Miao, the Green Miao, the Big/Small Flowery Miao and the Long Horned Miao. In terms of location there are the River Miao and the Mountain Miao. Miao communities do not refer to themselves as “Miao” using instead such designations as (with some variant spellings) Hmong/Mong, Hmu, A Hmao and Kho (Qho) Xiong. Divided by regions, the Miao celebrate their festivals at different times. Like the Han, the Miao Spring Festival is the most important celebration occurring sometime between the ninth and the eleventh lunar month. During the New Rice Tasting Festival in which they express their gratitude for the harvest, the Miao feast on steamed newly ripened rice, brew rice wine, and cook dishes with newly picked vegetables and fresh fish while playing the lusheng, a kind of wind instrument, singing to one another and performing dances with demanding patterns. A large group of Miao communities in Guizhou has converted to Christianity while other Miao communities are animists. When disasters occur, they invite wizards to perform ceremonies to drive out devil ghosts. They also worship their ancestors with memorial ceremonies being grand occasions. The Tujia community lives in the Wuling Range which straddles the common borders of Hunan, Hubei and Guizhou provinces, and Chongqing Municipality, and traces its history back over twelve centuries. Some claim to be the descendants of the ancient Ba people who occupied the area around modern-day Chongqing 2500 years ago. Traditional Tujia culture is rapidly disappearing as they are increasingly assimilated into Chinese culture. The Tujia community is attempting to revive its traditional culture and language, such as the Xizhou Museum of Tujia Folk Customs opened in 1987, as the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture in Hunan province. The Tujia are renowned as skilled singers and composers of songs for their tradition of Baishou Dance (waving hand dance), a 500 year old collective dance which uses 70 ritual gestures to represent war, farming, hunting, courtship and other aspects of traditional life. They are also famous for their richly-patterned brocade, known as xilankapu, a


product that in earlier times figured prominently in their tribute payments to the Chinese court. Although most Tujia villages today are within a few miles of a road and public transport, and the vast majority of them have electricity and telephones, the rugged nature of the landscape, and the remoteness of the region in which they live have meant that economic development has been slower than in the eastern coastal areas of China. While a number of Tujia are becoming successful businessmen, many middleaged men and young people of both genders, spend extended periods working in factories and on building sites in the major cities. The Tujia language belongs to the Tibeto-Burman language group and although it has some grammatical and phonological similarities with Yi it is considered to be an isolate within this group. The massive influx of Han Chinese settlers in the early eighteenth century led to a swift shift to Chinese. Children now learn Chinese from childhood and many young Tujia prefer to use Chinese to communicate among themselves. Currently Tujia is considered an endangered language, with literacy at less than one percent. While most Tujia are bilingual in Chinese, some also speak Miao. The largest concentrations of Yi live in autonomous prefectures and in the mountainous areas of Yunnan and Sichuan. The Yi are divided into the Black, the White and the Wild or Independent Yi. The Black or “the true Yi” once owned the White Yi as slaves in the feudal society before 1949. The Wild or Independent Yi are found in Sichuan and can be both black and white. The mountain-dwelling Yi are distinct insofar as they have maintained more of their original culture. Conversion to Christianity began among the Black Yi of Yunnan in 1915 and by 1949 a Bible school and ten large churches had been established. In 1991 it was reported that there were up to 150,000 Yi Christians in Yunnan. Yi hymnals and New Testaments are published in Yunnan and circulate widely. The Yi language belongs to the Tibeto-Burman language group and has at least six dialects that differ so greatly that speakers from different dialect communities are unable to communicate. The written language, which consists of 800 symbols, was standardized in 1974 and is widely used. The Bai formed Yunnan’s dominant ethnic community historically, where they controlled two kingdoms. Originally, several Bai tribes settled on the fertile land around Erhai Lake, where each set up its own kingdom, known as a zhao. In AD 649, the chieftain of the Mengshe tribe united six zhao establishing the Nanzhao kingdom which then


31

expanded rapidly, first into Burma, then into the rest of Yunnan, then south into northern Laos and Thailand, and finally, north into Sichuan. Today 80 percent of the Bai live in communities concentrated in the Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan with the rest scattered in neighboring Sichuan and Guizhou. The Bai speak a language related to the Yi branch of the TibetoBurman branch of the Sino-Tibetan language family. Bai contains many Chinese loanwords due to the community’s long contact with the Han. The annual “March Fair”, whose date is determined by the lunar calendar, is the grand festival of the Bai and is celebrated at the foot of Diancang Hill to the west of Dali city with a program of dancing, horse racing, theatrical performances and handcraft displays. Another community occasion is the “Torch Festival” which is held in June when torches are lit to usher in a bumper harvest and to bless people with good health and good fortune. Streamers bearing auspicious words are hung in doorways and flaming torches are placed at the entrances to villages while villagers, holding torches aloft walk around the fields to drive away insects. The Naxi community boasts the unique pictographs of its Dongba and Geba scripts. Its Lijiang City has an ancient history with the Tea-Horse Road and the Silk Road passing nearby. In 1997, the Lijiang City with its green mountains and river setting was listed as a world cultural legacy by the United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization. The Naxi have a talent for poetry, calligraphy, painting and music. Music from Central China is said to be well preserved in Naxi ancient music. As a result, the Naxi characterize their music as a “living fossil” whose roots are in the ancient music of Xi’an. However, Naxi ancient music seems to represent a mixture of poetic topics, lyrics and musical styles from the Tang (618–907) and Song dynasties (960–1279), as well as some Tibetan influences. Today, there are at least four full orchestras composed of elderly men, all over 70 years of age, plus scores of folk bands playing the ancient music. The small Mongol communities found in Yunnan have largely assimilated the local culture and language, although they try to maintain their identity as Mongols and to maintain connections with Mongol communities in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR). The ancestors of a group of Mongol communities in Tonghai County, with a population of 5339, are believed to have come to Yunnan between 1252 and 1279 when the Mongol troops invaded. After centuries of co-habitating and intermarrying with the local Bai and Yi, they now speak a language called Katso, which is very close to the Yi. Their village


head has reported that the community has a strong desire to establish connections with Mongols in the IMAR. In the 1980s two teachers were sent to IMAR to learn the Mongolian language, which was also introduced as a subject for the community in the local primary school. Unfortunately, this program was suspended after five years due to lack of student interest and the absence of an environment conducive to maintaining the Mongolian language. The main symbol reminding the community of its Mongol origins is a statue of their ancestor Genghis Khan which they worship at festival times. The Li community consists of the indigenous inhabitants of the island of Hainan located off the coast of Guangdong. About 60 percent of the Li live in autonomous areas with the rest in the nearby districts. It is believed that the Li community migrated to Hainan more than 2000 years ago from the mainland. However, by the fifteenth century Chinese immigrants began driving the Li into the southern mountains and forests forcing them to abandon their original settlements on the coastal plains of Hainan. The Li can be divided into at least five welldifferentiated ethnic groups: Gai, Ji, Bendi, Meifeu and Jiamao with each group which possessing its own distinct language, form of dress and customs. The Li language belongs to the Thai branch of Sino-Tibetan language family. In China, the languages of the five groups of Li are seen as dialects of an ideal Li language, which in fact never existed. However, “Li” is the only name the Chinese use to refer to them. The Li speak different dialects (or languages) that are sometimes mutually unintelligible. The Li community maintains a form of animism based on ancestor worship and Shamanism and their other salient cultural practices including music, weaving and tattooing. While working in the fields the women sing songs invoking the names of the spirits of the mountains and trees to beg their pardon for disturbing them as they till the soil. In the eyes of the Li, all musical instruments, including performance with them, are powerful mediums that assist humans in communicating with the spirits who protect the crops. Although Li Shamans are highly respected, their economic position in society is similar to that of a layperson because they regularly work in the rice fields where entire family units work together transplanting rice and harvesting crop. Relatives from other villages may also provide additional labor and this collective agency establishes expansive socioeconomic networks. The Li culture and cosmology, however, are not only embodied in their musical traditions, they were also inscribed as tattoos on the surfaces of their bodies. All Li groups engage in tattooing and although the


33

practice is more common among women, Li men tattoo three blue rings around their wrists for medicinal purposes. Tattoo designs and motifs differ from tribe to tribe and may sometimes differ from family to family. It is said that one can “read the village, social standing, and identity through a woman’s tattoos”. The lopsided pear-shaped island of Hainan to which ancient Chinese emperors banished disgruntled courtiers was known as the “island of no return”. These days, Hainan’s reputation is more benign. While China’s new middle class flock to its sandy beaches for winter sun it has become a favorite showcase for the annual Miss World beauty pageant, which burnishes the image of “China’s Hawaii”. The immense variety of individual languages, religious beliefs, literatures, music, styles of dress and cuisines found among China’s minority communities are a priceless human resource for China as it forges into the twenty-first century. The more that is known about these minority nationalities, the better equipped policy makers, language planners and educators will be to recognize their unique attributes. There is no going back to the world of the films of the 1960s where beautiful ethnic girls spoke Putonghua, wore exotic clothes and danced and sang in fantasy land.

3 Minorities in the Past: Historical Experience

The different languages of the peoples of China’s vast territories contested for supremacy as far back as the Archaic era when the legendary Yellow Emperor (2697–2597 BC), brought together the tribes of the fertile agricultural basin of the Yellow River, expanding their territory to the south and east. The great dynasties of the Xia, Shang and Zhou wanted to locate their imperial court and sovereign territories at the center of a universe. Beyond the fringes and kept out by the building of the monumental Great Wall were the people of the steppes and other savages who inhabited “the submissive wastes” (Dikötter, 1992, p. 4). The Xia people of the central plains named these non-Han people the Siyi (the barbarians of the four quarters), each quarter being branded with the characteristics of an animal figure. The Beidi (Northern Barbarians), were associated with the dog; the Nanman (Southern Barbarians) shared the attributes of reptiles; the Qiang (Eastern Barbarians) were associated with sheep; and the Xirong (Western Barbarians) were likened to birds and beasts (Dikötter, 1992, p. 4). As recorded in Liji (The Book of Rites), the four groups spoke different languages and had different customs from the Xia (Legge, 1967b, p. 229), and their language tools were considered inferior to the great cultural achievement of the script and vocabulary of the Han. Non-Han people were recognized both through self-identification and by others down through the generations. Differences in skin colour, language and customs frequently led to fear and suspicion between Han and non-Han, aggravated by the depredations each side would visit on the other. Over time, through conquest, settlement and immigration, there was an intermingling of the agricultural and semi nomadic peoples, and opportunities for trade and barter brought tribes into relationships, to their mutual advantage. Although an optimistic view conceded that the 34

Minorities in the Past 35

Chinese people were “all under Heaven” (Dikötter, 1992, p. 2), and that a World of Great Harmony was in the making, this concept was in reality a vision of the Han people and their culture. Certainly there were minority groups, the Muslim Huihui among them, who considered the Han inferior insofar as they were non-believers, and who led major revolts in the north and west to overthrow them, however, over the years it was largely the Han people who established standards. By the nineteenth century, growing Chinese nationalism revived the concept of China as one unified nation with its concept of minzu with its dual meanings of “a people” and “an ethnic group” in use in 1882 (Mackerras, 1994, p. 6). By including the Han as one of the “nationalities” of China, the Chinese would claim that all those within the nation state boundaries were truly minzu, a generalized concept which sidestepped debate over the definition and standing of individual “nationalities”. Particular minorities were recognized and dealt with in a pragmatic way with regard to their size, influence and capacity to challenge government policies. The smaller groups, being of no special concern, were ignored. Six watershed historical events or periods can be identified in the premodern era as major drivers of language change impacting on minorities. The first was the unification of the script under Qin Shi Huang, which was refined and enforced; next the inculcation of Confucian teachings through the establishment of the civil service examination in the Han Dynasty. Cultural ascendancy was then challenged in the third and fourth events when the Mongols and the Manchu, non-Han people, overthrew their predecessors and introduced new language arrangements. Fifthly, the speech and script reform in the Qing Dynasty predicated modern developments; and, finally, the introduction of a colonial replacement language, Japanese, was attempted in parts of the nation.

First watershed event: the script unification The first Emperor of the Qin Dynasty, Qin Shi Huang, in 221 BC attempted to weld China into one empire, Xia and non-Han tribes alike, with the introduction of script unification. With linguistic diversity seen as unfavorable to his goal of centralization, he dictated that script unification (wenzi tongyi) be mandated across the territory ruled. This script unification was central to Qin’s government establishing a centralized administration system and standardized measurements and laws. While Qin policies devalued non-Han scripts, they did recognize


the need for linguistic separation between an official script and vernacular writing. The use of formal Qin script was required for official documents, while clerical script, a simplified version, was used in non formal situations. Along with his script unification policy, ensuring that all his subjects had access to a common script, Qin demanded that three textbooks written by his premier and two ministers serve as models, becoming the first national textbooks for teaching children literacy, grammar and calligraphy. Under Qin’s centralization and expansion, old feudal political boundaries were broken down and regional dialects were weakened, with various local scripts that had been prominent falling into disuse. The continued expansion under the Han Dynasty government (206 BC –AD 220) saw continuous migration, and the penetration and infiltration of non-Han peoples, which led to the acceptance and signification of non-Han words. Movements of populations, especially southwards, eventually engulfed many other peoples and encouraged the central government to further consolidate the Han script. A regulation established in the Han Dynasty stipulated, for example, that a 17-year-old student would take an examination of 9000 scripts: he must know eight styles of writing (ba ti), their pronunciation (feng shu), and their meaning (liu shu). Those who passed the stringent test could become officials (Wang, T., 1989, p. 10). The purpose behind the promotion of the Han script was pragmatic; the need for Han literacy skills driven by the demand for official administrators at the regional level. During the reign of the Emperor Han Wu (206 BC –AD 24), there was concern that not all local officials could read edicts issued by the Emperor. To meet the challenge imperial schools were set up in the capital where up to 3000 local youths were selected to study the Han script and official documentation for one year before taking up local posts (Hu, S., 1996, p. 3).

Second watershed event: Confucianism and the civil service examination The second watershed which followed from script unification was the introduction of Confucianism as a moral doctrine designed to buttress the centralized curriculum. This became the ruling ideology for Chinese society during the Han Dynasty and continued in modified form down the dynasties. The new curriculum served to spread the Han philosophy utilizing Confucian philosophy to boost its authority; its corpus was the Five Classics: Shujing (Book of History), Shijing (Book of Odes),


Yijing (Book of Changes), Liji (Book of Rites), and Chunqiu (Spring and Autumn Annals). Using Confucianism to re-educate and reform the “Barbarians” was strongly advocated at this time. It was believed that the outer races could be culturally absorbed, that is laihua, “come and be transformed”, or hanhua, “become Han”. He Xiu (129–182), in his commentary on the Gongyang, suggests that in an age of great peace, the barbarians would flow in and be transformed and the world would be one (Dikötter, 1992, p. 3). The attempts by the Han to transform non-Han groups through Confucianism and Han schools were recorded in the Book of Han. Under Emperor Jing of the Han Dynasty, Wenwang was appointed head of Shu prefecture to establish schools where local Shu people would be reformed. According to Wenwang, the Shu prefecture was backward (Han Shu, 1962, p. 25). There was increasing interest in non-Han people during the Han Dynasty. The industrious and observant collector of languages, Yang Xiong (53 BC– AD 18), devoted 27 years of his life to recording Fangyan, the local languages of his region, a labor of love filling 15 volumes which surveyed the tongues of the Xia and of those who shared their lands. This great work of the Han era identified three geographical regions: that of the original Chinese culture and language; regions of expansion with degrees of absorption; and regions inhabited by non-Han populations (Serruys, 1959, p. 99). The survey suggests that linguistic diversity was increasingly evident. Political and commercial expansion, together with the southward migration of the Han people, led to greater contact with the non-Han. So long as local chieftains accepted the authority of the central government and paid their taxes, they were allowed to rule with a measure of autonomy. The central plain became the Han melting pot in which non-Han nationalities, such as the Xianbei and Jie were fused and disappeared from Chinese history. Tian and He believe that by the end of the Han dynasty the eastern, southeastern and most of the so-called western barbarians had been assimilated and no longer existed, while other non-Han groups like the Baiyue no longer received mention in history books (He, 1990, p. 35). The Confucian message was strengthened by the civil service examination (keju) instituted by the Sui Emperors (581–618) as a means of offering official positions to individuals who demonstrated their mastery of the new language stipulations. Here, the Sui sought to apply the Confucian principle that “when one has attained excellence in office he should study; when one has attained excellence in learning

38


he should serve in office” (Legge, 1967a, p. 344). The major content of the examination was essay writing in Confucian style and calligraphy in the Han script making it difficult for non-Han students to gain high grades. It is estimated that a pupil had to memorize textual material amounting to over 400,000 Chinese characters by the age of 15 to attain the minimum level of literacy to participate successfully in civil service examinations (Cleverley, 1991, p. 17). From the Sui Dynasty, schools were set up in prefectures and counties in non-Han areas (Jian, 1965, p. 144), while the Imperial Colleges (guozi xue), the highest educational institutions in the Sui and Tang Dynasties began enrolling many children from the non-Han ruling classes. For instance, the King of Nanzhao sent young people to obtain a Han education in Chengdu from 794. The Tang government met all the expenses for these schooling arrangements. It also continued the approach of transforming non-Han peoples into Han by setting up many schools in non-Han areas to spread the culture of the central plain. For example, upper class children from Tubo (Tibet) were sent to the Han Capital, Chang’an, to study Chinese and, at the same time, Han Chinese were invited to take charge of the official dispatch services of the Tubo government. In the Tang Dynasty (618–907), further refinements were made to the examination system. Three degrees could now be awarded to students based on examination results. The Xiucai, which was awarded in local examinations, also qualified the person for admission to the provincial examination. Juren was a provincial level examination and the Jinshi was awarded at a national examination. Confucian thought and the Five Classics continued to serve as essential content for the education syllabus. The imperial courts controlled the examination but made no effort to provide particular places of learning, with entrants accepted from a variety of institutions, both clan and private. Students from the Imperial Colleges and various schools in the prefectures and counties sat for the civil service examination annually. A recognized feature of the exam was that common people who had achieved the required literacy skills could be appointed to office. This concession, however, was flawed in operation and made mobility possible for some non-Han people. Some non-Han elites motivated by political and business considerations encouraged their children to abandon their own language from a very early age as they entered on the prerequisite training in Chinese. The policies of the Sui and Tang encouraged non-Han people to accept Han formal schooling and to participate in government. That these


non-Han students faced special difficulties in language learning was recognized when two scripts, Han and non-Han were allowed. The King of Gaochang in the Xiyu (Xinjiang today) area, sent students to the Imperial College at Chang’an where both Han and non-Han scripts were in use. When these non-Han students graduated, some stayed in the capital and others returned to their hometowns where they helped increase the rate of Han assimilation by setting up schools to teach the Han classics (Feng, X., 1994, pp. 59–60). Non-Han officials were now appointed by Tang emperors and served in important positions in the court. Wang believed that 65 nonHan people, including nine Koreans, one Japanese and one Indian, held important positions in the Tang Imperial Court. The biographies of 57 non-Han officials were recorded (Wang, T., 1989, p. 46) and over 2500 non-Han officials held minor intellectual and military posts (Tian, 1993, p. 169).

Third watershed event: the Mongols dominate After the rise and fall of significant powers, the Song Empire (960–1279) was finally destroyed by the Mongols from the northwest who established the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368). The Mongols attempted to introduce a racially based ethnic policy under their direct rule, categorizing China’s people into four groups: Mongols; the non-Han from Central Asia (Semu – coloured eyes people – Huihui Muslim, Uyghurs and Tibetans); the Han of the north; and the Han from the south, considered the most resistant to Mongol rule (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 6). They also added independent non-Han kingdoms to their suzerainty, including Nanzhao in the southwest, Tubo (Tibet today) and Xiyu. In Tubo, the Mongols were conciliatory in approach although they had taken direct control of the administration in 1253. The Nanzhao kingdom of Dali in Yunnan was subjugated by the Yuan Emperor Khubilai, with support of Arabic troops in 1252. Some twenty years after the conquest, the Emperor made use of Saiyid Ajall Sham al-din, a talented administrator loyal to the Mongol Emperor, whose various policies helped develop Yunnan militarily and economically, and he gained the confidence of many non-Han native people. Through an indirect control system, local culture and languages were preserved. However, Han influence was also promoted in Yunnan by Saiyid who supported the use of Chinese marital and funeral ceremonies, built Confucian temples and schools, and made copies of the Confucian classics available for local people (He, 1990, p. 13).


For national administrative purposes the Mongols adopted the Han system. However they employed Arabic and Persian migrants from central Asia as upper level and important administrators with Han people engaged as lower ranking officials (He, 1990, p. 138). At the regional level the Mongols also adopted a policy of indirect control using the support of the Semu people. In the southwest, they established an hereditary system of native chiefs (tusi) to govern each area as a means of indirect control, applying it mainly to non-Han groups in the southwest and northeast areas such as Yunnan, Sichuan, Guangxi and Liaoyang (He, 1990, p. 198). In such ways the usage of language in the regions of the Yuan Dynasty was associated with an individual’s political power and social status. The Mongolian language had the highest status in the Yuan court and the Arabic and Persian languages also received special attention for political and trade reasons. While the Han language had lost its superiority, its widespread accessibility continued to ensure its instrumental value. So far as the non-Han languages of the south and southwest went, they had no status in the educational system though they were not suppressed by the Yuan court. The Mongolian language was developed by the Yuan court system of Mongolian education institutions. Designed by the Mongols to preserve their own language and education and maintain their privileges, the language was also used for trade with other Asian countries. The Mongolian Imperial College, established in 1271, which aimed to preserve the Mongolian language and culture, taught exclusively in the Mongolian language. Its students were mainly the sons of Mongol nobles and officials. Out of every 100 students in 1315, there were 50 Mongol students, 20 Semu students and 30 Han students. The period marked a high point in Mongolian literature, history, classics and linguistic works and Han language literary works were also translated into Mongolian (Shenamujila, 1995, p. 17). The Yuan Court was also vitally interested in Muslim culture, medicine, architecture, and in the Arabic and Persian languages. It established the National College for the Study of Muslim Culture (Huihui Guozi Xue) in 1289, enrolling five Mongol officials in its inaugural class (Shenamujila, 1995, p. 285); Its aim was the training of Mongol translators in Arabic and Persian as used in Xiyu (Xinjiang) and Central Asia. The college is regarded as the first foreign language college in China. The Han language continued its valuable role in administration. Like previous Han emperors, the Mongols continued to communicate with local officials through the Han script. While they themselves remained


largely illiterate in Han, they utilized a Mongolian and Han translation service with considerable success. The Mongolian Hanlin Academy, established in 1271, was in charge of translating the imperial edicts from Mongolian into Chinese. In addition, it prepared final copies for lower level administrators, dominated by the Han, unfamiliar with the Mongolian language. The early Yuan emperors abolished the civil service examination system. In the period from 1274 to 1315, the Yuan education system no longer prepared students for the civil service examination but selected its imperial officials on the basis of their social and political status, not their examination results. However, in 1316, pressure from the Han elite led to the reintroduction of the examination system, reformed to the extent that it allowed other languages to be used. In order to protect the privileged positions of Mongol and Semu students, the Mongol government created two separate systems, one with two tests for Mongol and Semu and the other with three tests for Han students. The examinations for Mongol and Semu students were less demanding than those for Han students: for example, one question required Han students to write 1000 words in an answer while the same question for Mongol and Semu required 500. The Mongolian script was also used in test papers for Mongol students; however, if Mongol and Semu students participated in the Han test, they received bonus marks (Tian, 1993, p. 248). In 1378 the Han overthrew the Yuan court and the Muslim rebels under a slogan “drive out the Barbarians and restore Chinese rule”. Following the defeat of the Yuan, the first Ming Emperor, Zhu Yuanzhang, banned Mongol forms of dress and names, both of which had been adopted by some Han Chinese, and forbade the use of the Mongolian language (Tian, 1993, p. 250). Under the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644) Mongols and other non-Han groups were often attacked as inferiors: those Mongols who did not return to their homeland were forced to adopt Chinese surnames, Chinese customs and to use the Chinese language. Many of them assimilated linguistically but remained Muslim (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 6).

Fourth watershed event: the Manchu invasion The second non-Han group to conquer China, the Manchu, which comprised descendants of the Jurchens, Mongols and others, founded the Qing Dynasty (1644–1911), ruling China through to the modern period including the time of western invasion. Essentially the political system of the Qing was a Manchu–Han coalition in which the former

42


maintained the upper hand as conquerors, enjoying the top political, economic, social, language and educational privileges. Their military forces, organized into an eight banner system divided into Manchu, Mongol and Han banners, were reported by Purcell as a class of privileged idlers, consuming about a third of the audited revenue (Purcell, 1963, p. 2). In Peking alone, about 200,000 Manchu families received an allowance for life in memory of their ancestors’ assistance in the defeat of the Ming. The new conquerors required that Han men adopt Manchu dress, shave their heads and grow a queue. The civil service examination continued as a tool for selecting loyal Han and non-Han intellectuals for service in the Qing administration. Although a few intellectuals refused to serve this “barbarian” government, most continued to sit; however, the Manchu placed their own nationals above the Han in the top positions at the top of the Confucian system although they shared the division of other senior posts up to the Taiping Rebellion (Fairbank, 1992, p. 146). In the exercise of government, Kang states that both the Manchu and Han had significant opportunities with Chinese officials such as Zeng Guofan and Zuo Zongtang successfully serving as prime ministers in the Qing government (Laitinen, 1990, p. 35). At the regional level the Qing shifted the earlier indirect control policy to a direct control policy for non-Han people in the southwest. Under the policy referred to as the gai tu gui liu, the local tusi (chiefs) were disbanded and imperial officials appointed with the government taking direct command, although in some cases, free land was offered to the tusi as compensation for their loss of title and power. This method of imposition through military force occurred in Yunnan, Guizhou and Sichuan. Dispossession led to revolts such as the Miao rebellions by non-Han local chiefs in the southwest (Mackerras, 1995, p. 27); and anti-Qing rebellions also occurred in the northwest region of Yunnan, among the Yi people in Wumeng led by Lu Wanzhong, a local tusi, and in the Zhengxiong area by another local tusi, Long Qinghou. The Manchu governor of Yunnan, Guangxi and Guizhou ended the rebellions there by slaughtering thousands of Yi. Tibet, which had developed as a Chinese protectorate, was incorporated into the Manchu empire. The seat of Imperial government in these minority areas now had to be furnished with military garrisons backed by cooperative local chiefs to keep them pacified. The impact of direct power in the execution of change was accompanied by attempts to enforce the teaching of Confucian orthodoxy. Arranged marriages, an institution practised in Chinese society, were introduced to the southwest, leading to a doubling of the suicide rate


among the Naxi youth, a reaction against the imposition. Also, in the Qing Dynasty, the Naxi religious performance, Sacrifice to Heaven (Ji Tian) by Naxi Dongba, became popular. However, the isolation of the many garrison communities ensured that minority languages retained much of their independence from Manchu and Han influence. In the early Qing period, the Manchu language had the highest status and was referred to as the national or Qing language. At the same time three other languages were granted official status: Han, Mongolian and Tibetan. Most Qing official documents were now written in the four languages as were the autobiographies of the Manchu Emperors (Tian, 1993, p. 248). In an effort to preserve their Manchu language in a majority Han culture, the Qing mandated that all Manchu military officials and soldiers speak Manchu. The eight banners of the military service had the same strict rules: military officials, both Han and non-Han must speak Manchu. All documents sent to the Emperor from the six ministries and provinces had to be in both Manchu and Han scripts and, if mistakes appeared in the Manchu script, officials would be reprimanded by the Emperor. The Emperor ordered academics in the Imperial Academy to study the Manchu Classics if they wanted promotion; those not proficient in Manchu were demoted and assigned to inferior posts. Wang Xi, a Han scholar, was singled out for his excellent knowledge and high proficiency in Manchu and rewarded with an imperial marten coat. Over four years Wang Xi was promoted four times eventually becoming the Minister for Rites. Among his accomplishments was the drafting of the will of the Emperor Shunzhi. A comprehensive Manchu language education system was created for both the Manchu children of noble families and for the children of ordinary Manchus. As a result of this privileged education, Manchu Banner families were educated apart from the Han people, with separate banner schools being established in 1616 in Peking for the Manchus. Banner schools also opened in Hangzhou, Jingchou and Chengdu where the eight banners were stationed. Inside the schools, children would study a curriculum of the Manchu, Mongolian and Chinese languages, and mathematics with teachers who were generally proficient in Manchu. In 1631 the Emperor ordered that all children between the ages of eight and fourteen from military families must attend banner schools and, by 1687, Manchu students were joining the civil service examinations, answering questions in their own language. Through a deliberate program of language learning and social segregation in military garrisons located in different parts of China, the

44


Manchu attempted to preserve their separate identity. Government policy saw the Manchu garrisons “legally and physically separated from the Han and from their frontier cousins” (Rigger, 1994, p. 202). Intermarriage between the Manchu and the Han was forbidden: although this law was generally observed, in the south it was violated by several of the garrisons. Han communities had a strong influence on the Manchu who lived in the banner garrisons: many banner men studied the Confucian classics and took part in the civil service examination system, while others studied Chinese art and culture for personal enjoyment (Rigger, 1994, p. 204). One unforeseen consequence occurred in the northeast homeland of the Manchu where the segregationist policy had significant implications. The Qing government had forbidden Han immigration and had restricted contacts between Manchu and other groups there aiming to preserve the purity of the Manchu identity. Thus education and economic development were denied the Manchu people in that area by its own government. One consequence was that within 150 years of Manchu conquest, the Manchu in the homeland became increasingly isolated, living in impoverished conditions, and dependent on government handouts for survival (Rigger, 1994, p. 200). Finally, in the mid nineteenth century, the Qing court began to encourage immigration to the northeast where participants brought the Han language with them. In some non-Han areas, as in the southwest, Qing officials were appointed to impose Han language and education, with a number of non-Han scripts excluded from education and from the literary domain. The Naxi Dongba scripts were an example. The Naxi possessed two scripts; the Dongba script (a pictographic script); and the Geba script (a phonetic script). A large volume of Naxi classics, History and Literature (English translation) was written in the Naxi script. However, after the Qing’s gai tu gui liu policy was carried out, use of these non-Han scripts was permitted only for religious activities. Most Naxi intellectuals eventually became religious performers since they were the only persons who could read the Dongba script. Similarly, the thousands of volumes of Yi classics, on history, literature, medicine, science and astronomy, all written in the Yi script and held in high esteem, lost their importance when its domains of language use were invaded by the Han script and the Yi script was permitted only in religious activities. Most of the Yi intellectuals, referred to as Bimo by the Yi, became religious figures, while others served as writers and teachers among the Yi people.


At the Qing Court, upper class Manchus had a Manchu and Han bilingual education, the learning of both Han and Manchu languages being encouraged. The Empress Dowager Yehonala is recorded as having studied both languages: at the age of 16 she had already mastered the Five Classics in Chinese and Manchu and had studied the historical records of the twenty-four dynasties (Bland & Backhouse, 1910, pp. 7–8). The acceptance of the two languages was apparent in 1902 when the then Empress Dowager changed the rule and recommended that the Manchu and Han be allowed to intermarry. She explained her reasons succinctly: At the time of the founding of our Dynasty the customs and language of the two races were greatly different and this was in itself reason sufficient for prohibiting intermarriage, but at the present day, little or no difference exists between them and the time has come therefore to relax this law for the benefit of the empire as a whole, and in accordance with the wishes of our people. (Bland & Backhouse, 1910, p. 263) Language policy under the Qing in the early twentieth century continued to protect the privilege of the Manchu as an imperial class and to provide special access for Mongol and Tibetan children. In the Capital University (Jingshi daxuetang),1 for example, the Manchu and Mongol languages were taught as subjects although the Han language was the core medium of instruction. Despite these efforts, the Qing government was worried about a shortage of officials who could speak Manchu, Mongolian or Tibetan languages and, in 1907, a Manchu, Mongolian and Tibetan Language University was established to train additional officials. Guanhua (Mandarin) was the medium of instruction, but Manchu, Mongolian and Tibetan languages were major subjects. Manchu, Mongolian and Tibetan language studies at the Language University were divided into two and three year periods of study: a two year preliminary course was followed by a three year standard course or an auxiliary three year course. Manchu, Mongolian and Tibetan languages were allocated twelve hours of study per day (thirty-six hours per week), and the Chinese language was taught four hours per week (Xie, 1989, p. 32). The curriculum also included law and science. Students were selected mainly from Manchu, Mongol and Tibetan families, with only a small number of Han students enrolled. In 1908 the Qing government issued regulations that permitted all students at the University to receive tuition and accommodation free of charge (Cai, 1992, p. 33).

46


Other efforts undertaken by the Qing administrators to establish Manchu, Mongolian and Tibetan schools saw several Tibetan schools established in Sichuan in 1906 to teach both Tibetan and Chinese languages. Tibetan children were forced to attend otherwise their parents were punished (Liu & Yang, 1994, p. 113). New Manchu and Mongolian schools were also established in the northeastern provinces of Heilongjiang, Liaoning, Jilin and Rehe.2 In 1910, Mongol and Tibetan schools opened in Qinghai, however only Mongol and Tibetan children were permitted inside (Laitinen, 1990, p. 37). Given the numbers of school-age children of these nationalities, the schools had limited impact.

Fifth watershed event: script and speech reform under the Qing Roman Catholic Christian missionaries, led by Matteo Ricci who lived and worked in Beijing in the sixteenth century, had attempted to introduce a romanized phonetic alphabet for the Han script in 1583, in an attempt to improve the dissemination of Catholicism in the country. Another missionary, Nicolas Trigault, produced his own phonetic alphabet about forty years later. Together with Ricci’s, the alphabets pointed the way for the formation of other phonetic scripts which appeared especially for languages only having an oral tradition. Other missionaries introduced phonetic based scripts suited for non-Han situations. In the nineteenth century, schools were established for the Miao people by the British missionary, Samuel Pollard, in Shimenkan in the Wumeng Mountains between Yunnan, Guizhou and Sichuan. Introducing the Miao to Christianity through the Miao language, Pollard created a set of scripts for teaching the Bible. Initial trials began in 1901 at a Guanhua (Mandarin) school in Shimenkan where at first children were taught through their mother tongue. Eventually, two languages were learned by Miao children, Han and Miao, each using different textbooks; the Han texts produced by the Ministry of Education of the Kuo Min Tang (KMT) government and Miao texts by local teachers written in the Pollard script which included topics such as Miao traditional culture, historical legends, poems, scientific knowledge, general knowledge and Christian scripture. Children in lower primary classes were taught in the Miao language by Miao teachers and the principals of the Guanhua primary school were Miaos from 1906 through to 1953. Within the Wumeng regions, the Shimenkan became a well known cultural site for the Miao. After twenty years, the script


was credited with having reversed the Miao’s situation of “no script” and “no education” (Zhang, T., 1992, pp. 183–191). One of the best known Miao educators was Zhu Huanxian. Zhu, a graduate of Huaxi University, served as principal of the Shimen high school. Not only known among the Miao, he mixed with officials in the Republican government, being appointed a representative in the Republic’s Parliament and received by Chiang Kai-shek (Zhang, T., 1992, p. 128). Other western missionaries created their own writing systems for some other nationalities which only had oral traditions as a means of teaching people to read religious scriptures, for example, Va, Lisu, Jingpo, Miao, Lahu, Hani, Dulong and Naxi scripts were created by British and French missionaries.3 Acceptance of the Pollard script enabled the production of local textbooks to move away from the nationally approved texts of government to ones better suited to children’s needs and modern times. In one textbook, Miao Primary Readings, Pollard and other Miao teachers were reported as using the “Socratic” form, or question and answer technique, of teaching. Q: A: Q: A: Q: A:

Is the earth round or square? It is round. How many continents are there on earth? Seven. What type of water should we drink? Boiled water.

From the above it appears that a catechetical rather than the Socratic critical style was under way. Still, the textbooks did attempt to cover some scientific and practical skills as well as scriptural topics. In his preface for the four textbooks, Dianqian (Yunnan and Guizhou) Miao Evening Readings, prepared by several Miao teachers, Zhu Huanxian explained his motivation. In the cross-border of Yunnan and Guizhou where tens of thousands of Miao people live, they have suffered a poor life of low culture. They did not have the opportunity to have basic education, not even to mention higher education. All the people’s savings were not able to support more than three or four people to take higher education. But in the last twenty years we have had opportunities to educate ourselves in universities. I am one of them. These special opportunities no one could dream about it before.

48


Zhu’s textbooks for home use were designed to reinforce the importance of literary skills through stories appealing to young readers. Lesson 14 of Book 3 told the story of the unfortunate pig. The butcher took a lamb to a restaurant. The lamb knew how to read. He saw a dish on the menu “lamb noodles”. The butcher then took a duck to the restaurant and the duck knew how to read. She saw on the menu a dish of “steamed duck”. The duck says “I am leaving ... They want to eat my meat”. The butcher then took a pig to the restaurant. The menu listed “fried pork spare ribs”. The pig could not read and he entered. The butcher slaughtered him. In the Weining county, by 1953, there were 28 other Christian primary schools. From a sample of 2739 students in attendance, 1032 were Miao and 808 were Yi. It is estimated that two-thirds of the people in the Wumeng Mountain area became literate through the Miao script. And of the thousands of Miao people who completed a primary education, over 200 had some high school education and 30 had tertiary training (Zhang, T., 1992, pp. 184–5). National thinking though was generally antagonistic to such enclave language learning; the KMT believed it encouraged separatism, and the communists feared foreign religious influence. Banned at different times, the Pollard script was rediscovered in the 1980s and used again in some Miao areas. With attitudes toward non-Han people changing in the early modern period, Qing attention focused on the Mongolian, Manchu and Tibetan languages, as part of its effort to preserve its tottering authority and power. It was also challenged by outside ideas. By the turn of the century many Chinese students had returned from Japan having observed that country’s language policy (Kokugo Seisaku) designed for a modernizing state. The Japanese had begun a move from an elitist Confucian-based curriculum towards a mass education system as in Europe and the USA, by teaching some modern subjects in two phonetic scripts, hiragana and katakana. Nonetheless the civil service examination in China continued as a route for power. In 1789 and 1843, two Dong men were successful at the provincial examination for example, gaining official posts and a reputation as intellectuals (Geary et al., 2003, p. 13). In 1905, the Chinese themselves abolished their civil service examination, freeing the way for the introduction and recognition of modern subjects and other qualifications, including those gained overseas. This formal move was a practical and a symbolic one giving further momentum to language change.


In the 1890s, urged forward by intellectuals seeking a national spoken language, the Qing government abandoned its laissez fair attitude. At this time Guanhua (Mandarin), the Han spoken language based on speech from the northern part of China, and the common language of administration used by local Mandarins and imperial court officials, was beginning to achieve more attention in schools, with students required to adopt Guanhua as the approved official speech. When Lu Zhuangzhang created phonetic symbols to teach Guanhua in 1892 he declared his phonetic alphabet would link spoken and written Han languages (Wang, J., 1995, p. 16). Finally, in 1903, the Qing government approved the teaching of Guanhua, and Guohua zimu, a phonetic alphabet of official speech based on Chinese characters, in its senior primary schools and teachers colleges. By 1910 the promotion of his phonetic alphabet had spread to 13 provinces (Wang, J., 1995, p. 13). Beginning in 1903, the Qing government began to establish modern schools at the elementary level, including some elementary school education for non-Han children: and, between the years 1903 to 1909, over 16,000 schools were set up in the southwest and in Xinjiang (Liu & Yang, 1994, p. 113). While the areas contained a large portion of non-Han people, no firm record remains of the number of non-Han students enrolled. Learning Han was a curriculum requirement in these places (Xie, 1989, p. 21). In the southwest, the Qing government set up Guanhua schools to teach tumin (aboriginal children) in 1907; soon 200 schools had opened and the number of students reached 9000 (Liu & Yang, 1994, pp. 142–3). In Yunnan the government established 128 of these Guanhua schools (Cai, et al., 1992, p. 7). In Xinjiang,4 Governor Zhao Erfeng in the southwest was ordered by the Qing administration to foster education to “consolidate border regions” (Lin, 1997, p. 9). He founded some 30 Guanhua schools for boys and girls and by 1907 the aggregate enrolment reached 1025 students. Such schools continued to increase rapidly. By the summer of 1910, 93 Guanhua schools were reported, as well as four kindergartens, and 22 junior primary schools. Eight hundred and forty eight of the students in 26 of these Guanhua schools graduated (Lin, 1997, p. 10). Zhao has left a record of his purposes. The difficulty of doing this is that the locals know no written language and have not learned to speak the Han language. If we place interpreters in charge of administrative affairs, these may sometimes be not up to the task, and if we bring in poor people to reinforce the border areas, it is unlikely that the hosts and guests will get along


with each other. The only way to overcome this conflict successfully is by using the oral and written language as our standing point. This is why there should be absolutely no delay in beginning the educational project. (Lin, 1997, p. 11)

Sixth watershed event: colonialism and the Japanese language After 1895, following its defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese war resulting in the Treaty of Shimonoseki and the loss of Taiwan, the Pescadore Islands and the Liaodong Peninsula, Japan had started on its own language policies. However, China had to pay Japan a two hundred million kuping tael5 indemnity. While Japanese was taught in some Qing secondary schools, it was the Japanese language policy for occupied China which was most bitterly resented. This was summed up brutally enough by Feng, who described it as “colonial slave education” (Feng, K., 1994, p. 115); its aim was the conversion of Taiwanese and the aboriginal people into “Japanese slaves” (Tsurumi, 1977, p. 224). Chinese private schools were replaced by elementary and middle schools under the control of the Japanese government; in these schools, the Japanese language and Japanese colonial ethics were taught as they were considered the key to cultivating morality and loyalty to Japan (Tsurumi, 1977, p. 51). For the Han, Japanese language policy in Taiwan was implemented in three stages: firstly, between 1895 and 1911, both Japanese and Chinese were used in schools; secondly, from 1912 to 1922, Japanese language became the only medium of instruction with Chinese as an elective subject; and thirdly, from 1930 onwards, language policy aimed at the rapid conversion of all Taiwanese to the use of Japanese. Taiwanese had to speak Japanese as their mother tongue and preserve the Japanese national spirit in the same way as native Japanese; they were forced to accept Japanese surnames after 1940 and the children of families who refused were denied entrance to middle schools (Tsurumi, 1977, p. 129). In their effort to assimilate the aboriginal people of Taiwan, Yuanzhumin, the Japanese took a different position. From 1916 to 1918 they bombed the villages, and slaughtered many locals. Next they redirected their policy to taming the mountain people through schools, establishing education centers in villages where Japanese police maintained a garrison run by police who taught aboriginal children the Japanese language and Japanese ethics. Children were forced to attend schools and be taught by “teachers” who were terrifying disciplinarians but who lacked any training (Tsurumi, 1977, p. 234).


From a Japanese perspective, their education policies for the Han in Taiwan succeeded because they provided ample school places: by 1944 the percentage of Taiwanese school-aged children enrolled in elementary schools, girls included, was 71.31 percent in contrast to the 4.5 percent enrolled in 1907.6 However they were forced to admit that their policy toward mountain aboriginal children had failed (Tsurumi, 1977, p. 13). Despite a 45 year period of Japanese rule in Taiwan, the police department recorded only 18 aboriginal secondary school graduates in 1940, a discrepancy that the authorities attributed to the belief that mountain aboriginal people were unintelligent and lacked motivation. To the outsider though, it seemed that mountain aboriginal people were adamant in their struggle to preserve their culture and identity by resisting Japanese sponsored schooling. Japanese language policy was also implemented in schools in northeast China in the puppet state of Manzhouguo (Manchu State) supported by some Manchus, where it was used extensively, gradually replacing Chinese. By 1905 in Shandong, the Japanese had already established 23 Japanese schools with 4446 Japanese students and another 43 schools enrolling 3747 Chinese students (Feng, K., 1994, p. 115). In these “colonization schools”, the Chinese concept of great harmony was equated with Japan’s New Order in Asia. By 1930, 37 schools in the northeast were operating completely on the Japanese system, including curriculum, textbooks and teaching methods (Feng, K., 1994, p. 13), and expenditure had reached ¥220,854 annually. Seven years later, the Japanese language was referred to as the “national language” in officially approved school textbooks in the northeast. As the Manzhouguo established itself, many thousands of students and staff fled from the region. In the Yanbian Korean area the Japanese banned Korean students speaking their own language in schools, expecting them to use exclusively Japanese. The Japanese also hoped to establish another puppet state in the northwest using Hui people and to promote its language there. The historical experience discussed above describes the genealogy of language policy, and its implementation and consequences for nonHan people; it presents a complex interaction of factors. Significant watersheds record the destruction and construction of language scripts, pictorial and phonetic, and also of dialects and a common language. Processes of integration and separation between majority and minority groups applied both direct and indirect forms of persuasion. The exercise of power in language adaptation and adoption was both openly coercive and personally subtle. Across the board, the benefits accruing

52


were not seen by the minorities as outweighing the disadvantages; this led to resistance. Early in the twentieth century, the Qing Dynasty lost its grip on this multi-ethnic and multilingual nation, surrendering its leadership role to a mix of nationalists, communists and warlords.

Nationalism and new policies The revolution of 1912 which overthrew the Qing Dynasty installed the Republic of China (ROC) signaling the arrival of the nation state and its corollaries of sovereignty, central government and public representation. While new language programs began contemporaneously with its founding, concerted effort only started in the period 1926–49 with the accession of the nationalist Kuo Min Tang (KMT) government. The larger ethnic groups of non-Han people were identified as nationalities and races deserving rights of their own, including language rights, while others were accepted as tribes with less defined status. Throughout the period the KMT contested for power with its own left wing, its warlord opponents and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). After the Japanese occupied Beijing in 1937, the KMT government was driven inland to Chongqing. Similarly the CCP experienced an exodus, an earlier one, being forced out of the east coast cities to the fastness of Yan’an in the 1930s. The founder of the KMT and the first Provisional President of the Republic of China was Dr Sun Yat-Sen, who had actively engaged himself in the debates over race which consumed China’s educated youth at the end of the Qing Dynasty. Under the influence of Social Darwinism, they feared that, unless national consciousness was aroused “the yellow race would share the fate of the American negro” (Schiffrin, 1968, pp. 59–60). Sun Yat-Sen would declare that the Chinese were “a single pure race”, above all others except the white race which shared the same status (Dikötter, 1992, p. 123). In his early writing Sun had been antiManchu and anti-Mongol. He coined the slogan “drive out the Tatar (Manchu) slaves and revive China” (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 7); and, in an unflattering comparison with the Han, who, he said, boasted 4000 years of high culture, he described the Manchu race as “illegitimate offspring of northeast nomads” (Schiffrin, 1968, p. 321). In both the West and China attempts were made in the early twentieth century to link intelligence with racial stock, with the tribal minorities and aborigines thought the least intelligent. Later, Sun would reconsider the standing of the minorities, recognizing their importance in furthering China’s unification and he


pronounced China a unity of five “nationalities”, i.e., ethnic groups: the Han people, the Mongols, the Manchus, the Tibetans, and the Muslim Turks. These five races were symbolized through five colours in the national flag. However, irrespective of the particular position taken, the status of a “nationality” was argued from the agenda of the Han which put forward its policies from a position of paternalism and assumed superiority. In Sun’s case he anticipated that, over time, China would follow the example of the USA, its peoples joining in “a single cultural and political whole” (Mackerras, 1995, p. 56). A realistic awareness of issues of concern to minorities was forced on both the KMT and the CCP by their contact with rural China as they sought friends and allies and adapted their policies to fit the exigencies of the day. Given that neither the KMT’s nor the CCP’s writ covered extensive minority regions, fear of separatism remained a background issue heightened by the secession of Outer Mongolia. Language was one instrument in the political struggles. It was used to assuage large minorities, leaving their spoken word and scripts intact and offering them some regular schools to facilitate communication and modernization. In other cases, policies were designed to replace a minority language by the majority one, or minorities were ignored altogether. Within the major power groups some warlords and provincial leaders sponsored their own language programs; the KMT promoted Guoyu (Mandarin) as the national spoken language; and the CCP put considerable effort into the romanization of the Chinese characters. There was also a growing professionalism in China’s social policy administration, especially after the May 4 Movement, which drew on increasing international experience from Russia and later from the USA and European countries like Britain and Germany. Nationalism and minority issues The manifesto of KMT’s First National Congress, adopted in 1924, recognized the right of self determination for all nationalities within China. “After the victory of the revolution against imperialism and the warlords, it will organize a free and united Republic of China formed by the free association of all the nationalities” (Mackerras, 1995, p. 57). However this was less apparent after the KMT consolidated its power in the KMT Constitution of 1936 which declared that “all races of the Republic of China are component parts of the Chinese Nation and shall be equal” (Woodhead, 1931, p. 518). Certainty that KMT policy was more assimilationist in philosophy was evident in the opinion of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, published in 1944. “The differentiation

54


among China’s five peoples is due to regional and religious factors not to race or blood” (Mackerras, 1995, pp. 59–60). In other words, Chiang presented the minorities as Chinese in origin, though of differing clans (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 37). Initially the ROC government concentrated its language policy and assistance on the Mongol and Tibetan peoples respecting the size of their populations, their strategic locations and separatist tendencies; later the government would promote ROC education in border regions as a curb to CCP activity and as a counter to Christian education by foreigners. Less attention was paid to the Manchu and the Muslim people, perhaps because they were thought to have lost much of their language already. Similarly the smaller ethnic groups, especially in the south, received little attention, their language being described by experts as “rather primitive modes of expression” (Woodhead, 1931, p. 44). In 1929 it was decided that the Ministry of Education would establish a Mongolian and Tibetan Education Section in Nanjing to organize teacher education for Mongol and Tibetan trainees, to undertake research, and also to consider other possibilities for border education (Mackerras, 1995, p. 50). Two years later, after the KMT had adopted Sun’s Three People’s Principles (Sanmin Zhuyi), covering nationalism, democracy and people’s livelihood, textbooks promoting his ideals were published for Mongol and Tibetan regions although in Chinese. The KMT cited Sun Yat-Sen’s principle of equality among nationalities to utilize “the power of education to strive for the unification of language and unity of purpose of the Mongol and Tibetan peoples” (Mackerras, 1995, p. 50). More Mongolian and Tibetan schools opened at national and local levels with students selected from their home towns, as well as Han students, where minority languages and the Han language were taught together (Xie, 1989, p. 33). It was usual for the primary school to use the minority language and some textbooks of local interest, along with the Han language, the latter becoming the medium of instruction in secondary and higher classes. By 1918–21, considerable progress was claimed (see Table 3.1). However, there was a long way to go: by 1928, only 2.25 percent of children in Xinjiang were able to access basic education, although at least nine out of ten people were non-Han (Xie, 1989, p. 40). In 1931 the government issued new regulations requiring that non-Han students receive priority in enrolment in government supported schools and special treatment. Under new quotas, 50 percent of Mongol students should come from Outer and Inner Mongolia, 15 percent of Tibetan

Minorities in the Past 55 Table 3.1

Schools in minority areas from 1918 to 1921

Schools

Guangxi

Gansu

Sichuan

Guizhou

Yunnan

Xinjiang

Public & private (1918–1919) Christian (1918–1921)

167,052

69,400

517,814

62,340

190,921

4274

1,468

486

17,789

1,798

2,006

74

Total

168,520

69,886

535,603

64,138

192,927

4,348

Source: Xie (1989), p. 38

students from Tibet, and ten percent from Qinghai and other areas. The remaining 25 percent could be Han, Hui and Manchu students. All enrolled students would receive free tuition and living expenses from government funds (Xie, 1989, p. 33). The declared aim was to respect features of the minority language while promoting national integration and unity (Xie, 1989, p. 33). Modernity and language reform Following on the Guanhua (Mandarin) policy of the Qing, the ROC put an emphasis on developing students’ speech and communication skills in the Han language. In 1912, the new government founded a Commission on the Standardization of the Sounds of the National Language and in 1918 it sanctioned the use of Guoyu (previously Guanhua) in schools and teacher’s college. It was hoped, “all schoolboys and girls will be enabled to acquire the same pronunciation for the same word through the whole length and width of the country.” The policy was also designed to promote “a deeper national consciousness than has ever existed” (Woodhead, 1922, p. 551). The national language was backed up by Guoyu phonetic alphabets, prepared under the Commission for the Unification of the National Language, endorsed by the Ministry of Education under Cai Yuanpei, which were designed to help children speak Guoyu. It was planned that the national language would eventually take up one third of the time in the school curriculum currently given to teaching Chinese. Guoyu was to be “universally adopted” (Woodhead, 1922, p. 553), including in Mongolian and Tibetan regions; and it was taught in some areas not under ROC control, for example, in Guangdong under Chen Jiongming where some primary schools taught the language from Year 4 and English from Year 5 (Chen, 1999, p. 130).


During the May 4 Movement of 1919, the ancient literary script was replaced by the vernacular (baihua). While Cai Yuanpei strongly supported attempts to standardize the language through baihua, the push for a full phonetic script had weakened, with the phonetics approach depicted not as a system of independent letters but as a mode of learning based on phonetic symbols to assist with the pronunciation of Guoyu. The one system available based on the Roman alphabet, Guoyu Loumazi, was for use in foreign affairs only (Rohsenow, 2004, p. 22). Further script reform was attempted by the KMT with the simplification of 324 characters in 1935, however, this was defeated by conservatives in the nationalist government (Rohsenow, 2004, p. 22). Regulating the school system Between 1928 and 1937, the KMT drew up detailed laws and regulations prescribing educational practice including the requirement that all schools under its control teach the Chinese language. In 1933, the Ministry of Education declared that Guoyu should occupy 390 minutes a week in the primary curriculum, followed by 150 minutes a week for Physical Education in the first years and 180 in the next two (Pong & Fung, 1985, p. 156). English was be introduced first in secondary school, and then in primary classes. The KMT attempts to control curriculum across all levels of education, required that private and religious schools register with the latter not being permitted to proselytize. The ministry continued to put the case for compulsory education, an ideal from Qing days, and many small schools, some offering only a minimum of one year opened in minority areas, traveling schools among them. Normal schools serving minority regions were also permitted to vary teaching content provided they covered the Chinese core. Early on, the KMT had advocated a community oriented approach favoured by US educators and returned students from America. Disappointed by its results the government looked for advice to Europe especially those countries that supported mass education systems, secular in character and under the authority of the state. In 1931–32, a League of Nations Commission drew up proposals for a national plan to reform China’s education system. Observing that only an estimated 21 percent of school children of primary age were in class, China’s schools were seen to lack social purpose, with instruction not associated with community needs and national unity (Cleverley, 1991, p. 58). League experts believed that what was wanted was a critical and creative Chinese education (in line with European practice). The experts


had nothing to say about the specific needs of minorities beyond their incorporation in the national system. Language issues in general were a concern. The commissioners spoke up for an approach guided by a sense of national need. “To save the unity of the country it is indispensable to maintain the system of ideographic writing” (Becker et al., 1932, p. 40). It followed that the introduction of a phonetic based system should be opposed. “Such a system would simply divide the population into a more intelligent group able to read everything and a less cultivated mass familiar with only the broadly developed writing” (Becker et al., 1932, p. 40). Any phonetics system would lack the characteristics that had made the Han characters the great cultural achievement that they were. The League could also see advantages in the spread of the one dialect, Mandarin. The desire for unity led its members to criticize the free rein given language reformers practising in different parts of China. They opposed the creation of any independent language forms for religious or whatever reason and their report concluded that a Commission be established to tackle language policy and issues on a national basis. The KMT looks afresh at border education As the KMT revised its language policies through standardization, the Han language infiltrated border education among minorities in the loosely controlled areas of the southwest. Targeting non-Han students, schools aimed to safeguard China’s traditional frontiers. The Christian education offered in minority schools, especially the Miao schools, was of great concern. In 1935, Gong Zizhi, Head of the Yunnan Provincial Education Department, asked for further assistance in funding arguing that many aboriginal people lived in Yunnan’s remote areas and few Han, and that these aboriginals were being evangelized by western imperialist educators as prospective converts and subjects. Christian schools had been established there for over 30 years and there were over 5000 native students enrolled. Most of their teachers were British or French missionaries or locals trained by westerners and the textbooks they used were written in Burmese or in the romanized scripts of local languages. Not only were these native students given free education, textbooks and accommodation, but French missionaries were sponsoring them for study in France.7 The Ministry of Education responded by opening six pilot minority schools, among them Anlong Primary School in Guizhou for Miao and Yao children, and Dingyuanying Primary School in Ningxia for Mongol children.


In 1934, the KMT leader, Chiang Kai-shek, involved himself personally in social education in the recaptured CCP base area in Jiangxi province while he propagated his New Life Movement. The program, based on a mix of Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) and Confucian doctrine, drawn up originally for his officer corps in 1927, attacked socalled deadly sins like self-seeking, “face”, and an unwillingness to take responsibility, and promoted the public virtues of cleanliness, patriotic publishing and civic service. Extensive use was made of Han teachers and students in minority areas; however the movement would have little long term impact. In 1935 the government’s annual budget for border education subsidies was 500,000 Yuan, an amount that had increased annually except for 1938 when the subsidy was cut by 70 percent due to the Japanese war. The government moved to increase subsidies for non-Han education after 1940 when it announced a comprehensive strategy in four main fields: educational allowances for schools in remote regions across north, west and south China; additional money for border education covering operating expenses for new schools; an extension of the Mongolian and Tibetan Education Section in the Ministry of Education which was renamed the Office of Border Education in 1945; and extra funding for new curricula and the compilation of textbooks, including materials designed for local people. Between 1935 and 1942, the government opened 2375 primary schools, 36 high schools and ten teacher’s colleges in 13 provinces with substantial minority populations (see Table 3.2). By the end of 1947, the government was operating 16 key national primary schools in minority areas, usually headed by Han principals, with 2143 students and 164 teachers (Mackerras, 1995, p. 51). There was also a smaller number of secondary and vocational schools and 12 teacher training institutions. In addition to the nationally sponsored schools, provinces established their own schools for minorities. Perhaps the most extensive network of these schools was found in Xinjiang in 1944, where Sheng Shicai, the governor of Xinjiang, with the support of the Soviet Union and prior to the ROC entering the province, utilized textbooks which “honoured the local culture” (Mackerras, 1995, p. 53), with some time allocated for studying the Koran. Although Sheng had reintroduced the name Uyghur into Xinjiang, and Uyghurs and Kazaks held official positions, not all the effort put into this schooling was valued by the recipients. There is evidence that late KMT policy in Xinjiang encouraged the East Turkistan movement which separated Han and Muslim interests (Mackerras, 1995, p. 67).

Minorities in the Past 59 Table 3.2

Schools in non-Han nationality areas from 1935 to 1942

Location

Primary schools

High schools

Chaha’er Gansu Guangxi Guizhou Hunan Ningxia Qinghai Sichuan Suiyuan Tibet Xikang Xinjiang Yunnan

13 55 541 12 100 14 143 15 29 1 5 1412 35

6 4 4

TOTAL

2375

36

3 4 3

8 4

Targeted minority students Manchu Hui, Tibetan Zhuang, Dong, Miao, Yao Miao, Yao, Yi, Tujia, Buyi Miao, Dong Mongol, Hui, Manchu Tibetan, Hui, Mongol Yi, Tibetan, Tujia Mongol Tibetan Tibetan, Hui and Yi Hui, Uyghur Naxi, Bai, Yi, Dai, Nu Lisu, Va, Jingpo, Pumi, Zaiwa, etc.

Source: Xie (1989), p. 39

Chinese policy in Tibetan areas reflected the ROC view that Tibet was an integral part of China, while conceding it some autonomy. However, the KMT was unable to exert much authority. Where the ROC did establish schools, they were frequently monolingual. One observer from Xinjiang in 1948 reported that all the classes he observed in Tibetan areas and elsewhere were conducted in Chinese (Mackerras, 1995, p. 52). According to the Tibetans with whom I talked, their main objection is not to the language however, but to the simple fact that they are forced to send their children to Chinese schools. They feel that a formal education is a useless waste of time and of no conceivable use to them. (Mackerras, 1995, p. 53) Immediately before the PRC took over Tibet, estimatedly 3000 students were in 20 public schools or in old style tutorial classes (Zhou, Q., 2004, p. 226). The extra budgetary assistance the KMT announced never materialized, given higher priorities put on the public purse with much of what was released never reaching its intended recipients. High fees demanded even in government supported schools put education

60


beyond the resources of many. At the Dali Girls’ Secondary School it was estimated that 33.4 percent of girls came from military and political families, 30 percent from business families, 7.1 from workers and peasants, and 6.3 from others (Mackerras, 1995, p. 54). Cleverley estimates that throughout the anti-Japanese war, government expenditure on education generally averaged no more than two percent of the national budget despite promises to supply 15 percent annually (Mackerras, 1995, p. 67). Summing up the KMT period, he declared, “China’s education was more private than national, more elitist than mass, and more foreign in its higher branches than Chinese” (Mackerras, 1995, p. 69). Given that the KMT policies from the 1930s were implemented at a time when education was not uppermost in the government’s mind, the situation for non-Han children learning in their own language, or indeed in Chinese, was grim. In the mid-1940s, the Governor of Guizhou, Yang Zisen, stated his intention to eliminate minority differences by preventing minorities from using non standard scripts or spoken languages: he predicted that within a few years it would be impossible to hear a language other than Chinese in Guizhou (Mackerras, 1995, p. 60). Yet it should be recorded that there was a credit side. The KMT’s proclamations did point to national issues in the language debate. Its civil service had become increasingly modernized, employing numbers of dedicated and professional educators capable of guiding the construction of an articulated school system. The suspicion of modern schooling left over from Qing times had dissipated, with schooling now seen as a prized possession by many. At the centre of government there was a growing acceptance that the schooling of minorities was a desirable end, even if the best route to achieve it remained in contention. Early CCP language policies The CCP supported more conciliatory policies towards minorities than had the KMT and conceded the worth of minority languages: like the KMT, it adopted a policy early on supporting minority independence, from which they later retreated. One year after the establishment of the CCP, in 1922, the Communists discussed the principle of the equality of nationalities and, in 1927, after the CCP split from the KMT, it indicated a willingness to consider self-determination for China’s larger minorities. Here the Party was following Lenin who had observed how Tsarist Russification programs had proved counter productive, heightening nationalist aspirations and helping precipitate the break up of Imperial Russia. The proclamation of the sovereignty of


nationalities and their right to self-determination, including the right to secede, was issued in Russia in 1917. In 1931, the CCP Constitution similarly declared, “All Mongols, Huis, Tibetans, Miaos, Lis, Koreans and others living within the territory of China enjoy the full right of self-determination, that is, they may either secede from the Union of Chinese Soviets or set up their own autonomous regions” (Mackerras, 1995, p. 72). Later, Stalin would assert the right of the working class to over ride any right to secede and the CCP likewise abandoned the prerogative in 1935 (Knight, 1985, p. 254). CCP attitudes towards minorities were also born of necessity. Given that most communist insurgency took place in rural and remote China, the Party had much first hand contact and knowledge of non-Han people. Areas under CCP control covered much of west and southwest Guangxi where over three million Zhuang people lived, eastern Fujian province where the She people dominated, and Guizhou and Sichuan, provinces of the Miao, Tujia, Bouyei, Dong and Yao. Without a workable relationship with them, there was little future. As part of a program of acceptance, educational rewards were promised. All the education systems here are to be placed in the hands of workers, peasants and mass labour. Workers, peasants and their children have the right to receive education. The Soviet government adopts all means to raise the education levels of workers and peasants. (Xie, 1989, p. 39) In 1931, the Constitution declared that minority languages would be used in schools, in the print media, and in all branches of government in autonomous regions or republics inside the Chinese Soviet Republic. Further close contact between the CCP and minorities occurred in 1934 when the Long March from Jiangxi to the Shaanxi province crossed minority areas in Yunnan, Sichuan and Guizhou. Along its route, the CCP persuaded many minority individuals and groups to join the Red Army, including a Red Muslim Unit. When the Communists passed through Miao country near the Wu River in 1934, Mao warned that the Miao were a shy, suspicious people and nothing of theirs should be touched or bought (Fritz, 1988, pp. 31–2). While many minority people proved welcoming, others like the Tibetans, and many in Qinghai, were hostile to the intruders. However some of the Hui in the northwest allied themselves attempting to establish their own Soviet, and in Ningxia Mao visited a Hui mosque in the company of its imam (Mackerras, 1995, p. 74).


In Sichuan the Red Army entered the White and Black Yi (Lolos) territory of the independent Liangshan (Cool Mountain). The Yi people disliked the Han because of past oppression, consequently few Chinese armies passing through left without sustaining heavy losses. Before entering Lolo land the Communists captured several towns on the borders of the largely independent territory and freed a number of Lolo chieftains earlier imprisoned as hostages by the KMT. The Red Army commander, Liu Bocheng who knew some of the Yi language and understood Yi customs, drank the blood of a newly killed chicken with the Yi Chieftain and swore blood brotherhood according to Yi custom. The Red Army also gave the Yi people arms and ammunition. By way of return, the Yi people assisted the Red Army to cross the Dadu River and a number of Yi people joined the communist forces (Snow, 1937, p. 195). The Central Red Army also passed through Dong (Kam) areas. “Since most of the Red Army soldiers were from a lower class background, and since they were generally well-disciplined and therefore respected by the community, many Dong men joined their ranks at that time” (Geary & Pan, 2003, p. 19). However, in 1949, some 400 Dong would flee to Taiwan with the Nationalists, their families paying a price for this desertion including active discrimination against their children in education for many years. Systematic schooling Drawing on Soviet Union practice, by 1934, some 3000 Lenin primary schools had opened in Jiangxi and Fujian where a large number of nonHan children were enrolled; they were taught Chinese, and their teachers were directed to adapt their methods to local conditions. Children also had to be taught the difference between the capitalist and proletarian world outlook through examples understandable to young people. In 1944, under severe economic and military pressure, the CCP abandoned their attempts to systematize education in Yan’an; among the reasons given was the unsuitability of teaching programs designed for urban schools not meeting the demands of rural villagers. The Lenin schools were replaced by smaller people-run public help (minban gongzhu) schools, keeping costs down through self reliance including laboring work from pupils and teachers. In the past, secondary schools were once attached to production units or ran cadre training classes for party organizers. Several colleges for advanced cadre and military training opened, including the Chinese Women’s University, where specialist organizational and trade skills were taught. The best known of them was the


Anti-Japanese Military and Political University, known as Kangda, for political cadres which taught Chinese and Japanese. Some 500 students were enrolled in the Communist Party School, among them Mongols, Muslims, Tibetans, Formosans, Miao and Yi (Lolo) tribesmen (Snow, 1937, p. 435). There were also irregular classes for minorities in their own language, for example, the Mongolian language was used in training Mongol cadres. In 1941, the Yan’an Institute of Nationalities had been established. Apart from training minority cadres, and offering courses in political science in the Han language and script, and in minority languages and scripts, the institute undertook research on minority nationalities, including Mongol, Hui and other groups in the southwest (Xie, 1989, p. 66). Tibetans, Miao, and Yi who had joined the Red Army in Guizhou, Sichuan and Inner Mongolia, and Hui students from Gansu, Ningxia and Qinghai also joined its classes. Minority education had developed in Xinjiang under the influence of the Soviet Union and powerful warlord, Ma Bufang, who with Soviet assistance established schools for Uyghur, Kazak and Hui students in 1936 and 1937. His 215 primary schools had 3300 enrolled students and a higher education institute with another 300 students. Other ethnic schools were also established where enrolment exceeded 2680 children of Uyghur, Kazak, Hui and Mongol minorities. The mother tongue of the students was used in the schools, and the curriculum consisted of their language and scripts, as well as mathematics, geography, society and government policies. The Han language was introduced for the students in senior primary schools. From 1934 to 1936, over 500 students in Xinjiang were selected to study in the Soviet Union. By 1947, the CCP with the support of the Soviet Union, had been able to establish a provincial level government in Inner Mongolia, with the support of the prominent Mongol, Ulanhu, and would grant the region autonomy (Mackerras, 1995, p. 76). Communist language reform In moves to simplify learning and enhance literacy the CCP introduced a romanized script for Han, known as the New Writing System, which was to receive strong support from Communist leaders, including Mao Zedong, Zhu De, Wang Ming and Wu Yuzhang. The Department of Education in the Yan’an government was headed by Xu Teli, Mao’s exteacher and reputedly the oldest man to undertake the Long March, who was an ardent advocate of this new Latinxua xin wenzi (romanized new scripts). The first version of the script had been prepared by Soviet and Chinese philologists in 1928 and trialed among the Chinese

64


communities in Vladivostok in 1930 (Cleverley, 1991, p. 101). Mao himself accepted the post of honorary president of the New Writing Association, with a vision that one day a romanized script would replace Chinese characters. In 1940, the Department of Education ordered experimental language programs in schools, with Latinxua used for writing the language of Mongols, Yis (Lolos) and others (DeFrancis, 1984, p. 129). Following a statement by Mao in New Democracy, a wider campaign was launched in 1942 to teach the script to Red Army soldiers through a network of evening classes. The Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region government granted it legal standing along with the ideograph script for government reports, petitions, accounts and correspondence. Laws and public announcement by the government were published in both the romanized script and in Chinese characters (DeFrancis, 1984, pp. 130–1). Latinxua (romanization) was frequently used and, reportedly, with success in communist controlled areas (DeFrancis, 1984, p. 131) while minority students mostly found it helpful.8 However, after Xu Teli was replaced as Director of Education by Zhou Yang, a man known for his espousal of left wing literature, Xu’s comprehensive mission lost momentum and was eventually abandoned. The KMT, however, regarded the new writing as a communist entity and suppressed it where they could. As the CCP reinforced its presence in the northwest, communication with the minorities became a daily event. But the policy of independence for minority people disappeared from mention after a United Front was formed with the KMT to fight the Japanese. The establishment of the Japanese puppet state, Manzhou guo (Manchu State) revived Communist fears that any suggestion of succession must be avoided. At the Sixth Plenum of the Sixth Central Committee of the CCP in 1938, Mao Zedong promoted only the autonomy and equality of minorities and jettisoned the self-determination position. Even so, Mao continued his strong push for minority rights in principle, restating his position that the Mongol, Hui, Miao and Yao were nationalities equal to the Han at the Sixth Plenum. Mongol, Hui, Miao, Yao and Yi are equal to Han ... [They] have their own power for their affairs under the common goal of resistance to the Japanese ... [We] respect each minority nationality for their culture, religion and customs. We should not force them to study the Han language and script, but help them to develop their own education which uses their own language and script.9


The CCP’s minorities’ policy won support for its forces from many Mongols, Huis, Koreans and others especially in the north and northeast. It was also during this period that the CCP established its first task force for the study of minority nationalities (Zhou, M., 2003, p. 39). With the defeat of the Japanese and the outbreak of civil war, minority support for the communists continued into the final stages of the war where agreements reached with the minorities on the northern border opened the way for direct military support from the Soviet Union. After the defeat and withdrawal of the Japanese in 1945, language policy was regarded as part of the larger political and social agenda of both the KMT and the CCP. In 1949, the KMT claimed 25 percent of China’s elementary aged children were in class, three percent of secondary school students, and 0.3 percent in higher education (Cleverley, 1991, p. 69); whilst the CCP claimed it had educated 60 percent of children of elementary school age in its Jiangxi Soviet in 1934 (Cleverley, 1991, p. 97). Each attempted to promote the Han language aided by the adoption of common speech and language reform. The KMT was less inclusive in its attitude to minority languages although it made concessions particularly to the Mongols, Manchus and Tibetans, whereas the CCP was prepared to recognize more minority peoples and mother tongues. Both Parties sought to inculcate their political ideologies in the curriculum through their preferred language programs.

4 New Policies and Practices under Communism

When the Common Program of the People’s Republic of China was promulgated in 1949 all nationalities were to enjoy equal rights and obligations and autonomous government was introduced. Minority languages were allowed “freedom to use and develop their own languages and scripts, and to maintain or reform their customs or religion” (Stalin, 1913, p. 21). A complementary decision was taken to establish more minority schools, train cadres in minority languages, and translate material into minority languages (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 47). The constitutional right was intended to signify a long term program for action. In 1952 the Guidelines for Regional Autonomy for Minority Nationalities in the PRC stated that authorities in the Autonomous Regions should adopt a commonly used minority language when carrying out official duties with the selected language used to promote local culture and education.1 Rights were further extended in 1954, when the CCP’s language policy gave minority languages official status in legal proceedings, administration duties and educational instruction (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 44). Even in small regions that held multiple nationalities, local languages could in principle be used for proclamations, legal documentation and for sentencing, and minority nationality scripts could be utilized. An officially recognized language and writing script was a route to power over the apparatus of government and a valuable personal advantage for a minority. Conversely, not having an accepted minority language and script was a symbol of lack of power and likely discrimination. The worth of the constitutional guarantee was dependent on whether or not a particular minority was thought fit to exercise its constitutional right. Here ideology and politics intruded, the CCP drawing on Leninist and Stalinist theory in determining its social policy. In Marxist 66

New Policies and Practices

67

theory, a modern state would move from capitalism to communism at a pace determined by its existing state of economic achievement, the lower the stage of advancement, the further to travel. While minority groups were thought less advanced than the Han, they were expected to follow the same path of progress. Over time, Mao explained, “Classes will be eliminated first, then states will be abolished and finally nations will disappear. This will be the case for the whole world” (Mao, 1956, cited in Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 41). With land reform, industrial nationalization and social communalism underway in the early 1950s, China saw itself as entering the first stage of socialism. Minorities were seen as among the major beneficiaries of this advance, with a sympathetic government freeing them from the shackles of feudalism and colonialism. The CCP accepted the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) policies of equality and autonomy for minorities; it also sought minority backing for its new government at a time when local insurrections and international conflict threatened. There was a desire as well to reward the assistance minority people had given the CCP in the anti-Japanese war and in the civil war; and it accepted that injustices perpetrated against minority people required redress. The early linkage with USSR policy manifested itself in the pressure to adopt the Cyrillic alphabet in the revision and creation of writing systems where minority communities bordered Soviet territory in the early 1950s, despite resistance from those minority people preferring their own traditional Arabic and Mongolian scripts.

Looking down from the top The power exercised by the great leader in the early years of the CCP was in accord with China’s imperial tradition. Mao Zedong and his immediate colleagues determined the political line taken with minorities and they took action to ensure that the next level down implemented their policy. Beneath leaders like Mao and Zhou Enlai, were influential ministers like Li Weihan, head of the United Front Work Department from 1944, which had a special responsibility for minority affairs; and senior minority figures like the Mongol, Ulanhu, the Zhuang, Wu Jinghua, the Hui, Yang Jingren, and the Tibetan, Apei Awangjinmei. Support for this work also came from trusted academics like Fu Maoji, of the Institute of Linguistics, and Fei Xiaotong, the ethnologist and sociologist who was Deputy Chairman of the State Ethnic Affairs Commission. Use was made of experts from the Soviet Union like G. B. Serdyuchenko (Blachford, 2004, p. 101). Although comparatively few in number, these

68


decision makers were highly influential, exercising authority from the State Council down to prefecture and county structures, within the ministries and departments responsible for minority work, and inside the academic institutes. In May 1950, Mao Zedong had instructed the CCP to be patient in its dealings with minority people arguing that, “customs and traditions in minority communities can be reformed, but the reform must be initiated and carried out by minorities themselves” (Mao, 1956, cited in Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 45). Similarly Premier Zhou Enlai advocated the creation of autonomous regions and non interference in minority religion and customs; he also attacked Han chauvinism and forced compliance. In 1951 Zhou issued a policy document on behalf of the State Council tackling terminology in the Han language used to discriminate and insult minorities: all words identified by a Chinese character with an “animal radical” must be changed to a “person radical”. CCP leaders encouraged others to learn minority languages for example Zhu De, the PLA Marshal, instructed army soldiers to learn the Tibetan language.2 Questions like what constituted a minority, which minorities deserved priority in language work, which minorities were less or more significant, and what form language assistance should take, became part of the reform agenda. In 1951, the Institute of Linguistics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences proposed two kinds of categories of minor languages. The first comprised those with written systems which could be subdivided into commonly used systems with considerable publication and those with little publication whose writing systems were not commonly used. The second category included those without writing systems (Zhou, Q., 2003, pp. 101–2). The categorization was imprecise: for example, what did the terms “commonly used”, or “incomplete” mean? This degree of latitude enabled the majority player to exercise power over others should dispute arise (Zhou, M., 2004a, p. 81). The CCP finally determined that the five language systems with commonly used writing systems, Mongolian, Korean, Uyghur, Tibetan and Kazak, should be used in the primary and secondary schools. Other minorities could create or revise their systems but for school use should adopt an approved minority language (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 102). The five minority language groups, with the exception of Korean, bestrode the northwestern and western border areas. Strong Western interest in Tibet including British and US involvement encouraged the Chinese to give Tibet local autonomy; there were worries over loyalties in Xinjiang in what was known as the East Turkestan region; India and China had disputed boundaries; and the Chinese had hopes to regain


69

the Mongolian People’s Republic from the Soviet Union. The Koreans had been stalwart in the anti-Japanese war and against the KMT, so the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 made their goodwill of major value. There were powerful reasons then to keep these minority groups with large populations and strategic locations onside.

Reform of the Han language provides the measure The CCP leadership accepted the urgent need for language reform, with the Chinese Script Reform Association being established on 10 October 1949, the day of proclamation (Rohsenow, 2004, p. 23). One immediate task was to consider language policy with regard to Chinese, in particular a scheme for character simplification which was finally approved by the State Council in 1956. Eventually, a list of 2236 characters was published (Rohsenow, 2004, p. 24). Simplified characters were also expected to help with the learning of the Han script in minority schools. The government also pushed for the refinement of Putonghua as the spoken standard and for the creation of Hanyu Pinyin, a romanized alphabet, as an aid to pronunciation. Moreover, it was hoped the reforms would help the expansion of the national language and put a brake on the power of dialects (Guo, 2004, p. 46). In 1945, the CCP had determined that the Latin alphabet should be used to revise and create new scripts for nationalities. Premier Zhou Enlai had argued that the Latin based Hanyu Pinyin would be valuable, making the point that if the minority script corresponded with Hanyu Pinyin, this would benefit mutual communication through the Han language.3 Mao’s own opinion that “the romanization of Han script followed a world trend” (Wang, J., 1995, p. 56) was widely known and influenced others. Another leading cadre, Zhang Xiruo, surmised that within ten years the romanization of Hanyu Pinyin would replace China’s traditional characters.4 Early language reform activity among minorities The direction of early language policy was well intentioned and supported on grounds of literacy and necessary educational development. A nationality without scripts was thought to be unable to adopt advanced scientific technology and education; ignorance would prevent it from attaining a developed social stage. Li Weihan, Minister of the Central Nationality Affairs Commission in 1950, stated that if a nationality had a language but no script, it would suffer from cultural deprivation. But when a nationality had a script, it could enrich its culture and learn


useful things from others.5 It went without saying that the power of a script enabled the individual to read Marx and Mao, and the texts of an expanding CCP literature. In 1951, at the 217th General Meeting of the State Council, the Ministry of Internal Affairs adopted the policy of promoting scripts for minorities as a priority: “Due to the tremendous political, economical and cultural development experienced by the minority nationalities in recent years, there is an urgent need to solve the problem regarding a script system.”6 That same year, the Steering Committee for Minority Language and Research was established under the Cultural and Educational Commission employing 20 specialists (Zhou, Q., 2003, pp. 50–1). By 1956, the State Council had agreed on a three level approval system for new or revised writing systems starting from provincial level, then going to the State Commission for Nationalities Affairs, and finally, to the State Council itself (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 105). Only the Zhuang writing system would eventually achieve the highest recognition. The Zhuang people, estimated at 6.8 million, were mainly concentrated in the southern and southwestern borders. They spoke with a largely unified voice backed by the many Zhuang within the CCP government and PLA, gaining provincial level status for their Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. Their advantageous position could be contrasted with the Miao and Yi, also southerners, who failed to achieve provincial level recognition, winning only experimental status for their languages (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 106). In 1952, the Institute of Linguistics of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) sent three linguists to survey the Zhuang under Professor Yuan Jiahua. A training class also opened at Guangxi Institute of Nationalities for 30 Zhuang students who were taught to write local dialects in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) or in romanization. Also, the Zhuang language group experimented with romanization in the Laibin dialect in a school in the region in 1953. The linguistic data Yuan Jiahua gathered from the project played an important role in the Zhuang being awarded independent nationality status and laid the foundation for a new Zhuang script. An initial assessment of the Zhuang language supported two dialect writing systems; however it was eventually determined to use one dialect as the base for script and the other for the standard pronunciation; it would also make use of Pinyin (Li & Huang, 2004). Among those who helped the discussants in 1954 was a Soviet linguist, G. B. Serdyuchenko, who arrived with other advisers who had shared the Soviet Union’s experiences (Zhou, Q., 2004, p. 57). In January 1956,


71

the Guangxi Zhuang School opened in Wuming County, trialing the romanized Zhuang writing system, and by the beginning of 1958, the school had offered three Zhuang Writing Training Classes of three to six months and had trained nearly 3000 local cadres and teachers. In December 1957, the State Council approved the Zhuang writing system applying “Five Principles in Romanization” which became an exemplar for others (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 59). Later it would be revised, and any non-Roman letters were removed. Identifying minority nationalities The CCP government had promised more minority groups would receive legal identification than the KMT had recognized. However, there was a lack of information about the numbers of minority groups existing in China. In 1955, there were 39 officially identified ethnic groups comprising 34 million people (Zhou, Q., 2004, p. 56). But when an opportunity arose to express a view on a group’s ethnic identity more than 400 groups came forward claiming they were independent nationalities based on their unique spoken languages and distinctive cultures and particular religions. In Yunnan alone, over 260 groups claimed legal identification and in Guizhou the number exceeded 80.7 Faced with a large number of self-identified minority groups, the government promoted ethnic amalgamation as a means of reducing the number of self proclaimed minorities. Investigations for possible ethnic amalgamation began in 1952; and when information was gathered in 1956, a major field survey utilized more than 700 people in its investigation of the history, culture, economy, education and languages of minority nationalities. Members of the survey teams covered 16 provinces and regions in a project coordinated by central government (Fei et al., 1989, p. 16). Members of the survey teams were assigned two tasks: the first, to identify a group as being Han or non-Han and, the second, to identify the non-Han as belonging to either a minority nationality or to an independent nationality (Huang & Shi, 1995, pp. 147–60). Survey teams mainly visited areas where local minority groups claimed status as a separate nationality (minzu), ostensibly evaluating claims according to the criteria established by the government. However in many cases, they also considered traditional Han folk categories and gave weight to people’s own ethnic disposition. The process of ethnic identification had three phases. The first, from 1949 to 1953, culminated in 38 nationalities being granted legal status, the largest nationality being the Zhuang and the smallest, the Hezhe, with 300 people counted. The aboriginal people, the Gaoshan (the


mountain people) residing in Taiwan were also given an independent identity though only 328 people were living on the mainland in 1953. The second phase of identification lasted from 1954 to 1964. During this period, the Dong people of central China and the south began to develop an orthography which was investigated by a survey team in 1957, when a draft Roman script was issued and then taught in schools (Geary, 2003, p. 37). The Dong was one of 15 groups who were given national identities at this time. In the last phase from 1965 to 1979, the Lhoba group was recognized as an independent nationality in Tibet in 1965, and a nationality identity was given to the Jino in 1979. Ethnic identification in China did not always adhere to Stalin’s stipulation of a “common language”, which was flexibly applied (Harrell, 1995, p. 63). In some cases, a minority language was the main determinant for a qualification; in other cases it was declared insufficient for ethnic identification. The situation was complex. Some minority nationalities had adopted the Han language as their first language as the result of Han assimilation; other minority nationalities spoke a number of different languages which were regarded as dialects of the one family, or dialects not of one family. Also, a minority nationality could use two officially recognized languages. A vast majority of people of Hui, Manchu and She nationality, as well as other minority nationalities, had relinquished their own language for the Han as far back as the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, these minority groups still maintained an identity distinctly separate from the Han. For people of the Hui nationality no real definition of distinct nationality as required under Stalin’s criteria could be applied as they had neither a common language nor a common territory: they spoke the Han language and were scattered across China. However, they did share in common the Muslim religion. Similarly, the Manchu were not recognized as an independent nationality by the government in 1949, because the CCP government, adopting the Stalinist position, argued that the Manchu were assimilated with the Han. But strong lobbying by the Manchu people led the CCP government to formally recognize the Manchu as an independent nationality in 1952. Whether a spoken tongue was a separate language or a dialect was another issue. A number of languages were classified as dialects of one particular language by Chinese scholars based on the government’s instruction.8 The Yi, an indigenous group widely spread throughout the southwest, inhabited the Ninglang-Xiao Liangshan (Small Cool Mountain), and Chuxiong, Wuding, Zhaotong and Lunan in Yunnan and Da Liangshan (Large Cool Mountain), Xichang and Zhaojue in Sichuan,


73

and Weining in Guizhou. The Yi people spoke a number of different languages. Official papers suggest six dialects altogether, including the northern dialect, Nusuo, also called Liang Shan Yi, the central dialect, and Lipuo (or Lipo). Some 40 percent of the vocabulary was shared among these Yi dialects (Pu & Liu, 1996, p. 59). Grammatically, some of these dialects were very similar to Tibetan and Japanese (Harrell, 1995, p. 63), with the central dialect closer to Lisu and Hani than to the northern dialect, whilst some of the dialects were mutually incomprehensible. The Yi scripts also showed variance across dialects. The Yi used two scripts: the traditional Yi script used by “Bimo”, Yi intellectuals in Yunnan, and the Liangshan script used in the Liangshan areas in Sichuan. Other Yi languages had only oral traditions. Likewise, the Miao language was classified into four dialects which were mutually unintelligible. The surveys themselves were not accurate recordings: in Hainan, for instance, a minority group was classified as Miao though it spoke the Yao language.9 In some cases two different languages were classified but one nationality identity awarded. The Zaiwa, for example, were identified as Jingpo even though their language was recognized as separate from Jingpo; this decision was based on history and the political situation, both Jingpo and Zaiwa crossing borders between China and Burma. Historically, the Jingpo was the ruling class of Zaiwa. Members in the survey team discovered “Jingpo” people who spoke two different languages and used two different written scripts, both of which were created by missionaries. Because some Jingpo cadres opposed the recognition of Zaiwa as an independent nationality, the Zaiwa’s national identity became Jingpo, even though it was agreed that the Zaiwa language was recognized as separate from the Jingpo language. Other minority languages were classified as Han dialects because its speakers were classified as Han. Here the Lingao people were classified as Han although they spoke a language similar to the Tibetan language. The survey team suggested that this mistake in classification be corrected but when they reported the situation to the minister of the State Nationality Affairs Commission, Li Weihan, he replied that if the Lingao people were identified as Han, then they spoke a Han dialect called the “Lingao dialect”. Overall, the working team assessing the surveys identified more than 100 minority languages in the 1950s. However, the number of officially identified nationalities was less than the total number of languages spoken, the explanation being that it was inappropriate to classify similar dialects as different languages when the dialects were spoken by people of the same nationality.


In various ways, minority languages were manipulated to serve political purposes in the government’s ethnic identification policy. These results would be used by administrators in many aspects of policy formulation, including language and education policies for minorities. Several participants in the survey have related that, at the time the investigation was undertaken, much ethnic identification work had already been completed. By 1957, minorities along the northeast to northwest borders and to the west and southwest had 13 writing systems win experimental status but among the inland minorities, only four obtained experimental writing systems probably because of their size (Zhou, Q., 2003, pp. 110–11). The goal of the survey teams was basically to collect evidence which affirmed the framework of Stalin’s orientation and CCP interpretation. Members of the survey teams were told to keep within the guidelines of the original identifications.10

Language policy implementation The Korean language is mainly used in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture. When the Autonomous Prefecture was first established in 1952, it was clearly stated in the People’s Government Organization Act, that Korean would be used in conjunction with Chinese as the official language. Furthermore, the Korean language would be the medium of instruction from primary school to higher education, a decision which received strong support from the Korean community. The language system it supplanted had been based on the Japanese colonial model established during the 15 years of Japanese occupation from 1930 to 1945. In this period, 80 percent of Korean children attended school even though the Korean language was banned; after 1945 the Korean language was reintroduced into schools.11 The first textbooks which replaced the Japanese-based curriculum and texts were imported from North Korea, with later textbooks prepared in the Yanbian area itself. As the availability of qualified Han language teachers increased, the teaching of the Han language was moved back to Year 2, and the number of hours for Han was increased to 1960 per annum in primary schools. In junior high and senior high schools, additional hours were given to the Han language; depending on the medium of instruction, national exams were conducted in either Korean or Han. The Korean language in use in 1947 was based on the 1933 “Unified Orthography of Korean” but local grammars and policy changes were introduced in attempts to standardize the language and between 1953 and 1955, Chinese characters were eliminated from primary and


75

secondary school textbooks. From 1955 to 1976, the Pyongyang North Korean standard (Tai, 2004) was applied until such time, it was said, as north and south became unified when the Seoul standard would be followed (Tai, 2004). The Mongolian language had been taught in schools since the Yuan Dynasty in 1272. The contemporary Mongolian script, used from the time of the establishment of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR) in 1947, can be traced back to an Aramaic script and others, In the education system, bilingual education practices were similar to those found in Korean schools, the Mongolian language being the medium of instruction and the Han language as a second language taught from primary school onwards. In Inner Mongolia, the major push for teaching the Mongolian language in schools was backed by Ulanhu, the chairman of Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region. A Mongol by origin, he had joined the CCP in the 1920s before attending the Soviet Union for training from 1926 to 1929. A vigorous supporter of the Mongolians, he called on CCP cadres to learn the local Mongolian language. In 1945, Ulanhu became founding president of the Inner Mongolian Institute of Military and Political Studies where the Mongolian language was a compulsory subject in all three faculties. From 1947, the Mongolian language was thought to be under threat from the influx of Han people into Inner Mongolia and Ulanhu defended “fighting the inclination to discriminate against minority languages”. In a speech published in 1948 in the Mongolian Daily, he stressed the need for “redressing the tendencies to underestimate Mongolian language education and devoting the best effort in the development of the Mongolian language” (Menggu Ribao [Mongolian Daily], 24th August 1948). The census of 1990 would indicate that 82 percent of the population of Inner Mongolia was the Han (Caodaobateer, 2004, p. 301). Ulanhu was eventually appointed Chairman of the IMAR and a Vice-President of the PRC. In the late 1940s, the Han language was introduced from Year 1 for Mongol children in primary schools. However, Ulanhu strongly opposed the teaching of two languages simultaneously in primary schools. Chairing the first Inner Mongolian Education Conference in 1949, he argued that Mongol children should first learn the Mongolian language before learning the Han. There were opponents to his stand however. In 1953, a government meeting held by the branch bureau of the CCP Central Committee to review language work found some officials asking, “Why do we study Mongolian since we are not going to use it any more in communism?” (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 48) It was also reported that


less than one percent of official documents in some autonomous governments were published in Mongolian. In a move back to Mongolian a plan was drawn up requiring officials to study Mongolian and reach primary school graduation level. With local support and backed by Ulanhu’s intervention, the starting point of Han language instruction was moved to the later primary school years. In 1955, a policy document issued by the Central Ministry of Education directed that the Han language not appear until Year 5 of primary school when it was allowed four hours per week. In high school it was allotted five to six hours per week depending on the medium of instruction. The national tertiary entrance examination could be set in either the Mongolian or Chinese language, Ulanhu also supported Mongolian language maintenance programs for Mongol children taught the Han language in urban schools; and, under his direction, Mongol nationality schools were established in Hohhot, capital city of the IMAR, where the Mongolian language was introduced as a subject for Mongol children from Years 1 to 3. Following Soviet Union practice, the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region government made the decision to replace the traditional Mongolian script with the Cyrillic script in 1955. A large number of students were chosen to undertake intensive training on the Cyrillic script at the Central Institute for Nationality Studies (CINS, which has been renamed as the Central Univercity for Nationalities, CUN) and an expert from the Republic of Mongolia invited to teach them. However the man refused to teach them at CINS, claiming that Mongolian was not a minority language in his own country. Thus, these students were then transferred to Beijing University to study the Cyrillic script there under this expert in 1953, but by the time these students completed their training in Cyrillic, the policy for the Mongolian script had changed back to the traditional Mongolian script. Ulanhu, chairman of the IMAR, was against the previous decision and had the traditional Mongolian script restored in 1958.12 In Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), either the Uyghur language or Kazak served as the medium of instruction. In Uyghur schools the Uyghur language was used, with Chinese introduced as a compulsory subject in Year 6, four hours per week being devoted to the language. The Chinese learning then continued to the end of high school. The same system applied in Kazak schools. However, in Urumqi (the capital city of XUAR), and in Yili and Tacheng, where there were large numbers of Chinese speaking children, the medium of instruction was the Han language with the Uyghur or Kazak languages taught


77

as a subject in primary, secondary and to a limited extent, in tertiary colleges. The National Tertiary Entrance Examination was conducted in Uyghur, Kazak or Han language, based on the language of instruction received by the students. The Uyghur and Kazak scripts experienced three changes across a comparatively short period, with the Xinjiang Language and Script Guidance Committee, set up in 1951, particularly active. The Uyghur and Kazak had a standard written script based on Arabic adopted with the Islamic religion, but in 1956, the Committee determined that four new scripts, Uyghur, Kazak, Kirgiz and Xibe, should be created based on Cyrillic replacing the traditional Arabic scripts. Similarly Uzbek and Tatar scripts were required to adopt a Cyrillic notation initially created for the two nationalities situated in the Soviet Union. In 1959, these various Cyrillic scripts were themselves replaced by the Latin script. Changing language policy had a direct effect on school language education: apart from the need to retrain teachers and students, the original textbooks printed in the Arabic script had to be replaced by textbooks printed in the Cyrillic script and then later by Latin script textbooks. Tibet did not come under direct Chinese control until 1951, when its government was officially granted autonomy with the Tibetan language and writing system recognized as an integral part of the Tibetan education system though not to the extent of full localization. Tibetan, a long established and shared Tibetan-Burmese language, was a source of considerable ethnic pride: it had three main vernaculars spoken among its communities in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and in the neighbouring provinces of Gansu, Qinghai, Sichuan and Yunnan. Not all of these vernaculars were mutually intelligible. The language was closely associated with the Buddhist religion, the teaching of Tibetan being traditionally undertaken by lamas in monasteries, and general literacy levels were low. After 1949, large numbers of Han officials came to Tibet to work, resulting in the spread of Chinese language. Between 1951 and 1958, 13 primary schools and one secondary school were established in Tibet (Zhou, M., 2004b, p. 226) and others in the Tibetan communities outside Tibet. These government-supported schools were divided according to the language of instruction: in Tibetan majority schools, the Tibetan language was used in all primary school years, with the Han language introduced in Year 4. In Han schools, where the majority was Han, Chinese was used as the medium of instruction, with Tibetan introduced in Year 4. In secondary schools, the Chinese language was generally used except

78


in Tibetan language classes but Tibetan teachers could use Tibetan for explanation or tutoring (Zhou, M., 2004b, p. 226). In Beijing, the minzu (ethnic) Press began to publish books in the minority language and other presses followed in local regions. In Sichuan in the early 1950s, textbooks were prepared in Tibetan for math and other subjects and teaching materials were translated. Zhou has criticized the attitudes of cadres in Tibet who failed to implement constitutional and other guarantees of language freedom and rights. He suggests that one reason was that the policies themselves were too general: there may have been good policies but they existed only on paper. Funding was insufficient and illiteracy has continued to be an issue through to the present despite illiteracy campaigns. A major problem is the shortage of Tibetan teachers, with teaching places taken in the expanding system by Han teachers many of whom knew little Tibetan and who had little knowledge of or attachment to the culture. Zhou observes that the use of Tibetan increases from urban to rural and pastoral areas; that it is used more frequently among older than younger people; and that more common people speak Tibetan than Tibetan officials, students and government workers (Zhou, M., 2004b, pp. 225–36). Language policy implementation in the southwest After 1949, considerable unrest continued in the southwest border regions including fighting by Nationalist guerillas, particularly from Burma, and minorities from the unstable areas won preferential treatment with four autonomous prefectures and four autonomous counties established (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 103). Minority script creation and revision continued as both a political and educational task. The Zhuang had first used a Chinese character-based script in AD 900 and a large number of poems and literature were written in the Chinese-based Zhuang script (Zhou, 1992, p. 57). The Yao had also started early writing their legends and lyrics in a character-based script from AD 628; the Miao people used three different character based scripts until 1907 (Zhou, Y., 1992, p. 64); and the Hani and Shui people also based their written scripts on Chinese characters. Each of these Chinese characterbased scripts was regarded as unsuitable in one way or another and was labeled as not widely used and ripe for replacement by scripts following Hanyu Pinyin.13 Not only were the Chinese character-based scripts replaced, but the scripts created by missionaries before 1949 were outlawed. These were Latin alphabet scripts such as Jingpo, Zaiwa, one of the Miao scripts (known as Pollard scripts), Lisu, Hani and others. Such scripts were


79

regarded by government officials as evidence of colonial or cultural imperialism.14 While other types of scripts used in traditional local religious purposes were regarded with superstition, for example, the Naxi ideographic script and the Yi Indian script, both were replaced by Latin scripts in the 1950s. The outcome of script reform led to old scripts being modified or completely replaced by new scripts. Most reforms initiated by the government were made for systems that authorities thought were not working well. Here the Yi script was regarded as backward; the Miao, Lisu and Zaiwa scripts were considered products of Western missionary aggression; and the Dai script was said to have too many varieties. The Yi’s own writing script, according to legend, was created 80 generations back, its first inscription on the bronze bell, Dafang in 1485 (Pu, 2004, p. 258). The owners of these writing skills were the Bimo, the community’s sorcerers. After 1949, attempts were made to standardize a new script in Sichuan, Yunnan and Guizhou but no uniform version was possible given the community’s diversity. In 1951, a romanized Yi script was trialed in the Xichang prefecture, Sichuan province, where over 2693 people learned the system in the first year, and 80,000 copies of reading materials were published (Zhou, Q., 2004, p. 65). Finally, a revised scheme was prepared in 1956 and granted experimental status. However, use of this script was revoked in 1960. Another task of the reformers was to reduce the variety of scripts. For example, the four scripts the Dai nationality used before 1950 were reduced to two major scripts and then further modified. The Dai people are widely spread. Two autonomous prefectures are found in Dehong and Xishuangbanna, where these people speak four major dialects, some mutually unintelligible, and use different writing systems based on Indic phonetic systems for worship, administration and everyday purposes. The Dai scripts used in Dehong underwent five modifications in all though the original alphabet was retained. Since the new Dai script, approved as an experimental draft in 1954, had a different alphabet from the old script, it was almost incomprehensible to people who could read the old script. One official said that the new Dai script assisted a large number of Dai people to become illiterate in their own language; further, it was impossible for Dai people to read the religious scripture in the new script.15 In 1956, the new script was taught in teacher training institutions and in short term training classes, and introduced to primary schools where previously only Chinese had been taught, and an anti-illiteracy campaign was launched for adults. The Yunnan Institute for Nationalities also enrolled students learning

80


Dehong Dai, textbooks were printed and multi-lingual newspapers published. However Dai people who attended the schools after 1955, had difficulty in accessing religious content unless they went to the temple to learn the old scripts, which many did. Further changes would be made in the Dehong script later. In 1954, the Xishuangbanna prefecture set up a committee to develop its own writing system inviting Fu Maoji of the CINS from Beijing to advise, and another new system was approved. However, like the Dehong system it did not pay attention to the Dai communities’ traditional practices or to cross communication (Zhou & Fang, 2004, p. 208). Fu had hoped that his plan would open the way for the merging of the two Dai systems but the systems proved too different. In 1986, it was determined that the Xishuangbanna writing system would be replaced by the traditional one and a situation emerged where some schools taught the reformed system and others the traditional. Other Dai groups began to make increasing use of Chinese, especially from the late 1970s. Other minority scripts followed between 1956 and 1957, mainly in the southwest, in Yunnan, Guangxi, Sichuan and Guizhou provinces. By 1958, 16 scripts (Zhuang, Bai, Naxi, Zaiwa, Va, Lahu, Yao, Lisu, Yi, Li, four Miao scripts and two Hani scripts) had been prepared for nationalities and seven of them were approved for school trials. However, the Zhuang script remained the only one approved by the State Council; the others were approved at State Commission of Nationalities or provincial levels. Minority languages and the medium of instruction In the earliest days some minorities exercised a choice of two languages, Chinese or Russian, in addition to the mother tongue. In XUAR, the language policy required secondary schools to add a second language as an elective, with Uyghur schools able to add Russian or Chinese, and Han schools to have Russian or Uyghur (Blachford, 2004, p. 112). By 1955, the first National Conference of Minority Education determined that in all minority communities with regularly used writing systems, “native languages must be used as the medium of instruction in every course in primary and secondary schools” (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 48). These schools would offer Chinese courses, “in accordance with the needs and wishes of the community.” At the same time the government had moved to strengthen central control over education in minority regions by establishing minority education divisions at each level of administration from the Ministry of Education down including in prefectures where ten percent of the population was a minority (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 52).


81

It also placed the establishment of ethnic publishing houses under tighter government supervision. By now, the Chinese language was introduced as a subject in the national curriculum for all supported minority schools in China. Nevertheless, the implementation of the policy differed between the northeast and southwest. The implementation task in the northwest was to insert the Chinese language into the curriculum, while the medium of instruction was generally the first language of minority students. In the southwest however the target was to use the Chinese language as the medium of instruction, with the mother tongue taught as a subject thereby encouraging more minority children to enter school. Across the board, political power, leadership, religion and cultural factors contributed to the success and limitations of policy implementation. The CCP regards its education system as a prime agent of political and social change. In its first decade, the CCP government gave priority to expanding schooling in minority areas. However the creation of an education system, in some cases from scratch, proved an arduous task. Despite some efforts from the KMT government since the 1930s to promote education in border areas, illiteracy rates remained around 99 percent among minority nationalities in the southwest.16 Overall, the CCP claimed to have inherited a nation 80 percent illiterate (Wang, C., 1996). There were exceptions though: the Koreans having above average literacy. Still, the figures were stark: according to numbers quoted in 1949, only 1265 students from minority backgrounds were undertaking tertiary education, and there were few non-Han technical personnel and scientists (Editorial Board, 1989). Apart from schools in the north with established scripts, and a number of schools that undertook pilot programs to teach the new scripts, a large number of schools relied on mother tongue oral instruction for minority children in Years 1 to 3 as the medium of instruction. The Chinese characters were taught in the Chinese language subject. Song, observing a lesson in 1950, noted that even though the medium of instruction was the Lisu language, a Chinese language textbook was used in the classroom. When students had problems understanding the meaning of certain Chinese words, such as those for an aeroplane, a train, and so on, the teacher used the Lisu language to explain the meaning (Song, 1950, p. 15). Varied cultural practice influenced educational opportunity. In many places, literacy skills in minority languages were closely related to religion and it was a common practice to grant privileges in education for males in religious activities. For example, the Dai nationality was said to have 80 to 90 percent of Dai men literate in the Dai script but


only ten percent of women.17 Traditionally, all Dai boys devoted a part of their lives to the Buddhist temple to learn the Dai script and read Buddhist scripture. In some places, strong parental resistance to sending their children to schools was an evident; one reason being that minority parents feared their children would be unduly influenced by the Han. This was because many of the teachers sent to particular areas as CCP governmentsupported teachers were Han. Overall, teachers were in short supply. In 1950, Deng Xiaoping said to the minority delegation, “the government has the money to set up schools; the most difficult problem is no teachers”.18 In some schools, minority languages were only used in early grades in primary schools, then the Chinese language took over as the medium of instruction. According to an education official in Yunnan, this type of transitional bilingual education was practiced from the time minority schools were first established. In 1951, the Yunnan Education Department had introduced the policy initially that schools were to be established according to the nationality and language of students. The local curriculum would draw on the history and customs of the relevant nationality and on the national content and textbooks were to have four elements: the minority script, the Chinese characters, pictures, and Pinyin. However there was a switch to the Chinese language later. When government-supported Dai schools were established in the 1950s, teachers had to go from house to house to persuade parents to send their children to class. They also allowed parents to come along to watch their children in lessons. Where schools were opened, the Dai language was used to teach students in Years 1 and 2. In Year 3, the Chinese language was introduced though most instruction continued in the Dai language. In Year 4, Dai language instruction ceased, and the Chinese language continued until the end of Year 6. When students finally finished school, they were normally able to read and write a letter with 300 to 400 Chinese characters.19 Enrolment numbers for minority students in primary schools across the country increased from 791,394 in 1949 to over three million by the end of 1957 (Editorial Board, 1989, p. 110). At the local province level the pace of education was quite fast. In Yunnan between 1949 and 1952, the enrolment of minority children in primary schools increased 94.2 percent. However, it should be noted that many minority nationalities had few if any schools before 1949 (Editorial Board, 1989, p. 110). Again, from 1949 to 1952, the number of Gansu province schools for minority children increased five times and students in


83

primary and high schools increased from 18,000 to 70,000 (Editorial Board, 1989, p. 110). Acceptance of the use of minority languages as the medium of instruction was the major single factor contributing to rapid education development. As one former teacher, who taught in the 1950s commented – he had to use the children’s mother tongue otherwise parents would not send their children to class. With the help of a minority cadre, he would collect his students house by house every morning. 20 Many of the Han teachers interviewed said they followed Mao’s instruction to be “three together”: eating, living and working with minority nationalities, and most learned the language of their students enabling them to break down language barriers.

Speeding up language reform On 15 January 1956, Peng Zhen, the mayor of Beijing, announced that Beijing had at last entered socialist society since industry and business sectors were nationalized. Shanghai, Guangzhou and fifty other large cities followed with similar proclamations. It was admitted that rural areas were less advanced. Mao Zedong was showing signs of impatience with modernization in the countryside including comparatively slow development in minority communities (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 56). The leadership was also expressing similar disquiet at the slow rate of progress of its linguistic experts despite the CCP abandoning grand gestures, and restricting the role of Pinyin to that of an auxiliary system. After submitting a detailed proposal for handling new writing scripts for minorities in 1954, the Steering Committee for Minority Languages was dissolved by the State Council and its work passed to the Institute of Languages of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. On 3 February 1956, the People’s Daily published an editorial demanding that the authorities speed up the creation of writing systems for minority communities. The same year the phonetic spelling of Chinese was re-emphasized, and new committees were formed to coordinate language reform in the bureaucracy. Though these moves promised increased efficiency, they were at the expense of greater CCP control over its language experts. In 1957, Five Principles were adopted at the 63rd Plenary session of the State Council (Zhou, Q., 2004, p. 66) which required that minority languages be as alphabetically and orthographically similar to the Chinese phonetic script as possible. There was a growing gap between what the policy documents urged and what was practiced in minority regions, new language policies


meeting limited acceptance and resistance from communities. A number of problems had emerged. Local officials were criticized for conservative thinking and lack of support; there was little cooperation between agencies responsible for language work; and language workers lacked authority and experience (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 54). The suitability of some scripts based on romanization was an issue, as was the low prestige of newly created writing systems. Qingsheng Zhou has reported: Generally speaking the newly created writing systems seem to be unsuccessful, because the total number of ethnic minorities who have learned to use the new writing systems is rather small, the systems’ domains of actual use are quite narrow, and promotion of those writing systems has failed to continue long enough for success. (Zhou, Q., 2004, p. 67) The ever present competition between the majority language and the others continued. With the exception of the “big” minority languages Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, Kazak, Zhuang and Korean, the rights of the other minorities smaller in size were less well recognized. Others were held back because there was disagreement within the minority group itself as to the best script for adoption. An outsider observing the schools would note the dominance of monolingual Han language instruction and an acute shortage of teachers of other languages. For all its often chaotic character, the first half of the 1950s did represent a change from the past valued by many minority groups. Continuous revolution The subordination of language policy and educational practice to ideological demands was a characteristic of much of the period from 1957 to 1977 when China experienced violent upheaval. During optimism of the Hundred Flowers Movement in 1957, criticism of the CCP was permitted for those prepared to take a professional path. However the optimism was destroyed by the Anti-Rightist campaign which targeted at least 300,000 writers, teachers, and non CCP members (Cleverley, 1991, p. 138). Language experts were coerced into silence and the laborious work undertaken in the revision of scripts and creation of new ones was attacked and denigrated. Mao introduced the Great Leap Forward movement in 1958, under the slogan, “Going all out, aiming high, and achieving greater faster, better results at lower cost.” (Cleverley, 1991, p. 141) Under a “communist wind” (gongchan feng) (Cleverley, 1991, p. 142), communes and cooperatives


85

began practicing communism as they understood it: property was distributed on the basis of need; credits and debits were amalgamated; individuals’ woks being melted down for their iron content, and food was prepared in communal dining halls. In some minority communities Muslims were asked to rear pigs; Tibetans to denounce their lamarist temples; and minority families to sell their gold and silver ornaments to fund socialist construction (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 61). Minority leaders were expected to affirm their loyalty to the CCP at special meetings and their language workers should be “red and expert.” Time spent on minority language work should be reduced and more time spent on communal economic activities. A new rationale was presented for nationalities’ language policy. While it was agreed that minorities had rights in regard to the use of their own language, they should keep in mind that any system they chose was necessarily subordinate to economic progress and national unity. It followed that Chinese, phonetically spelled, was the best writing system for them and that new writing systems should be limited in number and scope (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 112). In 1958, the State Commission on Nationalities Affairs and the Chinese Academy of Sciences held a second conference on minority languages which affirmed the Plan for the Phonetic Spelling of Chinese from 1956, supported by Zhou Enlai, the premier of China, as a useful base for minority writing systems. The notion that dialects were separate languages was criticized, as were multiple writing systems for the same nationality, and any resistance to borrowing from the Chinese for contemporary terms (Zhou, Q., 2003, pp. 63–4). Minority children should learn Chinese in primary school and Han children in minority areas learn the minority language. Language fusion policy Attempts to speed up language reform in the early 1950s were marked by the publication of more scripts for minorities. But during the Great Leap Forward, faster progress meant justifying the use of Han personnel and materials and the recruitment of more students. Around 1957, language policy in education in China swung to advocacy of the language fusion (yuyan ronghe), which assumed that two languages could be fused into one. At the Sixteenth Congress of the Soviet Union, Stalin declared that when the socialist system was consolidated, languages from different nationalities could be fused into one common language, a language neither Russian nor German, but a new language (Stalin, 1950, p. 536). In China, Stalin’s writing on “Marxism and Linguistic Matters”

86


were still regarded as authoritative in China and “language fusion” was adapted by “leftists” as a way of speeding up the assimilation of minority peoples. These officials claimed that the approach was in line with Mao Zedong theory since Mao had stated that minority nationalities in primitive stages of development could leap a stage through accelerated progress. So minority languages in primitive societies could be replaced directly by the Han language.21 In short, language fusion theory promoted the language shift to Putonghua and the phonetic spelling mode, drawing on the romanized writing system. The policy used before 1957 under which the children’s first language was converted to the Chinese language through making writing systems more compatible and by borrowing words from the Chinese was now regarded as indirect language transformation. Under the new dictates, the CCP declared the indirect transformation made a multistep approach too slow and ineffective. Instead a direct method of imposition was required:22 this single-step or language fusion approach expanded the use of Chinese moving directly from the native language to Chinese. This was the fast lane to language convergence (Zhou, Q., 2003, pp. 62–3). The second National Conference on Minority Languages and Scripts, held in March 1958 in Beijing, officially endorsed the language fusion policy through the implementation of Putonghua and the phonetic spelling of Chinese in minority language work. It also launched attacks on Narrow Minded Local Nationalists, whose incorrect implementation of language policy of the early 1950s was to be rectified. Under new orders the development of written scripts was halted, the use of minority languages in schools reduced and the total number of classified minority languages cut back. The minority-written scripts should cease, the Conference instructed, because they had a negative impact on China’s national unity. Minority classifications should be reduced on the grounds that two or more scripts created for the same minority nationality split that nationality and harmed the national unity. For example, the decision was taken to select Jingpo as an official language and Zaiwa was made a dialect of the Jingpo language.23 Furthermore, the use of minority languages in schools was criticized for holding back the teaching of the more advanced Chinese language and Putonghua, and the direct transformation method was introduced whereby minority children were taught the Han language from the beginning of primary school.24 The language fusion policy was implemented throughout the country following a policy statement circulated by the Central Government


87

to all minority provinces/regions in 1958. In the southwest, the Han language replaced minority languages that were being used as the medium of instruction in primary schools, and the training of teachers in minority languages ended. In one Dai county, only six out of 34 could speak the Dai language. As most teachers could no longer answer children’s questions in the appropriate minority language, the quality of teaching declined.25 The change in policy halted minority script creation. The development of the Miao Bouyei and Dong scripts in the Guizhou Province stopped in 1958;26 and the following year all new scripts under trial in Yunnan were banned. Likewise, other new scripts, such as the Yi script of Sichuan, the Li script of Hainan and Guangdong, the Zhuang script of Guangxi, and the Dong and Miao scripts of Hunan were abandoned.27 In the Yi community the fact that very few understood Chinese was ignored as a factor in attempts to shift minority usage to the Han language in a short time. Those who continued to speak up for the traditional Yi script were labeled as rightists, or Narrow Minded Local Nationalists, and attacked. In 1960, the local government made a decision to abandon the Yi traditional script, and some Yi books in the script were publicly burned. One of the newly revised scripts for romanized writing was also rejected in favor of Chinese. With no language alternative many Yi people returned to the traditional script spontaneously (Pu, 2004, pp. 260–1). In the northwest and northeast of China, traditional scripts were replaced by the “advanced scripts” of Cyrillic or Hanyu Pinyin. The traditional Arabic script of the Uyghur people, which was closely linked with the Muslim religion, was changed twice, firstly to the Cyrillic script, and then to Hanyu Pinyin. In Xinjiang, the traditional Mongolian script was replaced with the Cyrillic script which had been adopted in Outer Mongolia and a draft romanization mode was planned. However, in Inner Mongolia, the Cyrillic and romanization policies were defeated because of support for the traditional Mongolian from Ulanhu, the chairman of IMAR, and others, the script remaining intact and used widely as the medium of instruction. However, in both Xinjiang and Inner Mongolian regions teacher-training institutions were required to adopt the Han language in 1958 and the consequent shortage of minority teachers forced many minority language schools to adopt the Han language as the medium of instruction.28 During the Great Leap Forward movement, the education sector increased enrolments faster than the capacity of the system to sustain them. While the proportion


of state expenditure barely increased between 1957 and 1958, student enrolment across all levels of schooling close to doubled, and the quality of teaching suffered dramatically (Zhou, Y., 1990, p. 46). The campaign for the promotion of Putonghua Another outcome of the Great Leap Forward was the promotion of Putonghua, its use increasing among the minorities. The rationale for its expansion was formulated by the Central Committee on Script Reform and approved by the State Council in 1956. Putonghua was defined as “the standard language spoken by the people living in Beijing, the standard vocabulary used in northern dialects and the standard grammar used in modern literature” (Wang, J., 1995, p. 53). Beijing had been the location of the Imperial Court from the Yuan to the Qing dynasty; its speech was promoted as Guoyu (the national language, Mandarin) during the KMT period, and the city was declared the Capital of the PRC in 1949. The change of term from Guoyu to Putonghua aimed at avoiding adverse sentiments from minority nationalities and demonstrating that the CCP government’s language policy was not discriminatory (Wang, J., 1995, p. 53). The objective of Putonghua was to establish a universal speech that would act to unify the Chinese nation. It also aimed to “follow the trend of the romanization of the scripts in the world” as Mao had instructed (Wang, J., 1995, p. 56). One of the key players for the government language policy formulation, Mao’s private secretary, Hu Qiaomu, claimed that Putonghua would reduce the size of the domains of Han dialects: “The government must eliminate Han dialects within ten years and eliminate minority languages after we develop them into Hanyu Pinyin scripts.”29 Initially Putonghua was promoted among the Han people in a vigorous campaign from 1956, involving government ministers and heads of departments from the central government down. Under State Council instruction, Deputy Premier Chen Yi was appointed the director in charge of the Promoting Putonghua Committee which established itself in 24 provinces, regions and central government municipality cities excluding the Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Tibet regions. At this time Putonghua was introduced to all areas of public and private life including business, communications and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). In 1958, Premier Zhou Enlai had emphasized the importance of promoting Putonghua among the youth and children in schools (Wang, J., 1995, p. 56) and he suggested that Putonghua speech contests be held. In July that year, the first National Orientation Conference


89

on teaching Putonghua was held in Beijing. Its policy for promoting Putonghua envisaged a highly centralized education system supported by a national syllabus and curriculum, a national set of textbooks and a nation-wide tertiary entrance examination. Policy-makers also suggested that minority nationalities could benefit socially. In 1958, at the fifth plenary of the first National People’s Congress, Wu Yuzhang, chairman of the Central Committee on Script Reform, reported: The policy promoting Putonghua will not harm the rights of minority nationalities to use and develop their own languages. It is definitely our intention to promote Putonghua mainly among the Han people. The teaching of Putonghua should also be introduced to minority nationalities. It is good for mature learning and national unity. It will be for the common benefit of all nationalities in China to speak Putonghua. (Wang, J., 1995, p. 58) In 1959, the second National Orientation Conference on Putonghua teaching was held in Shanghai and the third in Qingdao in 1960. Both conferences urged the importance of teaching Putonghua to minority students. Although the policy was to be implemented through voluntary participation, it was, in fact, imposed on many minority schools. Between 1960 and 1965, many Han secondary school graduates were recruited from cities like Beijing, Tianjin and Jinan for short term training in the Uyghur language as an initial step in teaching Putonghua in remote areas. In 1963, 960 were trained; however the program ended with the Cultural Revolution (Blachford, 2004, p. 112). The political context from 1957 to 1958 had given the leftists the political strength to promote the language fusion approach. With the inauguration of the Anti-Narrow Minded Local Nationalist movement, Mao ended his Anti-Han Chauvinism campaign that had appeared to favor minority nationalities, and further attempts to introduce autonomous regions were critiqued as rightist and petty nationalist. As one minority cadre put it, he had never heard of anybody charged with Han chauvinism, while he himself had been charged with being a Narrow Minded Local Nationalist for having supported the use of minority languages in schools. Other minority cadres suffered similar attacks.30 The late 1950s was a time when past language policy was revised once more towards the Chinese mode and when progress on languages approved at lower levels ceased and was abandoned. The prevalent view, with an eye to the Constitution rights, was succinctly expressed by the Yunnan government: “Writing systems already created should


be neither cancelled nor used; writing systems not yet created should not be created at all” (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 114). Institutional policies were changed; financial support and personnel were withdrawn from minority language work. The moderate approach between 1961 and 1965 The collapse of the Great Leap Forward movement, much of its massive human effort coming to nothing, brought death from starvation and disease to many in the hard years that came after. There was a return to more moderate economic and social policies in the period 1961–65. Towards the end of 1960, the CCP Central Committee had issued an instruction to allow peasants greater freedom under the commune system and the right to small plots; and Mao himself was forced to make a self criticism and step down from some positions. In January 1961, the Ninth Plenary Session of the Eighth National Congress of the CCP formally presented the “eight character” policy: readjustment, reconstruction, consolidation and improvement, with the government moving to a more regulated approach under Liu Shaoqi, the Vice-chairman of the PRC, and Deng Xiaoping, the General Secretary of the CCP Central Committee. Of the Great Leap Forward, Lu Dingyi, the propaganda head reported: “The pace of growth was too fast and too much power was delegated to the lower echelons; there was too much labor and too few classes; language classes were taught as political classes; the standard has been lowered; chaos prevailed and it has greatly hurt the schools” (Cleverley, 1991, p. 149). Between 1961 and 1963, three separate sets of provisional working regulations for higher education, middle schools and primary schools were drawn up by the Ministry of Education. These provisional working regulations: “Higher Education 60 Articles”, “Middle School 50 Articles” and “Primary school 40 Articles” were designed to raise the quality of education by returning to early 1950s practice. Similarly, language policy in minority education looked backwards. In 1961, Li Weihan, Director of the CCP United Front Work Department, reassured nationalities that national convergence would not take place now or tomorrow but in some remote future after the realization of communism, and it should not be treated as a priority directing current actions (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 70). The “eight character” policy permitted the use of the newly-created Zhuang script as the language medium in local schools in Guangxi, and in 1961 the People’s Daily reported a successful outcome. Seventy thousand Zhuang cadres and teachers were trained to use the new Zhuang script and an additional 50,000 teachers spread literacy among the Zhuang people (Renmin Ribao [People’s Daily]


91

1 December 1961). That same year, the People’s Daily reported that the first Tibetan Teachers College opened to train Tibetan teachers. Policy among the Yi people also changed and an amended version of the Yi traditional script was allowed. In 1962, the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR) held a conference on minority language and minority education. Its participants praised the successful experience of 15 years of Mongolian language instruction in schools and emphasized the important role the Mongolian language played in society. It was revealed that 18,000 primary and secondary school students were learning Mongolian in schools and a complete set of Mongolian language textbooks had been produced for every subject from Year 1 primary level to the end of the senior year of secondary school (Editorial Board, 1989, p. 159). In 1963, a set of “Preliminary Regulations on Mongolian Language Work in Inner Mongolia” was published covering language use in schools, government and the mass media, and in teacher training. It was reportedly the most comprehensive local policy in the country (Zhou, Q., 2003, pp. 71–2). In Guizhou, Yunnan and Sichuan provinces, the use of minority languages as the medium of instruction was supported again by the Central government. In 1963, the State Ministry of Education circulated a policy document to the education heads of the three provinces praising the successful outcomes observed in the Manyan primary school in Menghai County, Yunnan province, where the Ministry of Education claimed that the school had successfully produced Dai students with bilingual (Dai-Han) skills through the use of Dai language instruction in Years 1 to 3, then Han language instruction from Year 4. The Ministry of Education declared that the balance between minority language and the Han language was extremely important in ethnic primary schools where the minority language should be mastered before the Han language was introduced in senior levels. The Han language requirement for minority students should not be as high as that required for Han students to ensure that the minority students were not given an extra burden. Minority education must be closely related to the realities of daily life and the content of the curriculum should meet the needs of local people. Policy documentation also required the training of minority teachers. Through the three years of implementation of the “eight character” policy, support for minority education was regained and minority education developed strongly, however, there were parts of the country where both the multi-step and the single-step discredited policy continued

92


to operate. Official reports indicated that in 1965 5.21 million minority students were enrolled in primary schools across the country, a 74 percent increase over two years (Dreyer, 1976, p. 205). Coercive approaches regain momentum In 1962, Mao Zedong affirmed the importance he put on political action at the Tenth Plenum of the Central Committee with the call “Never forget class struggle.” The same year the Socialist Education Movement was launched which aimed to investigate corruption and feudal habits in the countryside, and articles appeared which emphasized the importance of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as the major national issue. The fear was raised that class enemies were active in minority areas as elsewhere, seeking to sabotage China’s socialist revolution. Mao also began to attack the Beijing administration over its education policies which had re-established “teaching as the most important thing” (Cleverley, 1991, p. 151). By 1964, Mao was openly critical of the nation’s schools and presented a series of his own proposals for reform, including a shorter school day, reduced homework, more exercises, and the abolition of examinations which he regarded as “a murderous ambush” (Cleverley, 1991, p. 154). He also attacked China’s teachers: “The problem of educational reform is primarily a problem of teachers.” When his niece, Wang Hairong, a student at the No. 1 Beijing Foreign Language Institute, complained at the number of meetings there, he advised her, “When you return to school, you should take the lead to rebel. Don’t return to school on Sunday and don’t attend any meetings” (Cleverley, 1991, p. 156). Rebellion against authority, especially teachers and educational cadres, was officially sanctioned by newly founded revolutionary committees. In the second half of 1966, teaching in schools and universities was suspended as 11 million red guards searched out class enemies in their midst. As Dreyer indicates, the Cultural Revolution, as it was known, was a misleading title in which much more than culture was involved: it was both a conflict over the ideology by which China should be governed and a personal power struggle (Dreyer, 1976, p. 205). From the viewpoint of minority people, the Cultural Revolution was “Cultural Destruction” because it attempted to eradicate minority cultures, languages and religion.31 Red Guards, while chanting Mao’s slogan of “Anti four olds (ideology, customs, culture and habits),” destroyed and ransacked religious monuments, buildings, temples and Buddhist monasteries (Dreyer,


93

1976, p. 234). All religious activities were banned. Religious heads and followers were labelled “monsters and demons” (niugui sheshen) or class enemies and given foul descriptions. One lama recalled being physically restrained as he watched his house being searched and Buddhist objects confiscated; for ten years he suffered constant political persecution and was forced to work as a peasant (Ma, J., 1995, pp. 234–56). At the Sunzhan Monastery in Zhongdian County, Yunnan, the largest monastery in the area, all 1200 lamas were forced to return to their homes while the monastery was ruined by Red Guards.32 With leftists making chaotic rebellion, educational institutions were paralyzed and schooling was all but impossible for minority children. The sanctions imposed on religious practices in many minority areas during the Cultural Revolution deterred many minority children from learning their own language, and traditional religious education was strictly forbidden. Minority scripts, including the romanized scripts and those commonly used for religion scriptures, were not taught in schools or monasteries as it was fervently believed they were a major impediment to learning Han. Paradoxically, when the Cultural Revolution ended and minorities had some language choice restored, traditional scripts made a comeback, being preferred above the romanized versions (Blachford, 2004, p. 111). The Ministry of Education and government-sponsored institutions which served minority languages and research were shut down and their staff were persecuted. The Minister for State Ethnic Affairs, Li Weihan, suffered violent attacks because of his “soft” approach towards minority nationalities and his support for the creation of minority scripts. 33 The chairman of the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region, Ulanhu, was denounced as a Narrow Minded Local Nationalist, with one of the charges against him being that he promoted the use of Mongolian. At this time, Mongolian language schools were closed and Mongolian teachers attacked (Wulan, 1994b, p. 223). In Xinjiang, the new script had been finalized in 1965 and an implementation plan, introduced with the aim of replacing the traditional script by 1976, was terminated. As a result, many people did not master the new scripts. Some had learned them, but without any new reading materials to sustain their skills, lost them. For a while there was no way to communicate through writing between the young people who knew only the new scripts and older people who knew only the traditional scripts. (Blachford, 2004, p. 111)


The successful Zhuang writing system ceased to be used; the Zhuang newspaper stopped publication and the Guangxi Minzu (Ethnic) Press was closed; furthermore, the Guangxi Zhuang Language School was shut. Li and Huang have written, “The only Zhuang users were some Zhuang people who kept using Zhuang to write diaries, folk songs, and keep work records” (Li & Huang, 2004, p. 247). The Cultural Revolution also halted a comprehensive plan to standardize the Korean language developed during 1964 which remained only on paper (Tai, 2004, p. 313). The use of the traditional writing scheme recently reintroduced in Yi territory was again suspended. Finally, in 1975, a standardized Yi writing system was introduced. The first phase of the Cultural Revolution ended in 1969, however, its influence continued until 1976 under the “dictatorship of the proletariat” which lauded assimilation, denigrated separation and forced the integration of language. The use of minority language in the public domain was severely restricted. After 1969, in the so-called Revolution in Education period, schools reopened and some of the universities and nationality institutes resumed after 1972. Dreyer believed that at this time “radical Cultural Revolution goals on nationality policy were set. Minority rights were reduced, their economies brought further into line with that of Han Chinese, and the ethnic cohesiveness of their areas diluted” (Dreyer, 1976, p. 238). Levels of literacy among minority people decreased. Many young Han people were sent to the countryside for re-education by the “lower and middle peasants.” It was, wrote one observer, perhaps the only period in history when Dong villages had better qualified teachers than the provincial cities (Geary, et al., 2003, p. 11). The local children, noticing how the city youth enjoyed a meal of frogs took time to catch as many as possible. Five frogs could be swapped for one Chairman Mao’s badge. The badges were highly prized with some wearers pinning the badges through their flesh. While this latter period extended the number of schools through the commune structure, especially in the secondary field, its curriculum was heavily politicized and much time was allocated for productive labor outside the classroom. The concept of class struggle was placed above that of ethnic identity, with minority languages and scripts regarded as impediments to China’s greater unity. Effectively, a hierarchy of language was acknowledged, with Chinese at the top. More changes in ethnic policy started to emerge after the border skirmishes with the USSR and the killing of Lin Biao, Mao’s proposed successor, in 1971. The consequence of leadership changes at top CCP levels was evident in a more practical approach (Dreyer, 1976, p. 238).


95

In 1973, Mao claimed the Great Han chauvinism had reappeared in CCP policy and required correction (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 74). On Mao’s authority the Mongolian government revived its Mongolian language program, moving itself well away from the Chinese monopolistic assessment. In 1974–75, Sichuan Province decided to restore the traditional Yi script, with full support from Zhao Ziyang, then First Secretary of the provincial CCP committee. In 1975, at Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping’s urging, the State Council authorized the coordination and cooperation of language work across autonomous regions and provinces. In 1974–75, the State Council issued documents authorizing cooperation and coordination of minority language work in Tibetan, Mongolian, Kazak and Korean (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 76). However, when the 1974 Constitution of the PRC was revised, minorities’ rights were minimized, with the specific right to use minority languages in government business and courts of law deleted (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 77). When a number of institutions for minority nationalities reopened, and the Tibetan Institute for Nationalities took students again, it found the majority were illiterate, needing to be taught Tibetan and Chinese (Zhou, Q., 2003, p. 243). One of the results of the Cultural Revolution was the widespread acceptance of peasants, workers and soldiers into universities in the 1970s: the national examination for university entrance was abolished and students entered the institutes mainly through the recommendations of their work unit. Many minority students were able to enter universities without completing high school, the only academic prerequisites being fluency in Putonghua and literacy in the Han language.34 By this route, the highest percentage of minority students yet recorded was successful in entering universities; between 6.11 percent and 6.48 percent in the 1974–76 period (Zhongguo Minzu Tongji Nianjian, 1994, pp. 244–5). During the second half of the Cultural Revolution, many minority nationality schools changed to Han schools. For example, the Dehong Ethnic School became the Number Two primary school and the medium of instruction was changed to the Han language. As the Han language became the sole medium of instruction in schools, many minority students were withdrawn. One of the Yi professors pointed out that in the historically well-known Miao Renaissance schools in Guizhou Province, not one Miao student was qualified to enter high school.35 The Revolution in Education period adversely affected minority children and the events of that time have been strongly criticized. Some educational officials attempted to enforce enrolment in schools, for example, by not recording the work points of parents not sending

96


their children. According to one official, 80 percent of the children in the county in 1975 were enrolled in his school, but most attended only for a few months before dropping out. 36 The political power struggles inside the CCP influenced language policy-making and its implementation. Putonghua was promoted to diminish diversity and ethnic differences. It was used to expedite the transition from minority languages to the Han language, with minority languages being largely replaced by Putonghua instruction. The period was one of repetitive quotation of approved Maoist thought, and Zhou Enlai’s support of Chinese character simplification, Pinyin, and Putonghua from 1958, although some new material was published on the spelling of personal names in Pinyin. Additional work that was undertaken on character simplification at this time did not survive, a scheme announced in 1977 being eventually withdrawn for lack of public acceptance (Rohsenow, 2004, pp. 28–9). In 1957, the standard of education attained by minority nationalities was at a peak. However, the standard fell markedly over the next 20 years under what Zhou has described as, “ ‘Leftist’ thought and the incessant blowing of the wind of ‘ethnic integration’ and ‘language amalgamation’ ” (Zhou, Q., 2004, p. 68). Monolingual instruction in the Han language for most minority nationality children in schools made it difficult for them to access basic education. The consequences were plainly evident in the Xishuangbanna region where 60 percent of Dai students were taught in a Dai-Chinese context. According to published statistics some 20 years later, there was a 25 percent decrease in this group due to the cessation of teaching in the Dai language from 1966 to 1978 (Zhou & Fang, 2004, p. 209). The literacy campaign in the revised Dai script in the Dehong Jingpo and Dai Prefecture also ended as did the teacher training. Outcomes of the Cultural Revolution With the Cultural Revolution behind it, the CCP admitted that a “fascist dictatorship was exercised over the national minorities,” with a “feudal, fascist, reactionary national policy” carried out, and a policy of “forced assimilation” pursued.37 In the early 1980s, the government newspaper Minzu Tuanjie declared that the principle of equality of nationalities had not been observed, that minorities had suffered insults and discrimination in jobs and education. Their dress and holidays were sharply supervised and restricted: the education and promotion of minority workers were reined in; state funds for the economy and culture of minority regions were used for other purposes by the executive; their


97

scripts and languages were outlawed and no longer used; and no attention was given to the development of the respective regions or their economies in the exploration of raw materials. The higher authorities in the period cared little about the living conditions, production, culture, education or health of these regions (Heberer, 1989, p. 28). Official statements indicate a number of truths. Firstly, the 1950s minority policies based on the Constitution remained on paper. Practice, however, totally undermined minority rights. One outcome was the rising discontent among minority communities, the relationship between the Han and minorities worsening. As minority discontent increased they looked to other ways to reassert their rights and negotiate more power.

5 Minority Language Issues under the Open Door

A new stage was set for China in 1977 after the third Plenary Session of the Tenth National Congress of the CCP. In August 1977 Deng Xiaoping, Vice Chairman of the CCP, stressed that the education system required immediate restoration and development. He instructed “all primary, middle schools and higher education institutions to restore the education system from the beginning of the school year in autumn 1977” (Zhou, Y., 1990, p. 106). In the years that followed new language policies emerged at the national government level, which related to changes at the national government and regional levels concerning the role and status of minority languages, and the learning of Chinese and Putonghua by minority students. There were further developments in bilingual education and new models implemented in different regions and provinces. While the political context after the Cultural Revolution was to return to earlier policies, there was a tension between the policies pursued in the early 1950s, when the Great Leap Forward policies were jettisoned, and the new more academically powerful policies were introduced. The latter favoured Putonghua, nevertheless allowing more flexibility in the use of minority language and script. One effect of the continued push for Putonghua was to retain an integrationist position simultaneously with affirmative action supporting separate minority languages. The two positions were separated by two national bodies, the State Commission of Nationality Affairs and the State Language Commission which each prepared language policies and had them approved by the State Council. The two thrusts of language policy were each mandated in the national laws in the 1980s: the Laws on Regional Autonomy and the Language law of Putonghua. In addition, a new syllabus for the learning of Chinese as a second language 98

Minority Language Issues

99

by minority students was issued by the State Education Commission in the 1980s.

Post-Cultural Revolution policies Strong sentiment against language-fusion and Chinese linguistic assimilation spurred enthusiasm for multilingual promotions, and a fresh spirit of cultural renaissance arose in minority areas. The CCP government announced that it had given “class struggle” as the guideline and would reverse Maoist decisions, enabling a return to a policy of local accommodation as a revised approach to socialist modernization.1 In May 1978, the government re-established the State Commission on Nationalities’ Affairs, since it had closed its doors during the Cultural Revolution, and as a result, administrative responsibilities were restored to provincial, regional, prefectural and county groups. In January 1980, soon after having its functions reaffirmed, the State Commission on Nationalities’ Affairs co-sponsored a third national conference on minority languages in Beijing with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Its objective was to review the implementation of language policy for minority languages since 1949 and to explore how best to adjust minority language policy to meet the needs of the new era of socialist modernization. Delegates from different minority regions and provinces reported on the turmoil that accompanied the language fusion policy: minority scripts had been forbidden in schools; teachers had been allowed to speak only Putonghua as the medium of instruction; and minority students were forbidden to speak their mother tongue. Most official bodies that promoted the development of minority language teaching materials were closed; and minority language academics had suffered personal attack and political persecution. Delegates to the 1980 conference asked that the government admit to its mistakes in introducing the language fusion policy in the Second National Conference of 1958, a resolution written by Wang Jun, Dai Qingxia and Sun Hongkai on behalf of the delegates and carried unanimously. However, when the resolution was submitted for approved by the State Council, it was not acted on since there was some resistance from top government officials to officially abandoning language fusion.2 However, after the 1984 conference, changes were made as bodies for the development of minority languages were re-established.3 The growing anti-language-fusion campaign led to strong anti-Chinese linguistic assimilation sentiment, with resistance to learning Chinese evident among some minorities in the post-Cultural Revolution era. Many minority intellectuals and cadres


spoke up against the promotion of Chinese, advocating the preservation of their own languages. For example, Bulag (2003) reported that anti-Chinese language sentiment had spurred enthusiasm throughout Inner Mongolia for a revival in Mongolian language use in public and private life. The Cultural Revolution had made the CCP government realize that China had no laws to protect its citizens or to achieve stability “otherwise China is ruled by persons rather than laws” (Zhou, M., 2004a, p. 83). In the 1980s, minority representatives in the regional governments urged the CCP to prepare written regional autonomy laws4 and, in 1984, the law on Regional Autonomy for Minority Nationalities was passed which included three articles directly related to minority languages. Article 37: The schools (or classes) recruiting mainly minority learners (shall use) textbooks in the minority language and teach in the minority language if conditions allow for that; according to actual circumstances, in Chinese lessons starting from lower primary or upper primary, Putonghua and Chinese characters should be taught. Article 47: The peoples’ courts and prosecuting offices should use the commonly used language in the local regions to review documents or the judge should, within reason, provide interpreters who know the local languages. For those involved in legal proceedings but who do not know the local minority languages, translation should be provided. One of the local languages or scripts should be used in legal documents. Article 49: The offices in the autonomous ethnic regions should educate all cadres to learn mutually the languages and scripts of each other, cadres should learn the local ethnic languages and scripts. Minority ethnic groups, while learning their own ethnic languages could at the same time, learn Putonghua and the standardized characters propagated throughout the country. National workers in ethnic areas who can use more than two of the local languages should be encouraged with rewards. The autonomous Law of 1984 was the most far reaching legislation on the rights of minorities in China, representing an official upgrading of minorities, of their autonomy, and of their self-administrative bodies. Autonomous units were now empowered to enact laws that provided legislative guarantees for minorities’ customs and traditions, education, language and writing, marriage laws, and so on. With the passing of the laws (Heberer, 1989, p. 43) a greater tolerance was granted for the use of minority languages in language policy; the language rights of minority nationalities were legally guaranteed, and the use of the minority


101

language as the medium of instruction was supported from primary school to high school and, in some instances, at universities. In June 1991, an important document on the implementation of minority language work, Document (1991) 32, was issued by the State Council. In its review of minority language work, the document revealed three major problems: (a) as there was no clear understanding of language policy for minority languages, plans could not be fully implemented and were neglected; (b) management was weak and not effective, so that the creation and use of writing systems was deficient; and (c) there were inadequate numbers of language workers and inadequate budgets hindered the effectiveness of everything (Zhou, M., 2004a, pp. 88–9). The Document went on to define the guiding principles and policy for minority language work in the new era: it should adhere to the Marxist principle of equality for all languages and scripts; protect minority nationalities’ freedom to use and develop their native language and scripts, according to the actual situations and needs; guide minority language work actively, cautiously and stably facilitating the unity, progress, and prosperity of all nationalities; and lastly serve political, economic, and cultural developments in minority communities and socialist modernization in the whole country (Zhou, M., 2004a, p. 89). The 1991 Document advocated the concept of bilingual education in minority schools. Schools with a major minority enrolment should adopt textbooks in minority languages if available and use minority languages as the medium of instruction, offer Chinese at appropriate levels, adopt bilingual education, and promote nationally used Putonghua. In addition, the Document required that “effective measures should be taken to train, through multiple channels and at multiple levels, minority teachers, translators, editors, and researchers and to increase the quantity and quality of textbooks and reading materials in minority languages” (Zhou, M., 2004a, p. 90). Officials should also be encouraged to be bilingual and multilingual. “Officials of Han origin working in minority communities should actively learn the minority languages and scripts of the communities; officials of minority origins should learn and use their native languages and scripts and at the same time learn the nationally used Putonghua and Chinese characters; officials who can proficiently use two or more commonly used local languages and scripts should be rewarded” (Zhou, M., 2004a, p. 90).

102


Although the Document was an advance in terms of the explication of policy, it was hedged in by the use of terms like “caution”.

The language law on Putonghua In 1982, two years before the Law on Regional Autonomy was issued, the Law on the promotion of Putonghua was written into the Constitution of the PRC at the fifth National People’s Congress. It declared that Putonghua would be promoted across all China. Deng’s market reforms had strengthened the argument for the utilization of Putonghua as a medium of inter-ethnic communication between Han and minority nationalities. It was also becoming a practical necessity for minority nationalities in the dominant Chinese society; and it was regarded as an essential test of national patriotism. Under a restructuring program, the former Central Committee for Script Reform was replaced by the State Language Commission in 1985 which strengthened the implementation of policy. In 1986, the State Education Commission and the State Language Commission held a joint National Conference on the Promotion of Putonghua which aimed to promote Putonghua at the national level, in particular, in the education system. When Deputy Premier Wan Li addressed the opening he emphasized: China is a multi-nationality country. Putonghua is the best communicative vehicle to unite all nationalities. Putonghua not only benefits social communication and the market economy, but also implements basic education and enhances the quality of education.5 At the same conference, Liu Bin, Deputy Director of the State Education Commission, indicated that the goal of Putonghua promotion was inter-ethnic communication. Putonghua is to provide common benefits to all nationalities in China, enhance nationality unity and mature learning, and develop the economy and culture of each nationally. Putonghua is not only the common language of the Han people, but on the other hand Putonghua has become a common speech between the Han and other minority nationalities. Each nationality, using her own language, should also know Putonghua.6 Bin stated that the State Education Commission would take strong measures to ensure that every school in China implemented the


103

Putonghua policy. This was necessary, he insisted, because of “an urgent need to strengthen [Han] language education to produce qualified human resources and enhance the quality of the Chinese nationalities”. Putonghua was an important component in the context of the current nine years of compulsory basic education. Schools were regarded as an important front for promoting Putonghua: It was declared the professional language of teaching, and mastery of Putonghua was a basic qualification for teachers and teachers’ colleges would make Putonghua a compulsory component. Students should not graduate without passing a Putonghua test. The conference confirmed that the political goal of the government was to achieve better inter-ethnic communication through a common language for all nationalities, with minority nationalities becoming bilingual in their own languages and Putonghua. This direction would be implemented through the education system. This implementation of using Putonghua in education had an impact on minority language as the medium of instruction, as policies on Putonghua and on minority languages led to a conflict of interest and to problems in implementation which cut across national and provincial/regional policies. This led to revised strategies in bilingual education. The learning of Chinese as a second language The State Education Commission issued its first syllabus for minority students learning the Chinese language as a second language in 1982 for full-time ethnic primary and secondary schools based on a 10-year education system for primary, junior and senior high schools. It covered requirements for the Han language study from primary to high schools where students’ minority language was the medium of instruction. The new syllabus incorporated political, educational and linguistic elements. It aimed to develop an attachment to China and its people; it sought to develop an appreciation for the value of labor; and it strove to develop the science and socialism components in the “five loves” aspects of students’ education through Han language learning. Students should develop good cognitive skills, good character and healthy aesthetic interests. Linguistically, it aimed to develop students’ basic skills in the use of modern Chinese. Minority students were to master skills in Putonghua and Hanyu Pinyin through the four skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. They were expected to master 2500 commonly used Han characters, and 6000 words and phrases. In contrast, Han students should know 5000 characters on graduation from high school.

104


In the 1980s the centralized curriculum took the approach of “one syllabus, many textbooks” (yigang duoben) allowed by the State Education Commission, which permitted local educational authorities to develop their own textbooks for primary schools. Nevertheless the content of textbooks had to be approved and meet the government’s political demands that the books should educate students about Marxism, Mao’s thought, and patriotism. They should also equip students with values found in the revolutionary tradition and help students develop a communist character. Career education, nationalistic policy, national unity and the protection of national unity were other major concerns. At the junior and senior high school levels, 40 to 60 percent of texts continued to be prescribed under the syllabus, the majority being written by CCP leaders like Mao Zedong (4), Marshal Zhu De (1), Tao Zhu (2), and Lu Dingyi. A few essays were authored by Soviet writers such as Stalin. The 1982 syllabus required that teachers understand the nature and characteristics of the teaching of Han as a second language, focus on the four skills in teaching and develop students’ cognitive skills and independence. It suggested that minority languages be used to teach the Han language at the preliminary level. Assessments should be based not just on grammar but on communication skills. According to information from interviews with officials in the State Education Commission in Beijing, in 2006, this syllabus has been implemented in Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, Yanbian and other minority areas where ethnic schools utilize the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. Korean students in Yanbian started on Putonghua from Year 2 of primary school and Mongol, Uyghur, Kazak and Tibetan students started from Year 4.7 The syllabus pushed forward Han language learning. While it is believed that the Han language is one of the world’s most difficult languages to learn, and that the Han language is a foreign language not a second language for most minority students, competency is a considerable advantage for those students seeking higher education and better employment opportunities. Approaches to bilingualism Bilingualism, in Chinese shuangyu, means double languages, the term referring to Han Chinese people who can speak Chinese and a foreign language, such as English, Russian or Chinese. In the context of minority people, the word shuangyu indicates a minority who can speak a minority language and Chinese. Since the word yu means a spoken language, there is also another term shuangwen which refers to people who can use two written languages. Bilingualism propagated through


105

schools, the major route for proficiency, is distinguished from foreign or second language learning, including the study of community languages, in that it stands for the use of non-dominant language as the medium of instruction during some part of the school day (Newetz, 1978, p. 8). The concept and discourse of bilingual education were introduced to China in 1981, initially influenced by Western ideas. That year, Professor Yan Xuequn from the Southwest Institute for Minority Studies attended the UNESCO International Conference on Mother Tongue Education. Attracted to the ideas of mother tongue education and bilingualism, Yan believed that bilingualism and mother tongue education provided the best model for minorities. His paper “A Discussion on Rationalization of the Bilingual Education” presented at the fourth National Conference on Teaching Chinese to Minority Students organized by the China Research Association for Teaching Chinese to Minority Students (Yan, 1990, p. 1), made reference to the 1968 Bilingual Education Bill of the United States as one model. Yan argued from this “bilingual education is the most rational method to suit China’s, multilingual situation” (Yan, 1990, p. 1). The paper aroused great interest among academics involved in teaching Chinese to minority students and in teaching minority languages and, in 1983, the Fifth National Conference on Teaching Chinese to Minority Students passed a resolution changing the association’s title to “China Research Association of Bilingual Education for Minority Nationalities”. Of the several definitions of bilingual education in China, three are particularly influential. Yan Xuequn defined it as the use of two languages as the medium of instruction, one of them being the mother tongue of the children (Yan, 1990, p. 1). Sun, Teng and Wang extended the definition, relating it to the length of schooling, that is, short-term education was termed transitional and long-term bilingual education was termed execution. The former meant the mother tongue was used for a short period in early primary school and then gradually replaced by Putonghua as the medium of instruction. The long term bilingual education program from primary school to university was referred to as the “one dragon” (yi tiao long) system. A third viewpoint, presented by Dai et al., defined bilingual education according to the distinction between oral and written languages. When two written scripts were used in teaching he named this a bilingual and bi-script program (shuangyu shuangwen), whereas the bilingual and monoliterate program (shuangyu danwen) referred to a system where both Putonghua and a minority language were used orally as the medium of instruction: but under

106


this system the Han script was the only literacy skill taught (Dai et al., 1997, pp. 87–9). One other additional approach, “Anti-Illiteracy Style”, was based on nonformal adult education. Yan’s classification was helpful when comparing language policies at different provincial/regional and prefecture levels. However, his classification remains controversial because the styles of Yanbian, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang have many shared features. Language in education practices in the southwest are diverse and can vary from county to county as well as from school to school. Hence, these cannot be easily collapsed and categorized as one approach. Sun’s definition overlaps with Yan’s definition. Long-term bilingual education refers to programs used in the Yanbian, Inner Mongolian, Tibetan and Xinjiang regions; and the short-term bilingual education programs operate in the southwest. However, Sun et al. support the dualmedium of instruction either long or short term (Sun, Teng, & Wang, 1990, p. 505). Dai’s classification is similar to a monoliterate bilingual education program, with lessons conducted in the children’s own language where they are taught how to read or write the Han language. This approach is commonly known as the pyramid model whereby the program moves progressively from the mother tongue in the first year to Han predominantly by the end of primary schooling. Yunnan’s language policy was based on this model, given that large numbers of minority nationalities have an oral tradition only. Given various interpretations and usage, the term bilingualism is loosely applied. In the south, such as in Yunnan, where many minority languages and high percentages of illiteracy exist, bilingual education is used as a strategy to achieve basic education. In other areas, bilingual education programs aim to maintain the languages of minority people for their religion and cultural heritages, while in Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia and Tibet, bilingual education works to strengthen the use of Chinese. To the extent that it favors certain languages over others, bilingualism is likely to lead to an unequal distribution of benefit to linguisticallydefined individuals and groups. It can be motivated by the preservation of the power of the linguistic majority or by goals of political consensus, national unity, and economic and social development. In the case of Yunnan, Putonghua has been designated as the medium of instruction and those minorities have no choice but to adopt bilingualism. Mother tongue instruction had in fact received support from the state government before the Law on Regional Autonomy was issued. In 1980, the State Council and the State Commission on Nationalities Affairs issued a policy on minority education.


107

To develop minority education, we must reform the education system, content and teaching methodology to suit the features of minority nationalities. The most important reform is to use minority languages as a medium of instruction. [Students for minority nationalities] should first master their own language and script and second master the Han language. Those minority nationalities with only oral traditions should use their language as a supplementary medium of instruction. (Liu, Y., 1992, p. 207) Again, at the Third National Conference on Minority Education in 1980, Deputy Minister Zang Boping, on behalf the State Education Commission, announced: Ethnic schools are important fronts for the development of minority languages and scripts. Those minority nationalities which have traditional written scripts get many years practical experience in the use of their own language in education. The use of minority languages as the medium of instruction has improved the quality of education and benefited both primary schools and high schools. Therefore we must advocate that minority students first master their own language in primary and secondary schools and at the same time master the Han language. It is important for them to participate in the socialist construction of their motherland and continue their further studies. (Liu, Y., 1992, p. 201) Thus Zang recognized the importance of using minority language in education while emphasizing learning Putonghua and Chinese at the same time. The bilingual education programs: the “pyramid” model Bilingual education programs were initiated and actively promoted in the south and southwest of China. The southwest has been an important area for the CCP government because of its lengthy border and the variety and diversity of its minority peoples. A large number of languages have only an oral tradition while some written scripts are used in religious observance. The “pyramid model” is popular in Yunnan province where 33 percent of the population belongs to a minority nationality. Here the mother tongue is used as the medium of instruction in the first year in primary school and is gradually reduced as the students’ level of Han language competency increases. The “pyramid model” is evident in the following timetable provided by government officials in Yunnan province (see Table 5.1) (Ma, Z., 1992, p. 143).

108 Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China Table 5.1

The pyramid model

Year of the school Year Six Year Five Year Four Year Three Year Two Year One Kindergarten

Class time allocation of minority languages (percent)

Class time allocation of the Han language (percent)

10 20 30 40 50 70 100

90 80 70 60 50 30 Conversation

This “Pyramid model” bilingual program was supported by the Yunnan provincial government. It should be noted that the “pyramid model” was handed down by policy makers. Similarly the allocation of the Han medium of instruction was set at an increase of ten percent each year and was determined on an arbitrary basis. In 1989, The Yunnan Provincial Education Commission issued an official policy document “On the Use of Ethnic Languages in Education”, which set five tasks for minority language programs in education: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

improve education quality publicize government and state policies spread scientific and technical knowledge enhance nationality unity promote economic development and push forward societal advancement. (Yunnan Provincial Education Commission, 1989, p. 67)

Consequently government policy intentions are rationalized according to political, economic and educational agendas. In particular, the enhancement of education quality accords with the national agenda for educational reform and the expansion of compulsory education to nine years. This publicizing of government and state policies on minority languages in schools has had its advantages with minority languages becoming officially recognized as a political resource. In previous years, policy focus had been on written scripts, and a number of created scripts were still under trial in schools when the 1980s changes came in. However, missionary scripts such as those of the Lisu, Va, Miao and Lahu remained unrecognized in the education system.


109

The 1989 policy document on the use of language in education recommended two modes of education programs for written scripts: Mode 1: Traditional scripts, and modified or created scripts, which have been approved by the government since 1949, are recommended for use in schools. Such scripts must have widespread acceptance by the communities in the minority areas. Mode 2: Created scripts currently under trial are not encouraged for use in teaching in schools if they have not been generally accepted by the community. The teaching of these scripts depends on the wishes of that particular nationality. Those languages that have only an oral tradition (that is, lacking a script) can be used to assist in the teaching of the Han language. Although 16 new scripts were created in the 1950s, none of the scripts in Yunnan was approved by the state government. The Zhuang script which was created for the Zhuang people in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region was the only one approved by the State Council; the Zhuang being the largest minority nationality in China with a population of over 15 million. Issues arose in bilingual education programs in Yunnan in relation to the selection of minority scripts. The anti-language fusion sentiment of the immediate post-Cultural Revolution period motivated the return of the “old scripts” that were created by Christian missionaries in Yunnan which among a few ethnic groups were reintroduced and used side by side with the scripts of the 1950s. In some instances, the new script was taught in government schools, while the old script was taught in Buddhist temples: for example, the old Lisu script is used for religious purposes, whereas the new Lisu script is used for schools. In 1982, the Nujiang Lisu Autonomous Prefecture government issued a circular supporting the division declaring that both old and new Lisu scripts shared the same status, although their functions were different. The policy on freedom of religion in the 1980s helped revive the traditional Dai script in Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan. Although it had been reformed in the 1950s when the Dai people started to revive their religion, in the early 1980s they realized that they could no longer read the original Dai script of their religious scriptures. Monks had to be invited from Thailand to conduct religious services and teach the traditional Dai script. In 1986, due to strong demand from local Dai people, the Xishuangbanna Sixth People’s Congress officially decided to reintroduce the traditional Dai script

110


known as the old Dai script. It was reported that people under 40 years old, who were educated in the new or reformed script, had become illiterate in the old Dai script.8 Bilingual education programs in schools were introduced to meet the parents’ desire for their children to learn their own language for religious activities. The absence of minority languages in school had been a major factor encouraging parents to send their children to study in temples. In 1983, over 2000 Dai children, 30 percent of the total, withdrew from schools in Menghai County, Xishuangbana Dai Autonomous Prefecture. Wang reported that in one village, 40 percent of boys between seven and 12 years old went to temples. Dai parents were worried that their culture and language would be lost in this generation as government schools were not teaching Dai language and culture (Wang, X., 1990, p. 57). Other bilingual education programs were implemented in the south, such as in Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region and in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan. Access to a new Zhuang script approved by the State Council after minor modifications in 1981 led the regional government to begin bilingual pilot programs using Zhuang as the medium of instruction in primary schools. These programs developed quickly in the region with over 60 primary schools maintaining Zhuang medium instruction programs in 22 counties in 1983 (Dai et al., 1997, p. 283). In the same schools between five and seven lessons of Han are taught each week from Year 2. By 1989, the bilingual education program was expanded to two high schools where (Dai et al., 1997, p. 283) Han textbooks had been translated into the Zhuang language. In the program, some subjects used the Zhuang language as the medium of instruction, some subjects were taught in Putonghua and students also studied the Chinese language as a subject. Successful outcomes were claimed with the quality of teaching enhanced in both Zhuang and Han (Dai et al., 1997, p. 285). Anti-Chinese assimilation sentiment also raised enthusiasm for the revival of the original Yi script which was taught in bilingual education programs. The Liangshan Yi script had been abolished and replaced by a Latin-based script in the 1950s, a decision strongly opposed by Yi people who lobbied the local government to bring back their traditional script. This move was approved by the State Council in 1980. Since the 1980s, the Liangshan people have made great efforts to develop Yi medium instruction when the Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan province approved a policy under which “the Yi language is used as a medium of instruction and the Han language will


111

be taught as a subject”.9 Initially, the Yi medium instruction was for Years 1 to 4 in primary school, however, as more resources developed, the Yi medium instruction continued into senior high schools (see Table 5.2). Yi language textbooks were also developed by the Education Department of Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture and textbooks for other subjects based on the national curriculum were translated into the Yi language. Yi bilingual education programs developed more rapidly than those of the Zhuang language. In 1991, there were 797 Yi language teachers in 205 Yi primary and secondary schools with an enrolment of 16,855 Yi students (Wu, 1991, p. 77). Three teachers’ colleges were established to train Yi language teachers and one Yi medium of instruction technical college was established in Liangshan (Wu, 1991, p. 80). The program has been reported as generally successful (Qumu & Shama, 1991, p. 86). Since the onset of the 1990s the effectiveness of bilingual education programs has been frequently debated, with Dai et al. noting 198 papers and 22 books on bilingual education published between 1982 and 1997 (Dai et al., 1997, pp. 339–70). In Yunnan province, 11 bilingual educational programs were evaluated in the 1984–1996 period where the usual method of evaluation was to test experimental bilingual instruction classes alongside Han monolingual instruction classes. Some programs, undertaken over six years from Year 1 to Year 6, were evaluated by a general test of students involved. The State Education Commission reported in 1994 that over 7000 schools among 21 minority nationalities had offered bilingual education programs to six million minority students in 30 scripts. Nineteen publishing houses now publish minority language textbooks, a total of 2968 different textbooks for primary and middle school being available in 30 minority languages. Seven hundred and forty thousand bilingual teachers from different minority nationalities were employed. Table 5.2

The time allocation (hours) for teaching Yi and Han languages

Languages The Han language The Yi language Total hours per week*

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

4 10 25

10 4 25

11 3 26

10 3 27

9 2 28

9 2 28

* “Total” in this table indicates the total hours for all curriculum subjects. Source: Dai et al. (1997), p. 148

112


Mother tongue instruction: the “one dragon” model In the 1980s, the northern regions, minority intellectuals and cadres supported the mother tongue instruction model over the bilingual education model in the south and southwest. This “one dragon” (yi tiao long) model of mother tongue instruction was preferred in northern China regions such as Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Yanbian. Under the “one dragon” model the minority mother tongue of the majority students was used as the medium of instruction from primary to senior secondary schooling. In a few cases this model was carried through to the end of tertiary education. At the same time Chinese is taught as a subject from Year 4 from the primary school onwards. Many minority autonomous regions and prefectures in the north introduced new regulations and laws in the 1980s when language policies were permitted at the local level under the autonomous laws. These regions included the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR), the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), and Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture (YKAP). In IMAR Mongolian schools resumed the use of Mongolian language as the medium of instruction in 1978. Wulan Tuke reported in 1980 that 4387 primary schools and 501 high schools used the Mongolian language as the medium of instruction. In 1983, the IMAR government passed language bills requiring that the Mongolian language be used as the medium of instruction in all Mongolian schools (Wulan, 1997, p. 12). Strong sentiment against what Mongols considered Chinese linguistic assimilation had been evident in 1981 when Chuluun Bagan, a Mongol linguist, strongly argued in favor of conserving Mongolian. Since the Mongolian language is in a social environment in which Chinese occupies an absolutely advantageous position, it faces the danger of natural assimilation every minute and every second. However under such circumstances, if you still subjectively adopt so called “Mongolian-Chinese bilingualism,” encouraging only Mongols to learn Chinese, but not Chinese to learn Mongolian, it is tantamount to using a covert administrative measure to restrict and limit the development of Mongolian language, and it can only accelerate the process of the loss of Mongolian. (Chuluun Bagan, 1981, pp. 122–3) Another Mongolian official at the regional government stated that promotion of Chinese jeopardized minority student’s intellectual development.


113

Encouraging those children who did not know Chinese to study Chinese directly resulted in a dismal situation in which they learned well neither Chinese nor their nationality language. This practice has wasted minority talents, adversely impacted the development of the intelligence or the people of minority nationalities, and negatively influenced the development of the economy and culture of minority regions. (Shenamjil, 1990, p. 54) Mongolian mother tongue instruction received strong support from the top regional government leaders. The Chairman of IMAR, Ulanhu, made a number of speeches to support the teaching and learning of the Mongolian language in the region advocating bilingualism among both Mongols and Chinese cadres. He maintained not only that Mongols should continue to speak and write Mongolian, but also that Chinese living and working in IMAR, especially Chinese cadres, should learn and use it too. He argued that Mongols in the countryside were the masses; hence it was the duty of the cadres to serve the masses who speak only the Mongolian language.10 Mongolian schools in the 1980s strongly emphasized the Mongolian language and offered teaching Chinese as a second language; at the same time they banned teaching of a foreign language. While Han schools frequently offered Chinese and a foreign language in junior and senior schools, some junior and senior Mongolian high schools offered only Mongolian and Chinese. Educational authorities explained that teachers were concerned that Mongol students would be pressured by an excessive study load if they had to learn two unfamiliar languages (that is, Chinese language and a foreign language). Hence, some high schools did not teach a foreign language if the Han language was offered (Wulan, 1994a, p. 377). In another response to anti-Chinese feelings, Naran Bilik (1998b) reported that the Tumed Mongols had determined to reclaim their cultural heritage and revive the Mongolian language, which the Tumed Mongols had lost for over a century with schools set up in the Inner Mongolian Region in a new educational project. It aimed to cut off what it saw as the polluting Chinese speaking social world and adopted a model of fengbi shi jiaoyu (closed-door-education). These schools did indeed produce many pure Mongolian-speaking young people but these graduates had inadequate Chinese language skills and were deprived of the skills needed to succeed in the wider Inner Mongolian society which is dominated by Chinese. Consequently some Mongols sharply criticized such schemes as crippling the younger generation.

114


Although these schools have lost students to Chinese schools, the project continues to receive support from the regional government supported by Mongol intellectuals and cadres who have invested much emotional capital, including political metaphors, in the scheme (Bilik, 1998b, p. 72). Overall the government made special efforts to recruit Mongol teachers and improve their employment conditions. A large number of minban teachers (community supported) have been transferred to become gongban teachers (government supported), among them many minority teachers. In 1980, for example, the Inner Mongolian government transferred 1800 minority teachers from minban to gongban status of whom 950 taught through the Mongolian language as the medium of instruction, and in the late 1990s, the IMAR government set up regulations to reward Mongols financially for learning and using their own language. In Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, the post-Cultural Revolution atmosphere enabled the development of a separated school system based on mother tongue instruction. Five types of minority schools were developed to use Uyghur, Kazak, Mongolian, Xibe and Kirgiz as the medium of instruction in primary and secondary education. Among these schools Uyghur has dominated in the primary schools. There were 909,778 students studying in 3507 Uyghur medium of instruction schools in 1991 (see Table 5.3). Schools were also separated by nationality. For example the Hui, who speak Chinese, developed separate schools. By 1987, there were 55 Hui primary schools and 116 Hui secondary schools where Putonghua was the medium of instruction. Some Chinese and minority schools merged during the Cultural Revolution were separated again under a policy to dismantle joint schools. For example, in 1979 a joint school in Boertala Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture was divided into No. 2 Mongolian School and No. 4 Chinese School (Li, 2001), while a joint school in Kashgar in 1980 was separated by a wall built to separate the two schools. Joint schools shared by two ethnic groups were also separated, for instance, a joint school was divided into a Uyghur school and a Kazak school in Urumqi in 1981. Li reports that across XUAR there were 165 joint schools in 1981, the number reduced to 44 by 1984. She also states that inside these remaining joint schools, Chinese and ethnic students were separated into different classes. In 1983, 34 percent of primary joint schools in Hami county had separate classes for ethnic students (Li, 2001).

Table 5.3

Language distribution in schools Elementary schools

Chinese Uyghur Kazak Mongolian Xibe Kirgiz

Middle schools

High schools

No. of Schls

No. of Classes

No. of Students Enrolled

No. of Schls

No. of Classes


No. of Schls

No. of Classes


3,181 3,507 480 71 8 108

28,713 32,230 8,551 1,037 116 754

828,154 909,778 171,669 18,152 3,553 16,749

657 362 182 15 3 15

11,403 4,838 1,425 227 49 69

518,411 188,246 44,688 6,810 1,829 2,323

518 170 54 10 2 2

3,785 1,270 401 76 21 14

82,587 56,777 17,283 3,035 955 554

116


Furthermore, in 1982, a language bill overturned the previous law which required the use of Latin alphabet script to write Uyghur and Kazak languages. The bill required a shift back to the original Arabic scripts, requiring all Uyghur and Kazak textbooks to be reprinted to accommodate the change in policy. Toward the end of 1988, a preliminary regulation on the use of minority languages was passed by the XUAR government, which was eventually passed as a local language law by the fourth session of the Eighth XUAR People’s Congress in September 1993. The language law, which guarantees the use of the Uyghur and Kazak languages (see Table 5.4) as mediums of instruction in the appropriate regions, had five chapters and 31 articles on the management, use, learning, research and planning of minority languages and scripts in XUAR. In addition to programs in the IMAR and XUAR, plans for mother tongue instruction were implemented in the north in Jilin Province near the North Korean border. In 1988, the “Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture Korean language bill” was formally passed in the Fourth Plenary Session of the People’s Congress of Jilin Province. The bill established the Korean language as the medium of instruction for Korean primary and high schools. Apart from mother tongue instructions, a total of 12 hours per week was allocated to teach the mother tongue in the early years of primary schools. These hours were gradually reduced in the upper level of primary schools (see Table 5.5). Furthermore, in addition to studying the Table 5.4

Weekly teaching hours allocation in primary schools in Xinjiang

Languages

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

12

12

11

26

26

27

8 4 30

8 4 30

Uyghur/Kazak Han Total hours per week Source: Dai et al. (1997), p. 148

Table 5.5

Weekly teaching hours allocation in primary schools in Yanbian

Languages

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

12

9 6 28

7 6 30

7 6 30

7 6 30

Korean Han Total hours per week Source: Dai et al. (1997), p. 148

25


117

Han language in high schools, students were expected to study a foreign language such as English. The Korean mother tongue instruction has been successful in a number of aspects: the literacy rate of Korean people reached the highest in China, above the Han, and the bilingual skills of the Korean people were valued in the open market. Since the 1980s, many Chinese Koreans have obtained work in Korean companies in large cities and in South Korea. The Tibetan model The Tibetan model in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) has a structure situated between the bilingual education model in the southwest and the mother tongue instruction model used in the north of China. The mother tongue instruction is similar to the approach used in IMAR and XUAR. However, Tibetan medium instruction does not go beyond the primary school level. The policy on Tibetan language was made based on recommendations from two important figures in Tibet: the Tenth Panchen Lama and Ngapo Ngawang Jigme. In 1987, the TAR Peoples Congress issued the “Provisions on the Study, Use and Development of the Tibetan Language” which took effect on July 1988 and was followed by “Implementation Guidelines” with 13 chapters and 61 articles governing both Tibetan and Han language use in official documents and signs and in the main government and enterprise of Tibet (Zhou, M., 2004a, p. 86). The law strengthened the position of Tibetan as the medium of instruction in the education system, its regulations stating that Tibetan was to be the first language. It also stipulated that by 1993 all new junior middle school students would be taught in Tibetan, and that by 1997 most lessons in senior middle schools and technical secondary schools would be in Tibetan.11 This Tibetan language law was China’s first local Law on minority language use and development passed by a local people’s congress with detailed implementation guidelines. In March 2002, these regulations were replaced by a new “TAR Regulations on the Study, Use and Development of the Tibetan Language”. Article 6 of the 2002 regulations states: During compulsory education, the Tibetan and the common national language (Putonghua) will be the basic educational languages. Courses are offered in Tibetan and Putonghua and Chinese written, and at the right time courses in foreign languages will be launched.12

118


Tanzeng Jinmei claimed that 94.4 percent of Tibetan children in primary schools in Tibet received their instruction in Tibetan (Tanzeng, Baima, & Suolang, 1995). As Table 5.6 implies, Tibetan schools have a six-year system in primary school. In 1996, there were 2417 Tibetan medium of instruction primary schools. According to Liu, 99 percent of their graduates attended Han language instruction junior high schools: also, three classes in junior high school used Tibetan as the medium of instruction. No schools offered the Tibetan medium at the senior high school level. Students in Tibetan high schools were also required to undertake an extra year in junior high to enhance Han language study. A foreign language was not required in junior high school but was required in senior high school (see Table 5.8). Beyond secondary school level, there was one Tibetan language instruction technical college and three departments at tertiary level using Tibetan (see Table 5.7) (Liu, Q., 1991, p. 191). Liu reported that among 125,155 students from minority nationalities in Tibet, only 13,293 students (10.6 percent) progressed to junior high schools and just 2747 students (2.1 percent) entered senior high schools (Liu, 1991, p. 188). It is most likely that the significant change in the medium of instruction from primary to secondary schools has created barriers for Tibetan children in entering high school (Liu, 1991, p. 188). Table 5.6

Weekly teaching hours allocation in primary schools in Tibet

Languages Tibetan Han Total hours per week

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

13

14

14

26

27

28

9 5 29

8 5 30

8 6 30

Source: Dai et al. (1997), p. 147

Table 5.7 Comparison between the Tibetan and the Han mediums of instruction13

Years of schooling Kindergarten Primary schools Junior high school Senior high school Technical college Tertiary

Tibetan medium of instruction

Putonghua medium of instruction

130 classes 2,417 schools 3 classes

10 classes 200 classes 49 schools 18 schools 13 3 institutions 24 majors

1 3 departments

Minority Language Issues Table 5.8

119

Weekly teaching hours allocation in high schools in Tibet Junior

Senior

Languages

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Tibetan Han English Total hours per week

4 13

6 9

6 6

5 6

30

31

30

30

3 5 4 29

3 5 4 30

3 5 4 28

Source: Dai et al. (1997), p. 147

Tanzeng has indicated that Tibetan students in Lhasa, where the teaching of the Han language was comparatively competent in comparison with rural and remote areas, did not meet the requirement of the Han language syllabus issued by the State Education Commission. The average number of Han characters that Tibetan students grasped was about 800, well below the syllabus requirement of 2500 Han characters by the end of primary school. Most Tibetan students were unable to understand much material taught them in Putonghua in junior high school. One result was that they lost interest and confidence in learning, causing students and teachers difficulty in achieving positive results and impairing the all round development of the students (Tanzeng et al., 1995). Liu and Tanzeng raise a number of important issues: the continuation of the medium of instruction is essential for students’ learning, with Han being a foreign language for Tibetan children given their linguistic environment. The Han language syllabus issued by the State Education Commission remains unsuitable for Tibetan students although more success in its effectiveness in other provinces is reported probably because of the existence of a Han language environment.14 One policy initiative for minority education was the special program introduced for Tibetan students. In 1984, Deng Xiaoping approved a policy to educate selected Tibetan junior and senior school students outside the Tibetan Autonomous Region on both political and educational grounds. Politically, Tibetan independence movements have threatened the CCP’s objective of national unity. Educationally the efforts to provide outcomes for Tibetan children have not been effective. To this end, Deng instructed the majority of provincial and regional governors to establish Tibetan high schools in relatively developed cities. By 1985, 17 Tibetan high schools had been established, enrolling 1300 Tibetan graduates from primary schools. Between 1985 and 2001, more than


23,560 Tibetan primary students were sent to study in junior secondary schools in different inland cities of China (General Office of Ministry of Education, 2001). Students in these schools were predominately drawn from Tibetan families and 99 percent of them spoke Tibetan (Tanzeng et al., 1995). Their own language was taught as a subject by a Tibetan teacher from TAR, however, the balance of the subjects was conducted in Putonghua. In 1989, the first group of students graduated from junior high school: 24 percent of these students entered senior high school, and 76 percent were assigned to study in technical colleges. Deng’s program has been referred to as his “intelligence investment project” by a number of interviewees.15 It will probably continue until the government feels that Tibet is not an apparent threat to China’s national unity or until the education system inside Tibet is seen to be operating more effectively. The Deng program has re-enforced Han language learning. Tibetan students interviewed from two Tibetan high schools all spoke fluent Putonghua. The successful learning of Han as a second language by these students was certainly due to the Han language learning environment. As a mode of learning Chinese and Putonghua, the program became one of the most successful to date, however their Tibetan language skills have been lost or have deteriorated (Postiglione, Jiao & Manlaji, 2007, p. 49). In addition, internally, issues of equality among all the minority nationalities have often been raised, with some Yi officials complaining the Tibetans received preferential treatment from the government because of past uprisings against the government.16

Fresh challenges In the hierarchical language power structure in China, Chinese is the language of upward mobility to which some minority people aspire. Intellectual aspirations, political pressure for representation and individual survival strategy have become intertwined. Since the late 1990s, the fast economic development in China has challenged mother tongue instruction in minority schools across all minority areas, especially in well established mother tongue education regions such as XUAR and IMAR. Under the tremendous Chinese economic and political pressure, more minority people have been forced into or have become willing to collaborate in the Chinese medium of education. In many mother tongue instruction schools students’ numbers have fallen, with minority parents voluntarily sending their children to Chinese schools, and language loss has become a hot topical issue.


121

In the south The pyramid model of bilingual programs has been maintained and expanded in the south and programs receive support from local communities. One example is the Kam (Dong) bilingual education project, a successful bilingual education program for the Kam people developed in Rongjiang County in Guizhou Province since 2000. The program began with two years of kindergarten initially for 5- and 6-year-olds at the proposed bilingual education school. The program was similar to the pyramid model programs in Yunnan, the transition to the Han language teaching being made gradually, after establishing a strong foundation in Kam. After two years of preschool and two years of primary school, Chinese dominated the curriculum but Kam language lessons were projected to continue right through Year 6 of primary. The preschool curriculum is entirely in the Kam language (Geary & Pan, 2003, p. 283). A 4-week teacher training workshop was convened in August 2001 in Zaidang, with 20 teachers coming together from five new locations to study Kam reading and writing. At the close of the workshop, teachers expressed willingness to open Kam preschools. Three of the five schools represented had previously introduced a year of preschool using Chinese materials. Their teachers spoke unanimously of the difficulties encountered by students in such a setting where mostly Chinese was spoken at school but only Kam at home (Geary & Pan, 2003, p. 285). The outcome after three years of bilingual classes has been encouraging. There are 30 eight-year-olds in Jiasuo and Zaidang who now have a firm grasp of how to read and write Kam and who are enthusiastic about reading and writing (Geary & Pan, 2003, p. 284). Geary has attributed the success of the Kam program to three main factors: ●

●

The strong support given by Kam leaders in positions of influence for the promotion of Kam literacy and culture together with literacy in Chinese. Appropriate teacher training. At the outset of the project perhaps fewer than ten Kam people were equipped with sufficient reading and writing skills to teach school classes in Kam. However in March 2000, seven mother-tongue speakers of Kam who had spent between three and twelve years in the national education system were given intensive training in Kam literacy skills. The initial four week literacy workshop was followed five months later by a three week workshop in teaching methods.

122 Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China ●

The availability of suitable written materials. Initially there was a shortage of literature written in Kam but to correct this, one hundred and sixty stories were written in the Kam script for each of the first and second years of preschool. For each of primary Years 1 and 2, ninety stories were written, and for each of the Years 3–6, an average of sixty stories. Added to these will be other extra- curricular materials for independent reading (Geary & Pan, 2003, p. 283). Children in the Kam bilingual program have benefited in their study of Chinese by first learning their own Kam language. A helpful spin-off beyond more successful academic results in Chinese could be a boost in studying English which has become a recommended subject in primary schools throughout China.

Another successful trilingual education project has been run by the Songpan County Tibetan-Language School, located at the far northern boundary of Sichuan Province. The school essentially has been established and run by the local Tibetan community, authorized by the Songpan County authorities (Upton, 1999, p. 305), where Tibetans make up 37.27 percent of the total county population of 65,019. Upton has reported that the school takes two approaches to tri-lingual education, both of which are designed to meet the diverse needs of the entering school body: (1) “Take Tibetan as the focus, learn Chinese well, and add some English” or (2) “Take Chinese as the focus, learn Tibetan well, and add some English”. In the first system, the majority of classes (with the exception of Chinese language and literature) in all three years of the junior high school program are taught primarily in Tibetan, with Chinese explanations being added if and when needed by the students: this is the system followed by the majority of students who have graduated from elementary institutions that offered Tibetan language instruction. In the second system, which is offered primarily to those students with little or no background in written or spoken Tibetan, the first year classes are taught mainly in Chinese, but with an intensive focus being placed on developing written and spoken Tibetan language skills. By the second year most classes (with the exception of Chinese language and literature) are being taught in Tibetan, though with more supplementary explanations being offered in Chinese than in the classes following the primarily Tibetan language track. This two tiered system, while complicated, is the only reasonable way the school has of facing the problems brought on by the lack of Tibetan language education at the elementary level. As of the summer of 1995 the school had graduated a total of 648 students, among whom over half entered further education, 202 to


123

professional schools and 128 to senior high schools. Of those graduates who completed professional school and senior high school, 37 entered post secondary education. In the north In comparison with the minority language policies in the south, schools in the north have undergone a noticeable shift to more Chinese language education since 2000. The latest two trends in XUAR have been towards bilingual education and school merging which was strongly opposed in the 1980s and during the Cultural Revolution period. The arguments put forward by the XUAR education officials are that minority people need to be bilingual in order to participate in the socialist economic society. To have a university degree and be unable to speak Chinese has been equated to being illiterate in a Chinese-dominated society. The argument went that the reintroduction of the school merger policy would increase social integration between the Han and minorities and support bilingual education practice. Bilingual education policy From 2000, Language teaching changed to a more bilingual mode, with the underlying intent to increase the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction in schools. The head of the Urumqi Education Bureau, Li Jiansheng, reported at the beginning of the 1990s that a number of high schools would set up bilingual pilot classes where math, physics, chemistry and English would be taught in Chinese, and the remainder of the curriculum taught in minority languages. Currently bilingual pilot classes have reached to 222 holding 7600 students and they represent over 20 percent of the total ethnic students. In March 2004, the Xinjiang Daily announced that ethnic minorities in the region should now all receive instruction in Chinese. The Chinese Communist Party and regional government have decided that ethnic minority schools must be merged with ethnic Chinese. Schools and ethnic minority students must be mixed with ethnic Chinese students. Teaching should be conducted in the Chinese language as much as possible ... Some small towns and counties, where conditions are ripe, must start teaching Chinese to first-grade ethnic minority students in primary school. Under the revised policy the numbers of students in ethnic schools has dropped sharply since 1990. For example, in 1992, a Kirgiz school


lost half of its student enrolment. Teachers had to be transferred to a different school. The 30 Mongolian schools in Bayin Guo Leng Mongolian Autonomous Prefecture faced a sharp drop in student numbers, because many students enrolled in Chinese schools. Currently, bilingual classes in primary and secondary schools have increased from 946 language classes in 2004 to 3460 classes in 2005. Pang believes that the future direction is for ethnic and Han schools to merge with ethnic and Han students placed in one class. In the future our target is to have schools merged and mix classes. To realize this goal for high schools we need a period of time. If preschool and primary schools have achieved good results, we will start from year 1 in high schools. Ethnic and Han students will be in the same class.17 School merging policy School mergers were steadily implemented from 1995 in XUAR, the first being two vocational Uyghur and Chinese colleges. In 2006, Xinhuanet reported: In order to promote interactions between Han and ethnic students the region has increased the rate of schools merging. Currently up to 707 schools have been merged in comparison with the 461 schools merged in 2000. The head of the basic education department of the XUAR, Pang Xianwei, has declared that school mergers have not only raised the efficiency of educational resources, but provided a good learning environment for ethnic teachers and students. He believes that after schools merge, ethnic and Han students and teachers can interact with each other. The promotion of bilingual education will create a (Chinese) language learning environment for ethnic students and raise the ethnic educational quality. The majority of ethnic teachers who only used their own language will benefit from an improvement in their bilingual instruction abilities. Boarding schools in the region have also been merged. In Sha Che County, a Uyghur middle school and a Chinese middle school were amalgamated into a boarding school called No. 3 Sha Che high school, containing over 1000 Uyghur students and 600 Chinese students. Of a total of 38 classes, 18 classes were taught through Chinese or bilingual instruction. The rest of the 20 classes had Chinese language lessons


125

but still used Uyghur as the medium of instruction.18 Educational officials in the county commented that the merger increased Uyghur and Han integration, students and teachers living, working and studying together, creating a good environment for ethnic students speaking Chinese and ensuring unity. In the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR), obstacles to Mongols using their own language remained formidable. Urbanized Mongols are prepared to shed the Mongolian language in favor of mastering the language of the dominant group, i.e., Chinese. They have demonstrated little patience for any argument favoring retention of Mongolian bilingually or trilingually along with Chinese plus a foreign language. Indeed they have advocated learning English to outperform the Chinese (cf. Naran Bilik 1998a, 1998b). Although the IMAR government continued to expand the Mongolian education throughout the autonomous region, resistance from Mongols towards learning their own language continued. Despite the continued government support for Mongolian as a medium of instruction, Wulan Tuke reports that many such schools have changed to Han instruction. The number of students enrolled in the Mongolian medium schools has been declining (Wulan, 1997, p. 12). Wulan Tuke claimed that between 1980 and 1995, primary schools with Mongolian as a medium of instruction declined by 32.1 percent, and high schools by 28.3 percent, while the number of students studying the Mongolian language as a subject in primary schools dropped by 23.7 percent and in high schools by 20 percent (see Tables 5.9 and 5.10). Two important issues in minority education are related to opportunities for higher education and employment. First, the tertiary entrance examination system has favored the Han language and has an English requirement. Thus students from Mongolian medium schools are disadvantaged as they have not studied English. Further, the quota for accepting students educated through Mongolian medium of instruction has been reduced yearly since 1980. There are not many employment Table 5.9 Schools that use the Mongolian language as the medium of instruction

Schools Primary schools Secondary schools Source: Wulan (1997), p. 12

1980 (numbers)

1995 (numbers)

Percentage reduction

4387 501

2978 359

32.1 28.3

126


Table 5.10

Students studying the Mongolian language Percentage of decline (%)

Schools

1980 (persons)

1995 (persons)

Primary schools

283,725 (73.3% of Mongol students)


23.7

Secondary schools



20.2

Source: Wulan (1997), p. 13

Table 5.11

Decline in ethnic schools in IMAR

Year

Ethnic elementary schools

Ethnic middle schools

1980 1995 2000 2001

4387 2978 2002 1626

501 359 316 300

Source: Zhou, Q., (2003), p. 4

opportunities for tertiary graduates who have good levels of Mongolian language and script but possess weak Han skills, since professions in Mongolian language newspapers and radio stations, and Mongolian language and research are limited (Wulan, 1997, p. 12). The Mongol intellectual Naran Bilik has written “Mongolian language education seems to be losing out, despite efforts from ethnic elites and symbolic gestures from local governments” (Mackerras, 2003, p. 130). It seems that many Mongol parents have lost interest in this elite-driven movement: they see little benefit in sending their children to Mongolian schools and opt for Chinese education for their children, hoping that this will lead to a brighter economic future. Mackerras states that by the mid 1990s there was only one Mongolian-language school in the capital city of IMAR, Hohhot. Zhou also reports a decline in Ethnic Elementary and Secondary schools in the IMAR as seen in Table 5.11 (Zhou, Q., 2003). Zhou argues that this decline is a reflection of narrowing opportunities available to students entering the system with lower Han language skills resulting from a bilingual Mongolian based education. These reduced opportunities are further reduced by the availability of places in higher education to fee paying students. Rather than being “placed”


127

in employment as before, the new economic situation demands that students apply for their own positions. Lack of skill in Han language is a drawback in these circumstances. Students and their families see themselves better served undertaking their education in the Han system. Zhou does go on, however, to report that efforts are being made to address the low Han success rate in ethnic schools. For better or worse, the reform in trilingual education has been carried out in parts of the IMAR and they have got some experience. The Kulun Banner (corresponding to a county) of Zhelimu League (corresponding to a prefecture) in the IMAR modified and adapted the program, curriculum, textbooks, and teaching method of bilingual education in accordance with the different levels of proficiency in Mongolian and Chinese of the local Mongol students. The course in Chinese was scheduled two years earlier in schools where proficiency in the Mongolian language is good but that in the Chinese is not, so that more hours were allotted to the Chinese course. Meanwhile, the curriculum, textbooks, and teaching method were adjusted to exploit the advantage of Mongolian script, which is alphabeticized and easier to learn compared with Chinese script. The teaching of the Mongolian language was accelerated. As a result, Grade three pupils were able to reach the level of grade five in proficiency in Mongolian. The experiment showed that these students reached a higher level of proficiency in both languages than that of the students of the same grade before the reform. In recent years, the Inner Mongolian Region has introduced a cash bonus system and public award for schools to teach Mongolian language and for individuals, mainly Mongols, who study the Mongolian language. The bonus system has been effective, especially for those schools in the poor areas, parents and students have benefited from the bonus policy. Two major thrusts characterized language policies for minority education in Deng Xiaoping’s era: first, the use of minority languages as the medium of instruction; and second, the learning of Chinese as a second language. Bilingual education policies have attempted to accommodate both these trends. The political and educational context of the 1980s and 1990s created a favorable background for policy formulation on minority language in education, with the government’s desire to improve minority education enabling the minority language to be the medium of instruction in education.


The formulation of autonomous laws at both the national and local levels legitimized language policy for minorities, officially allowing the revival of original scripts of minority languages. Therefore in the north of China, a few minority nationalities with traditional scripts have been able to maintain and strengthen their medium of instruction. Changes in language policies for minority nationalities have taken place in the southwest where minority nationalities with an oral tradition or nonrecognized written scripts have introduced the mother tongue medium of instruction at primary school levels or, as in the case of the Zhuang and Yi, at high school levels. Putonghua teaching has been strengthened by having the promotion of Putonghua written into the national constitution and by combining a national syllabus and the national tertiary entrance examination system. The implementation of Putonghua has had an impact on teachers, especially those from minority nationalities, applying Putonghua as a foreign language. The policies promoting Putonghua and the mother tongue have created a conflict of interest, with schools faced with implementation of both national and provincial/regional policies. There have been few innovations in the methodology for Putonghua in schools. The term “bilingual education” has become popular because its definition is loose enough to suit policy-makers who either emphasize Han language learning or minority languages in education. It continues a term which means different things to different people. Transitional bilingual education programs have been strongly supported by government officials mainly on the grounds that they provide the best and most efficient way for children to relate basic education and Putonghua. Language policies in the 1980s and 1990s have supported the role of the minority teacher, including the recruitment of bilingual teachers who can give instruction in the student’s mother tongue. During the period 1977–97, implementation practices have differed between north and south. In the north a strong policy of mother tongue education in schools was carried out from the primary to senior school levels, referred to as the one dragon model; in the south, mother tongue instruction was exemplified by support for teaching in the Tibet Autonomous Region in the primary schools, with effort now underway from the Tibetan regional government to expand mother tongue instruction to junior and senior high schools. Similar practices have also been carried out in the Liangshan Yi prefecture in Sichuan. In Yunnan and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, a bilingual education program after the pyramid model has been promoted.


129

As the economic development has gradually moved towards the West since 2000, some minority languages have become endangered because speakers gave up their own languages voluntarily to learn the national language. Regional governments, such as the Inner Mongolian Autonomy Regional, have applied the law to enforce the status of the Mongolian language policies in the region, and adopt a rewards system for Mongol people to maintain their own language. However two dilemmas face minority people. On the one hand, the maintenance of their own language and culture is important for minorities: on the other, educational and employment opportunities for their children have greater practical value. The skills of the Han language and Putonghua remain an important requirement for social advancement and mobility. Although a number of parents have insisted on the former, more parents are willing to pursue the latter. Despite the government’s continued support for a mother tongue medium of instruction since 1980, the number of minority students enrolled in these schools has been declining. One problem is that the educational reform did not change the examination system and tertiary institutions have emphasized English examination results. Therefore, minority nationality students are disadvantaged by mother tongue instruction and have subsequent problems in capturing educational and employment opportunities. Successful bilingual education requires the support of principals and teachers; teacher education institutions must prepare teachers with efficient language proficiency and teaching skills; appropriate teaching resources are required; and a willingness of students and their parents to accept the language policies is necessary.

6 Language, Education and Communities in Xinjiang

Visitors to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) will definitely experience the breadth of its horizon. As China’s largest region, Xinjiang constitutes one-sixth of China’s total land mass and covers an area of 1.66 million square kilometers in the far northwest of the country. Externally, it borders eight countries, namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Russia, the Republic of Mongolia, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Within China, it shares border crossings with three autonomous provinces/regions: Gansu, Qinghai and Tibet. It is home to 13 major ethnic nationalities, including 8.8 million Uyghurs, 7.7 million Han Chinese, 1.4 million Kazak, and 0.9 million Hui. Generally, XUAR is a multilingual and multicultural society. The Han, Hui and Manchu nationalities speak Chinese while five (the Uyghurs, Kazaks, Kirgiz, Uzbeks, and Tatars) speak Turkic languages. Mongolian, Xibe, Russian and Tajik languages are likewise spoken extensively. The existence of numerous dynamic and competing language groups is revealed by social exchanges occurring among the different ethnic communities. Putonghua can be observed to be spoken formally, but a variety of languages can also be readily heard in everyday conversations. In fact, one can simultaneously feel the harmony and tension in the International Bazaar where many languages are used to mediate and negotiate meanings and social exchanges. The strong Muslim identity is apparent in Xinjiang landmarks. More often than not, one will see women wearing kerchiefs, men wearing doppi, and beautiful mosques and Arabic script adorning the walls of shops and streets. The delicious aroma of roast lamb kebab and baked nann wafts in the air wherever one walks. Uyghur is the major regional language used in XUAR, and also serves as the lingua franca among other ethnic groups. Xinjiang’s film, 130


131

television and broadcasting agencies use three languages, Uyghur, Putonghua and Kazak for their regional programs. On the other hand, Uyghur, Putonghua, Kazak, Mongolian, Kirgiz and Xibe are used for district levels1 and smaller areas. Tajik is also used occasionally. Overall, less than one percent of Uyghurs are fluent in Putonghua.

Going to school in Xinjiang Xinjiang’s educational system of separate schooling is based on mother tongue instruction. It was instituted in 1949 and it reflects its ethnic and linguistic diversity. Currently, six languages are used as mediums of instruction in both primary and secondary level education, namely Putonghua, Uyghur, Kazak, Mongolian, Xibe and Kirgiz. The school system contains three different types of schools based on the use of language. These are: minzu (ethnic) schools, which include Uyghur, Kazak, Mongolian, Xibe and Kirgiz schools; hanzu (Chinese) schools; and min-han (joint Chinese and ethnic) schools. In post-secondary colleges, the mediums of instruction are mainly Putonghua and Uyghur, with the occasional use of Kazak. More than half of its student population goes to minzu schools with over 1.5 million ethnic children attending 4581 minzu primary schools in 2005. Although five languages are used as mediums of instruction in minzu schools, 88 percent of the students attending them are educated in Uyghur (see Table 6.1). According to official population figures, the minority populations have increased from 24 percent to 29 percent in the last 10 years, owing to the fact that they have been given permission to have more than one child.2 Although students attending Uyghur primary schools had increased by 32 percent in 2005, only 56 percent of primary school students went on to attend Uyghur junior high schools. Meanwhile, there are two kinds of min-han (joint Chinese and ethnic) schools: (1) Han plus a single ethnic nationality and (2) Han plus several ethnic nationalities. Some Han plus single ethnic nationality schools are Han schools with minority classes; nonetheless, the others may have Han classes as well. On the other hand, the Han plus several ethnic nationalities schools contain combinations of Han plus Uyghurs, Kazaks, Tatars, Uzbeks and Kirgizs. Since 1995, enrolment in min-han schools has increased. It was the government’s goal to merge all joint Chinese and ethnic schools by 2008. In 1998, joint schools only accounted for as much as six percent of all schools. Thus, the shift to 100 percent joint schooling would

132 Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China Table 6.1 Mother tongue instruction in primary, junior secondary and senior secondary schools 1991 Ethnic schools (students)

2005

Primary

Junior Senior secondary secondary

Uyghur

3507 (909,778)

362 (188,246)

Kazak

480 (171,669)

Mongolian Xibe Kirgiz

Primary

Junior secondary

Senior secondary

170 (56,777)

3727 (1,330,065)

570 (579,868)

140 (93,135)

182 (44,688)

54 (17,283)

707 (171,629)

138 (69,215)

34 (22,606)

71 (18,152)

15 (6,810)

10 (3,035)

47 (9,533)

16 (4,078)

7 (1,913)

8 (3,553)

3 (1,829)

2 (955)

8 (3,209)

2 (876)

2 (615)

108 (16,749)

15 (2,323)

2 (554)

92 (24,360)

25 (9,601)

3 (1,689)

constitute a dramatic change in the government’s minority education policy. Xinjiang’s Han Chinese population has grown from six percent in 1949 to 40 percent in 2008. Putonghua is now seen as the language of power and access to economic well-being among Han Chinese. These changes have led to increasing demands for Putonghua education that would result in a consequent shift from minority to majority Putonghua language-based schools. Also as a matter of consequence, inland (Neidiban) and coastal city Han Chinese secondary schools have now begun accepting minority students from Xinjiang as parents have begun sending their children to be educated in Putonghua (Postiglione, Jiao, & Manlaji, 2007; Yang, L., 2004; Zhang, Y., 2004).

Language issues in primary schools In 2006, field research was conducted in two primary schools in the Akesu district of South Xinjiang. Three-quarters of Akesu’s 2.26 million inhabitants are minority peoples, with Uyghurs comprising the majority. These investigations focused on several schooling issues, where different approaches have been adopted with regards to the medium of instruction and the teaching of Chinese as a second language. As such, students, parents, teachers, school principals and educational officials were interviewed. Classrooms were likewise observed in two types of


133

schools, a joint Han and Uyghur (HUPS), and a pure Uyghur primary school (UPS). The urban based HUPS, which is, the result of a merger between separate Han and Uyghur schools, is located at the center of a county town in Akesu. It consists of two buildings, with one built during the 1970s and the other in 2003. It has 22 staff members, with a Uyghur principal and a Han deputy principal serving at the same time. The total student population is 691, and 60 percent of them come from Uyghur, Kazak or other minority families, while the remaining 40 percent are Chinese. The academic staff is comprised of nine Chinese teachers, six Uyghur, one Kazak, and one Hui. Two Chinese and a Uyghur work as administration staff members. The Han and minzu teachers occupy different staff rooms. The Hui and Kazak teachers, who both speak Uyghur, are with the Uyghur teachers. HUPS was created in 2002 on the premise that it would utilize the resources of the merged schools better since the Uyghur school has no Chinese teacher. After the merger, Chinese teachers have begun teaching Chinese to both Han and Uyghur students. According to the principal, another reason for the merger was the fact that student enrolment had dropped in the Uyghur school. This can be attributed to the fact that an increasing number of Uyghur parents, particularly bureaucrats, teachers and business people, were already sending their children to Han schools. Although the schools had merged, students were divided into two classes: Hanzu classes for Chinese students and minzu classes for Uyghur, Kazak and Xibe students. This became the setup given that the latter two groups speak Uyghur as well as their own languages. The medium of instruction for hanzu classes is Putonghua and for the minzu classes, it is Uyghur. Starting Year 3, English is taken as a subject, while four classes of Chinese are taught weekly to minzu classes. The remainder of the curriculum is taught in Uyghur. All textbooks, except for Chinese texts, are in Uyghur and are published by the Xinjiang Education Publisher. The Chinese language textbook is similar in format to the textbook used by Han students. It teaches Hanyu Pinyin first, followed by Chinese characters and short texts. Uyghur translations and vocabulary accompany all lessons in the Chinese textbook. Meanwhile, the rural based Uyghur primary school (UPS) is located in an Akesu county. The three-storey school was built in 2001 and was well maintained at the time of this investigation. There were 30 to 45 students per class and the only computer of the school was used for administration purposes. In total, there were 365 students in the


school, 91 percent of which are from Uyghur families, seven percent from Kazak families and two percent from other ethnic groups. Most of their parents are farmers, with some engaging in business, and only a few who are bureaucrats or teachers. All the 16 school staff members had ethnic backgrounds. The principal and nine teachers were Uyghurs, and three teachers were Kazaks. Most teachers were graduates from a teachers’ college in Akesu district and one came from Hoten Teachers’ College in south Xinjiang. The principal and all the teachers, including the Kazak teachers, spoke Uyghur. Almost all the teachers could not speak Chinese well, except for the principal and the Uyghur Chinese teacher who helped in the interpretation while this study was conducted. This Uyghur language-based primary school offered a five-year program and Chinese was taught as a subject beginning Year 3. The other subjects included Uyghur language, mathematics, ideology and character building, general studies, music, sports and arts. There was also a pilot bilingual mathematics class in Year 5 which was taught in Putonghua by a Uyghur teacher who also taught Chinese. In this class, the 45 Uyghur and six Kazak students were selected based on their examination results in both Chinese and mathematics. Learning Chinese This study observed the Chinese and mathematics lessons taught at the rural Uyghur primary school. Although the bilingual class was quite large, the teacher managed the 51 students quite well. During the lessons, the teacher spoke mainly Putonghua, occasionally switching to Uyghur to explain vocabulary meanings. She gave instructions in Uyghur in a lively fashion, and the students sang songs, read aloud and recited texts in Putonghua. She also conducted a role playing session about buying vegetables in the market. Evidently, the teacher was well trained as a second language teacher and the students enjoyed her lessons. The observations from that class revealed that the students were similarly well motivated. The same teacher creatively used many diagrams to explain concepts in Chinese. As a result, the students were able to answer questions correctly and successfully carried out exercises in their workbooks. Earlier mathematics quizzes in which most students earned good grades have suggested that the students understood the subject in Chinese quite well. The Chinese teacher said that she enjoyed teaching the bilingual class and found Uyghur students bright and motivated. Correspondingly, the principal commented that the bilingual class was extremely successful and many Uyghur parents wanted to send their


135

children to this particular class. Unfortunately, the school could not accept more students because it only had one teacher trained in bilingual teaching. In the group discussions led by Uyghur native speakers, the students in the bilingual class were not shy about answering questions. They unanimously expressed enjoyment in learning Chinese and a fondness for their Chinese teacher. When the students were asked whether they had difficulties learning mathematics via Chinese, they replied that they learned the subject better because the teacher explained the concepts thoroughly. When asked whether Chinese was difficult to learn, they said that learning Chinese characters was hard but not Putonghua. Generally, the majority of the children stated that their parents wanted them to learn Chinese because it was useful, that they could go to big cities such as Urumqi or even Beijing to work if they speak Chinese. Moreover, they said that they could talk with their Han friends if they learn the language well. However, the students declared they speak Uyghur at home since their parents could not speak Chinese. They also said that they usually play with their Uyghur friends because their Chinese friends attend afterschool classes. When asked whether they watched Chinese movies or TV programs, they replied that they always did but only those dubbed in Uyghur. They also spoke Uyghur when playing with their Uyghur speaking Kazak friends. When asked about their career choices, most said that they wanted to become Chinese teachers while two wanted to become doctors to help save lives. Chinese-speaking environment It was observed that Uyghur and Chinese students do not mix during recess at the Han and Uyghur joint primary school. The Uyghur students played on one side of the playground and the Chinese students played on the other side. The teachers explained that the language barrier remains an obstacle to integration because Uyghur students’ Chinese is inadequate while Chinese students could not speak Uyghur. As a result, school assemblies were conducted separately in Uyghur and Chinese. The teachers and principals of both schools were deeply concerned given the little opportunity for the Uyghur students to speak and practice Chinese outside school. They reported that students do not speak Chinese at home and do not play with Han children outside school hours. A teacher explained: Before the 1980s, Chinese schools offered Uyghur lessons to Han students from Year 3, so Han students could speak Uyghur after school;


so, the Han and Uyghur children would play together. It was good for them to have this language exchange and mutual understanding. It is different now. After the open and reform policy, Han parents are only interested in their children learning English and schools have replaced Uyghur language lessons by English lessons. Han students do not learn Uyghur language any more. After school many Han parents send their children to English tutoring classes or mathematics tutoring. Han and Uyghur children no longer play together. The HUPS teachers believed that the merger had only few benefits aside from the administrative convenience for the government. Consequently, Uyghur and Han students continued to be separated by language barriers. Some Uyghur teachers suggested that Han students should learn Uyghur. Unfortunately, the current policy neither respected the Uyghur language nor encouraged ethnic integration. One teacher stated: If you want to live in our area, Uyghur should be learnt and taught to Han students in schools. The majority of people here are Uyghurs. Of course we need to learn the Han language. Everyone knows that it is important to learn the Han language but our Uyghur language is also important. The policy makes Uyghur students feel our language is not important, so the Han students do not learn it. We Uyghurs often regard people who speak our language as friends because they respect our culture – like the Uyghur saying, “recognize the language not the face to be friends”. Attitudes of Uyghur parents The group discussions with the teachers and the principal revealed that parental demand for their children to learn Chinese had been high since 2000. The principal said that since the merger, several Uyghur parents wanted their children to attend Chinese classes to learn more Chinese. He further mentioned that they had once merged with a Han school during the Cultural Revolution. However, it was separated again during the 1980s due to the tremendous requests from parents and the Uyghur community. Before 2000, the ethnic spirit had been very high, but the attitudes of Uyghur parents had shifted significantly since the turn of the century. In the 1980s, we had to build a wall to separate the school into two schools but from the 2000s, student enrolments started to decrease


137

because many Uyghur parents wanted to send their children next door to the Chinese school. Our classes got smaller, in some classes only 20 students, but in the Chinese schools class sizes reached 60 students. The two schools merged last year under this pressure because of the demand from Uyghur parents and from education officials. Shortage of well trained Chinese teachers The discussion also exposed the problem of a shortage of well-trained Chinese teachers. The principal explained that many parents wanted their children to enter bilingual classes but schools were unable to find suitably trained Chinese teachers. He later said that it was preferable to have more Uyghurs teach Chinese because Han Chinese teachers do not want to live in rural areas like theirs. We used to start Chinese class from Year 4. Now the government asks that schools start teaching Chinese from Year 3, but no teachers are available. I have problems in keeping good Chinese teachers. A number of Han Chinese teachers were assigned to our school before but they all left. They could not speak Uyghur and did not talk to other teachers. They could not explain things in Uyghur to students, which was hard for the students. They did not want to teach in the local school. They wanted to go to a large city. Uyghur teachers said that there are but a few available opportunities for staff improvement. Particularly, these are on topics such as developing excellent Chinese teaching approaches or on techniques associated with improving the knowledge in Chinese of Uyghur students. In the long run, Uyghur teachers are increasingly concerned about their jobs being taken over by Han teachers. For instance, a Han Chinese language teacher had recently replaced a Uyghur because the latter’s pronunciation was not so good. However, the Uyghur teacher argued that Uyghur teachers are better because they can explain things in Uyghur if students are confused. Furthermore, they can help students build selfconfidence in learning Chinese with themselves being models. In this scenario, several Uyghur teachers are worried about what they believe is an unfair policy of requiring all ethnic teachers to pass Level 3 of the HSK test. One teacher stated: There should be equal policy between Han and minzu teachers. The Han teachers should have a Uyghur language test if we need to pass


the HSK. They should have learnt the Uyghur language when working in the Uyghur areas. They should be bilingual in Uyghur and Chinese in order to help Uyghur students. We were trained to teach in the Uyghur language, not to teach in Chinese. Why should we pass the HSK? In this area we do not have an environment helpful in speaking Chinese. Because I did not have an opportunity to practice Chinese, my Chinese is not good enough to pass Level 3 of the HSK and I may lose my job because of this. Chinese teaching materials Generally, the principals and teachers expressed dissatisfaction with the teaching materials used for Chinese instruction. They also complained that there were too many characters for students to memorize. One teacher reported: In one term, for example, students are required to learn 294 Chinese characters but they can only remember about 100 characters. By Year 5, the Education Department wants students to have learned 1300 Chinese characters but most students have learned only between 500–600 characters. Most lessons are not relevant to the life of students who do not use Chinese outside the classroom. For example, I taught them to use Chinese to buy vegetables but when they go to the market, they only need to speak Uyghur. They do not need to use Chinese at all. Accordingly, the Chinese textbook published by the Xinjiang Education Press deals more with the political rather than the practical uses of the Chinese language. Its content is predominantly ideological in orientation and unsuitable for second language acquisition. Some examples are presented below: ➢ Lesson One: We are Chinese Sentence pattern: We are Chinese. We love our motherland. Dialogue: Jia: I am a Chinese. Yi: I am also a Chinese. Jia: We are all Chinese. Yi: We love our motherland. Jia: The capital city of our motherland is Beijing. Yi: We love Beijing, the capital city of our motherland. (Translation of extract from Year 4 textbook3)


139

➢ Lesson Four: Give a present to the National Day Sentence pattern: I want to give a present to the National Day. Dialogue: Jia: The 1st of October is the National Day, what is your plan? Yi: I want to give a present to the National Day. Jia: What present do you want to give? Yi: I want to give my determination of “studying hard and making a good progress everyday” (haohao xuexi, tiantian xiangshang).4 Jia: Excellent! That is the best present. (Translation of extract from Year 4 textbook5) These dialogues are followed by exercises in writing Chinese characters which consist of vocabulary lists with Uyghur translations, character dictations, selections of Chinese characters, reading sentences, romanized Chinese text in Hanyu Pinyin, and sentence writing exercises. Moreover, the teachers were disturbed in having comparably few supplemental reading resources for Uyghur students. Apart from the set textbooks, no other books were available for students. Worse, their Chinese was not good enough to give them the ability to read Chinese stories. Rather, what they really wanted were bilingual books containing Chinese stories with explanations in Uyghur to help students practice their Chinese characters. Some teachers even suggested that providing access to Chinese computer games might help. This is because Uyghur children in cities play Chinese computer games and learned to read Chinese that way. However, Uyghur students in the county are mainly from poorer families and could not afford computers. Similarly, teachers from both schools teach Chinese as if it were a first language. Despite having been trained in student-centred learning, one Chinese teacher believed that “learning Chinese should use the Chinese way” which involved memorizing “Chinese characters by copying them many times”. In one of their lessons, a Chinese teacher at GPS made the whole class read text together several times and then gave dictation in Chinese characters. Teachers in both schools agreed that the poor Chinese results can be attributed to the laziness of Uyghur students because they did not copy and practice Chinese characters sufficiently. The traditional attitude that cleverness was the equivalent to being good at learning Chinese characters by rote was reinforced lesson after lesson. T:

Today we are learning Lesson 4 ... open your books at Lesson Four, page 18 (teacher writes title on board). Xiangei guoqing de

140


liwu (Give a present to the National Day).6 Every one read after me, Xiangei guoqing de liwu. S: Xiangei guoqing de liwu. T: Who can read the text? I told you to read it last week. Who can read it? Hands up. S: (many students raise their hands). T: Good. Aili, you read it. S: Xiangei guoqing de liwu. Wo xiang gei guoqingjie xianshang yijian liwu (I want to give a present to the National Day) ... T: Aili is very bright. He reads it very well. No mistakes. Maimaiti, you read it again. S: Xingei guoqing de liwu ... T: You have made many mistakes. This character is xian not xin. Did you practice it yesterday? S: Yes I did. T: Maimaiti is not very bright. Aziguli, you read it again. S: Xiangei guoqing de liwu ... T: Aziguli is very bright, she knows all the characters. If you are bright you should know many Chinese characters. Now if you want to get a good job you have to be bright, if you want to be bright you need to study Chinese very hard. If you only know Uyghur you are not bright, you need to know Chinese. Do you understand it? S: Yes. We understand. T: Now, every one read the text together. S: Xiangei guoqing de liwu ... (Transcript of excerpt of Chinese lesson) Gaining fluency in the dominant language is seen as the product of rote learning and effort. Usually, this is equated with intelligence, whereas the case of Uyghur monolingualism indicates otherwise. Uyghur-speaking Chinese teachers have built power differences between Uyghur and Chinese identities themselves. Here, the former was equated with powerlessness, lack of intelligence and failure, while the latter is likened to power, intelligence and success. Unfortunately, the possibility of dual identities has not been explored. Choice of schools by Uyghur parents Interviews from Uyghur parents of both HUPS and UPS students were conducted by native speakers. Out of the 53 families interviewed, 30 percent were able to speak Chinese. These parents expressed a clear


141

preference for Chinese education as 15 wanted their children to attend Chinese schools, 19 wanted them to go to joint Chinese and Uyghur schools, and 19 wanted them to go to pure Uyghur schools. About 30 percent of the families had at least one child in a Chinese language school system. However, the results were not the same in all locations. In the urban areas, every parent said that they would send their children to Chinese schools if given the chance. In sharp contrast, parents in rural areas said that they would choose for their children to be educated in Uyghur schools. These results were not uniform even with the education level analysis of the parents. Overwhelmingly, parents with only elementary school education attainment are likely to send their children to a Uyghur language school. On the other hand, those with high school education or above are more likely to choose either a Chinese or a joint Han and Uyghur school. Those with no education whatsoever are more inclined to choose some or pure Chinese education for their children. It is possible that those without formal education were somewhat unaware of Chinese by never having studied it. Urban Uyghurs, who are generally at the top of the Uyghur social order, associate education level with social power. They themselves dominate government departments and government-run institutions such as the publishing house, Akesu TV station and Akesu hospitals. All urban interviewees responded that Chinese is more important than Uyghur for business, education and jobs. No rural Uyghur group, where nearly all are high school graduates or above, expressed a favorable attitude toward Chinese, while those with no education had the most favorable attitudes towards Chinese. Meanwhile, Uyghur parents living in rural areas had a different opinion. They considered Akesu, a wholly Uyghur location, as drawing a sense of pride from their majority status with the thought that the other ethnic groups are somewhat inferior. When asked why they would choose Uyghur schools for their children, they replied that “because Uyghur is our own language.” Whereas urban Uyghurs were more likely to choose schools based on economic factors and a more individualistic perspective, the rural ones were more likely to do so based on ethnic pride and a broader community perspective. Parents with only elementary school education attainment unanimously favored Uyghur schools because “it was easier to learn and easy to pass school examinations.” Moreover, Chinese is totally a foreign language for most rural students. Most often, it is quite likely that only

142


few will be speaking to a Chinese person when they step outside the classroom. The second issue concerns the writing system. The Chinese system of characters is very complex, while the Uyghur alphabetic system is reasonably finite and can be mastered in a few weeks. Once the writing system is mastered for the latter, the students can pick up Uyghur books and sound out words – even if they are not sure what all the words mean. It appears that parents who studied no further than elementary level are well aware that their children are more likely to reach a higher level of proficiency in Uyghur than in Chinese. Parents with only a few years of formal education find it inconceivable for their children to learn reading books in Chinese, but they can perceive their children learning to read in Uyghur. Given the government’s preferential policy whereby the Uyghurs compete only with their peers and not with Han students, students from Uyghur schools are permitted to pass university entrance examinations despite low marks. However, only a few rural Uyghur students enter senior high schools because of the cost. Although the first nine years of basic education is free of charge, there is a fee for senior high school so many Uyghurs are unable to benefit from the government’s preferential policy.

Language issues in higher education Xinjiang University is located in Urumqi which is the capital of XUAR. It is one of the key universities in western China and a major seat of learning for Xianjiang’s diverse ethnic communities. By approaching it down a drive between rows of poplars, one passes through an impressive gateway that proclaims the university as long established, comprehensive and with high scientific standards. The university is managed by the State Education Ministry and XUAR and is one of the State’s elite “211 project”7 institutions. Founded in 1935 as Xinjiang Academy, it adopted its current name only in 1960. In 2000, the university already had 5229 undergraduate students, 220 Master students, and two doctoral candidates. Its degree program offerings are Chinese language, Chinese literature, and foreign languages, and non-degree programs in Uyghur literature and the Kazak language. The university also publishes journals in the social and the natural sciences written in Chinese, Uyghur and Kazak.8 In 2006, 60 percent of its 23,000 students were minzu (ethnic). Sixty percent of the staff was also from minzu background.


143

Academic voices Interviews with 13 Uyghur academics were conducted in 2006, of which six are females while seven are males, between the ages of 39 and 60. Seven were educated in Chinese and six in Uyghur; nine of them have Bachelor degrees, two have earned their Masters and only one has a Doctorate. Among them, three were full professors, four were associate professors, six were lecturers, and four were either heads or deputy heads of their respective departments. The interviews, which were conducted in Putonghua, asked basic academic background questions. These ordinarily dealt with age, education, professional rank and posts, subjects taught, language abilities in Uyghur, Chinese and other languages, marital status and number of children. Next, they were asked about their views on mother tongue instruction as opposed to Chinese instruction; the importance of learning Chinese and foreign languages, their views on bilingual and bi-cultural learning, their preferred school programs, and choices for their children’s education. Finally, they were asked regarding their opinion on the medium of instruction policy, including the implementation of the Chinese Competence Test, Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK), at the University of Xinjiang. All interviewees were bi- or trilingual, speaking Uyghur, Putongua, and/or English or Russian. These interviewees were asked to self-assess their proficiency in each language. Accordingly, all claimed to speak Putonghua at, or near native speaker proficiency, six out of the seven Chinese educated academics claimed that their Chinese was better than their Uyghur, while the last said that her Uyghur was better than her Chinese having learned it at home from her brother who had attended a Uyghur school. Four academics who could speak Uyghur well declared that they could not read and write it. They also said that their English or Russian is good enough to communicate with native speakers and that they had functional skills in reading and writing these languages. All of the six Uyghur-educated academics said that Uyghur is the language they command best. Furthermore, they all maintained that they were able to speak Putonghua as well though several admitted they had problems writing Chinese, particularly academic papers. One of them had just completed his PhD degree in Chinese. During the interviews, the academics often used the terms min kao han (ethnic students’ examinations in Chinese) and min kao min (ethnic students’ examinations in ethnic languages). Although the terms can refer to examination systems based on mediums of instruction available in the XUAR, the terms were frequently used to refer to Uyghurs who had attended Chinese medium schools, or ethnic schools.

144


Learning through Chinese immersion: min kao han The min kao han Uyghur academics viewed that their education through Chinese immersion had its advantages and disadvantages. The majority believed that being bilingual in Chinese and Uyghur had benefited their professional careers and business activities. One academic maintained that: With bilingual skills I have conducted many research projects, and published a large quantity of academic papers and books. I always tell my Uyghur students they should work hard to learn Chinese – to know more languages, to have more opportunities. One professor of law, who also worked as a lawyer, reported: I am very thankful that my parents sent me to a Chinese school. I have mastered both the Chinese and Uyghur languages. It is very good for my current work in the law field because I have many Uyghur clients who ask me to be their lawyer. However, these academics did not regard their school experience as entirely positive, mainly due to the hardships they experienced at school. Since they lacked Chinese when they entered school as children, they faced serious difficulties in learning and were often scared. They were under the constant pressure of having to work harder simply to avoid falling behind Chinese classmates with whom they were expected to compete. Some even said that with those experiences, they “lost their childhood”. Another professor admitted that he was two years older than most of his classmates because he failed the Chinese test and he had had to repeat Grades 1 and 2 in primary school. He still remembers how some of his Chinese classmates laughed at him, even calling him stupid because he could only write as half as many Chinese characters as the others. They also made fun of his mistakes when he tried to speak Chinese. Worse he said that he often missed lessons because of this problem. Most of these min kao han academics came from Urumqi and other urban areas where their parents worked as bureaucrats, teachers or professionals who had decided to send them to a Chinese school. On the contrary, most of their neighborhood friends only attended Uyghur schools. One professor recalled that her father sent her to Chinese school because of the central government’s warm reception when he visited Beijing as a Uyghur representative in a delegation in the 1950s.


145

Unfortunately, when her father had the opportunity to meet Chairman Mao Zedong, he was unable to communicate because he did not understand Chinese. The professor explained: I have nine brothers and sisters. My elder brothers went to Uyghur schools but I was sent to a Chinese school. In the 1950s, it was rare for Uyghurs to attend Chinese school. I was the only Uyghur in the Chinese school. When I went to school, I did not understand a word of Chinese. I relied on a Hui girl to translate some instructions into Uyghur. One day she was not there, the teacher asked students to leave for a sport lesson, I went home because I thought school had finished. I made many mistakes like this. Another academic stated that while learning Chinese was important, he objected to his parents sending him to a Han school: At work, I was criticized by Uyghur colleagues. They said I did not behave like a Uyghur, did not dress like a Uyghur and did not use the right Uyghur words when I spoke Uyghur. I could not get promoted because many Uyghur colleagues did not vote for me. Another academic complained that many important government positions went to min kao min graduates. As a min kao han graduate, it was hard to become a departmental head, especially in those days, because you needed to get people to vote for you. Min kao han people at university are a minority group. We are not important. Learning through the mother tongue: min kao min When asked about their experiences, min kao min academics also revealed advantages and disadvantages. For the former, min kao min academics declared they had learned everything at school through the Uyghur language. They had Uyghur lessons every day, studied Uyghur literature and used Uyghur textbooks. Since Uyghur was their mother tongue, they completed their primary education in only five years unlike Uyghur students attending Chinese primary schools who took six years. One academic explained that Uyghur was easy to learn given that it was their mother tongue, and it is a non-tonal language with a 32-letter alphabet. Consequently, learning to write in Uyghur was much easier than learning to write in Chinese.

146


An academic evaluated the mother tongue education system from different perspectives. This is the best policy the CCP government could have. Without this policy how could we receive education, how could we learn our language? The CCP government educated us and made us literate in our own language. Many Uyghurs over 80 years old, such as my parents, never went to schools before; they could not read and write Uyghur. Now it is different, the Uyghur literacy rate is even higher than among the Han people. Meanwhile, min kao min academics reported negative experiences when learning Chinese as a second language. One professor from a remote county mentioned that the government policy requiring all primary schools to begin teaching Chinese in Year 4 is unrealistic because there are no Chinese teachers at his school. Actually, he never had Chinese lessons in primary school and had only started learning Chinese in junior high school during which he received four Chinese lessons a week. Unfortunately, he stressed that his teachers taught Chinese badly, thus he hated his Chinese lessons and learned little. In fact, it was only when he entered Xinjiang University that he really started to learn Chinese. When I came to Xinjiang University, I knew very little Chinese but I made fast progress in learning because I needed Chinese for my study and social life. I realized that without Chinese I could not speak to my classmates. In addition a Chinese learning environment was available as many Chinese live in Urumuqi. In the remote areas even where there were senior high schools there were no Chinese lessons because there were no Chinese teachers willing to go to the remote places. Regarding Chinese immersion, min kao min academics supported it as an effective method of learning Chinese. They admit that min kao han Uyghur academics received better Chinese than themselves. However, they also criticized their min kao han colleagues for looking down on them. Surprisingly, they were even worse than their Han colleagues. One academic said: Those min kao han people are arrogant. They do not respect our culture and customs. They think that because they speak good Chinese,


147

they are more powerful than us. They often made us feel we are stupid and that they are better than us. For example, when I published an academic paper in Uyghur, one of the min kao han colleagues said it is not a key publication because it is not published in the Han language, therefore I failed to get a promotion. When I write a paper in Chinese I will go to a Han colleague to check my Chinese, not to min kao han Uyghur colleagues because I know they will look down on me. Another min kao min academic complained that min kao han colleagues behaved like the Han and wore clothes like them. She said: When I went to dinner with a min kao han Uyghur teacher, she would split the bill with me saying “ge fu gede” (let’s go Dutch). This is not acceptable in Uyghur custom. We normally take turns to pay dinners. In the street, I can recognize the min kao han women, because they do not wear dresses. Min kao han women wear pants and cut their hair short. She also stated that only a few min kao min marry min kao han Uyghurs: They cannot live together. Even when they did marry they would end up divorcing each other. The two people cannot live together because they have different values and customs in life. The differences between min kao han and the real Uyghur are very striking culturally. This is not always visible on the surface. The importance of learning Chinese and foreign languages Overall, both min kao han and min kao min interviewees agreed that learning Chinese is important for job advancement, educational success and social mobility. They agreed, however, that learning other foreign languages such as English or Russian can be helpful in finding work. Nonetheless, no consensus has yet been reached regarding which foreign language is most useful for academic research, promotion and for attending overseas conferences. In contrast to min kao min academics who had only few opportunities to learn Russian or English, many min kao han academics learned Russian in school as a result of an earlier government policy. One academic stated: When I went to school, Russian was taught from Year 4 in Chinese primary schools to senior high schools. It was because of the close

148


relationship with the former Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s. After the relationship broke down between China and the former Soviet Union, Russian continued to be a school subject into the 1980s because there were many Russian teachers and there was a shortage of English teachers. A lecturer who taught Russian at the University stated: The value of the Russian language has returned because of the newly established five Central Asian Republics, such as Kazakstan and Tajikstan. These countries use Russian as a lingua franca. Russian is currently a hot language (yuyan re). All my graduates get job offers before they finish their degree. Other academics did not agree with her, stating that the best language is still English, which is in demand for economic development. In fact, English is the number one choice of many parents, including many Uyghurs who send their children to English tutoring classes. Meanwhile, min kao min academics have had few opportunities to learn a foreign language. According to the education policy, minzu schools offer no foreign languages in their curriculum. As a result, they feel disadvantaged compared with min kao han and Han students. One academic stated: I only started to learn English when I came to the University of Xinjiang. I taught English to myself most of the time. Without English it is difficult to read academic books or papers. The academic believed that it was easier for Uyghurs to learn English than Chinese because both English and Uyghur are phonetic languages. He suggests that the government should offer English to students in Uyghur medium schools and it should be taught in Uyghur rather than through Chinese. Choosing their children’s education Surprisingly, min kao han parents are likely to choose Uyghur-medium schools for their children. Ironically, min kao min academics expressed negative views with respect to their min kao han counterparts. In contrast, min kao min parents are more likely to choose either Chinese or combined Chinese and Uyghur-medium schools for their children. When making decisions about their children’s education, those who


149

were taught in their mother tongue placed a higher priority on economic and education benefits than on their Uyghur culture. One min kao han academic said that she sent her children to Uyghur schools. She commented that under the current child policy where Uyghurs can only have two children, she wanted both of her children to have a happy childhood. Most interviewees agreed that they did not want their children to undergo the same hardships they had experienced and that they want them to be accepted by the Uyghur community. Therefore, they had decided to send their children to minzu schools for at least a part of their schooling. For instance, one professor sent his children to Chinese primary and junior schools, but then transferred them to a minzu senior high school so as to avoid being labeled as min kao han students. As a result, his sons passed all their examinations in Uyghur while receiving excellent grades as well. On the other hand, the six min kao min academics said that they sent their children to Chinese schools because they were concerned about their Chinese learning. One academic said: The current economic growth demands that students master both Chinese and English. But Uyghur schools do not teach Chinese well and do not offer English teaching. When asked about their children’s knowledge of Uyghur language and culture, min kao min academics stated that they would teach it at home and would see to it that their children played with other Uyghur children. They would also pay close attention to their children’s behavior and teach them to grow up maintaining the Uyghur language and culture. As one said: We will never give up our language and culture for learning Chinese. We want our children to be bilingual or trilingual. In general, all interviewees expressed strong support for the policy of educating their children in both languages for them to grow up bilingual and bi-cultural. One academic preferred a bilingual education model in which his children could learn both Uyghur language and culture together with Chinese or English at school. Another thought that the best solution for Uyghur children is for schools to provide bilingual instruction. Mathematics and sports should be taught in Chinese, while the Uyghur language will be for English and music.


Some academics argued that children could learn any language well, provided that the school has a good language program. One professor stated: I traveled overseas for conferences. I know in some European countries children learn five or six languages. Even in the Central Asian countries, children have all learnt Russian as well as their own languages. For example, my Uyghur relatives in Kazakstan Republic speak very good Russian, Uyghur and Kazak languages. The XUAR government does not provide such opportunities for us. When we asked for more Chinese teaching in schools they say there are not enough Chinese teachers. Why can they not train more good Chinese teachers? There is no shortage of Chinese people in Xinjiang. If you train them to speak Uyghur and they know how to teach Chinese as a second language, they will be good Chinese teachers. There are also no shortages of Uyghur young university graduates, many of them having no jobs. If teacher training courses are offered to them, they will be good bilingual Chinese teachers. In the 1950s, if the government said there were no Chinese teachers, we accepted it. In the 2000s the government still uses this excuse but no one believes them. I asked one educational official several times why could the children in Uyghur schools not learn English in primary schools like Han students. He said there were no English teachers. When asked why there are English teachers in Han schools but not teachers for Uyghur schools, he changed his argument to say that Uyghur children cannot even learn one language well, how can they manage two languages. The priority for Uyghur students should be to learn Chinese well. They can catch up with the Han students later. In other words, he implied Uyghur children were stupid and could not manage learning two languages. It is not true. I learned two languages at the same time: Chinese and English. I did much better than the Han students at the university. Other academics who agreed were similarly concerned that there were not enough Chinese teachers in schools. They also criticized the quality of Chinese teaching. Many schools do not teach Chinese well, so students coming to university only have very basic Chinese. The level is very low so it is hard for them to understand classes in Chinese. There are shortages of good Chinese teachers in schools. When we have trained bilingual


151

students here, they are not going to teach in schools, for example, they all work in government departments, or companies. None of them go to schools to teach Chinese. Changing policy at Xinjiang University In the early 2000s, two language policies were introduced at Xinjiang University. In that same year, the Chinese competence test Hanyu Shuiping Kaoshi (HSK) became the required entrance and exit Chinese examination for ethnic students. As an entrance test, students are required to pass Level 5 HSK to enter major studies and likewise required to pass Level 6 in order to qualify for graduation. A student should pass Level 7 to be awarded a bachelor degree in non-Chinese majors such as science, engineering and humanities, and Level 8 for a bachelor degree in Chinese majors. Starting in September 2002, the medium of instruction was changed from Uyghur or Kazak to Chinese for all courses except for those specifically related to ethnic languages and literature. The academics interviewed expressed no uniform view on this policy shift, as some supported the change and others opposed it. Supporters declared themselves to be motivated by the welfare of their graduates. One professor argued that Uyghur students who lack good Chinese language skills will have fewer employment opportunities. He said that during a survey discussion at an internal meeting in 1999, more than 80 percent of the graduates could not find a job due to the lack of Chinese language skills. The positions requiring Uyghur language skills, such as publishers of Uyghur newspapers and books were very limited for university graduates. In fact, most jobs require bilingual graduates with good command of the Chinese language. Even Uyghur academics agreed that it was a good move given that learning Chinese is important for a student’s future. One of the professors stated: Before 1995 students had jobs assigned to them. But in the current market economy, students have to look for jobs themselves and most private companies are looking for people with good Chinese language skills, even good English skills. Our students cannot compete with the Han Chinese students because their Chinese is not good; if they cannot understand our teaching in Chinese they can’t get a good job when they graduate. He also gave the example of a multi-million Yuan (RMB) Uyghur company, Arman, which had more Chinese than Uyghur employees because it needed workers with competent Chinese language skills.


On the other hand, the opponents of the policy shift cited educational grounds. They claimed that students learn best through their mother tongue and that most students who enter the university have lower levels of Chinese. Some academics reported that many students became affected when Chinese became the medium of instruction in 2002. Those who were most greatly affected were Uyghur and Kazak students who encountered extra pressures which resulted in failing courses. Worse, other students had to repeat entire academic years because they failed language requirements. A Uyghur academic from the school of Computer and Information Technology reported that most students asked him questions in Uyghur during and after lectures because they could not understand Putonghua. In this case, he had to sometimes switch to Uyghur during lectures to help students; this invariably increased in-class instruction time.

Disparity and inequality Urban/rural divide Inequalities based on ethnic differences were observed to exist between Chinese and Uyghur students in joint schools. It was also found that the current school merger policy has pragmatic rather than educational objectives. This amounts to a continuation of segregation, since students are separated according to their ethnicity. Overall, Chinese students have more opportunities than their ethnic counterparts. They have more time to study the rest of the curriculum, more access to international languages such as English, and more opportunities for further education and employment. Given their language deficiency, Uyghur students will be further left behind because of unequal schooling. The notion that knowing Chinese is enough but Uyghur is not, in reality is a form of discrimination. Differences between urban and rural schools also promote inequalities. In this respect, urban schools have better resources and it is easier for them to recruit teachers who are more likely to stay in urban areas. Their students also have earlier access to learning Chinese and their teachers have more opportunities for professional development. In addition, urban schools have more computers and teaching aids than rural schools. As a result, Uyghur children in rural schools are very much disadvantaged. These inequalities in language learning result from the government’s language policy, which clearly favors Chinese as a more prestigious language than Uyghur. Since the social, political and practical domains for Uyghur are decreasing, it has also lost its status as a regional super-language.


153

Han/Uyghur divide Uyghur children in both urban and rural areas, however, are experiencing unsatisfactory educational outcomes in mathematics and other school subjects through their study in Uyghur. They are also not reaching satisfactory levels of fluency in Putonghua and have no access to education in English as Han children do. The differences in teacher availability, teaching methods, suitable curriculum, books and resources would go a long way to account for the differential outcomes. Schooling also reflects society and its values. China’s current rapid economic development has increased the push towards Chinese (Putonghua and written Chinese). In effect, Uyghur parents now demand more opportunities for their children to learn Chinese, and schools are pressed to provide Uyghur students with greater access to high quality bilingual education. In order to do this, the government has to provide more resources and facilities as well as improve teacher training and the quality of the curriculum. This is particularly true in rural areas where such improvements are most needed. In recognition of a shift in attitudes among Uyghur parents toward Chinese, the government has responded with a plan to merge schools into bilingual programs by 2008. However, this response is at most inadequate because such mergers will not be effective unless its process is properly resourced. Apart from other resources, the critical shortage of Chinese teachers, especially in rural areas, has to be solved first. Does the present policy of schooling in these areas mirror Chinese attitudes towards ethnic minorities? Why does the XUAR policy exclude trilingual (Uyghur, Chinese and English) instruction for both Uyghur and Chinese students? Is it a question of politics or resources or a bit of both? It is claimed that there are insufficient human resources to provide Uyghurs with bilingual, let alone, trilingual education in rural areas. Why is it then, that there are enough resources for Chinese students to learn English but for them to learn Uyghur is not required? Evidently, this is no longer a problem of resources but of attitudes. Further proof of this attitude problem, is the argument that Uyghur students are unable to learn three languages which is just as well because of the shortage of resources. Likewise damaging, are the teachers’ comments that those who know Chinese are bright whereas those who only know Uyghur are not. In general, the fact that Uyghur students already suffer from low self esteem merely serves to perpetuate such self-fulfilling negative and racist attitudes. Is the government policy designed to merely assuage the demands of a proud ethnic group by responding minimally to their legitimate

154


demands while at the same time keeping them reasonably contented? Clearly, the present one-way language policy has reinforced Chinese as the dominant language which allows its speakers to have the power, prestige, and wealth to say “you have to learn my language I do not have to learn yours”. Is Chinese being groomed as the one national language for education, career and social advancement? Teaching and learning Chinese The main obstacle preventing Uyghurs from studying and learning Chinese are not their attitudes but rather a lack of opportunities. Most rural children attend Uyghur schools because of lack of choice, money or qualified Chinese teachers in their area. If it were possible to assign Han Chinese teachers for these rural schools, then Chinese learning would definitely expand and improve. However, many Uyghur parents would like their children to learn Chinese but not at their mother tongue’s expense. Unfortunately, minority children have not been provided with adequate education in Chinese and they have been excluded from learning English. In principle, these people have the right to education in their mother tongue and in national and global languages as well. The lack of adequate resources, well-trained teachers, and an appropriately designed curriculum for Chinese teaching as a second language all invalidate HSK outcomes. The policy of teaching Chinese from Year 3 or 4 in primary schools has not been effectively implemented. It has not even been adequately attempted in rural areas due to the lack of Chinese teachers. If Chinese is to be promoted as a second language for ethnic minorities, there should be a suitable Chinese second language curriculum. So far, XUAR has not developed a successful Chinese second language curriculum for ethnic minorities. Worse, its current Chinese curriculum’s focus on political ideology rather than on practical linguistic usage is irrelevant to students’ lives. Moreover, a relatively significant degree of social distance continues to exist between the Chinese and Uyghur communities. This is related to the Uyghurs’ lack of exposure to the Chinese language. If only the school system could provide quality teaching of both Chinese and English in Uyghur-medium schools, then Uyghur children are likely to acquire both of these two powerful languages in primary school. The question is not dependent on whether Uyghur children can cope with learning two foreign languages in primary schools. It is whether the government can provide the resources in teaching two foreign languages in primary schools. In reality, children can learn several languages in primary school when given appropriate opportunities.


155

However, the situation highly depends on government policies and on the availability of teachers. Similarly, it depends on whether government policy can support teaching English in Uyghur primary schools and supply enough teachers to do so. Over the last 50 years, the government has tried to enforce policies enabling all ethnic children to start learning Chinese in Year 3 or 4 of primary school. However, evidence indicates that there is basically an insufficient numbers of trained teachers to achieve this goal. While it appears that the Uyghur oppose the Chinese medium of instruction, what they may actually be opposed to is cultural and not linguistic immersion. Here, ethnic pride plays an important role. The Uyghurs of Xinjiang are a majority ethnic group with a very strong cultural and ethnic identity and a clearly defined sense of insiders and outsiders. In this regard, outsiders like the min kao han Uyghurs are hurt by their lack of acceptance, and maintain a strong desire to return home. In reality, the min kao min are the elites in Uyghur society rather than the min kao han. In the study, all four department heads and deputy department heads interviewed came from min kao min groups. The question arises as to why the min kao han send their children to Uyghur schools while min kao min, who strongly oppose the products of Chinese immersion, send their children to Chinese schools? It appears that both groups, in choosing schools for their children, wish to make up for what they believe they missed out on in their own schooling. Min kao han Uyghurs missed out on a happy childhood, like playing with their Uyghurs friends and being accepted by their own community. On the other hand, min kao min Uyghurs missed out on a chance to learn Chinese well and to learn a foreign language like Russian or English. It seems that both groups of Uyghurs support learning Chinese through a bilingual and bi-cultural school system. This is because they would like their children to acquire good Chinese language skills while maintaining their Uyghur identity at the same time. When the school system does not provide opportunities to do both, they are forced to make choices according to what they consider is the best benefit for their children. The government has accepted the objective of raising the standard of Chinese language skills among university graduates from ethnic backgrounds. They have started this through the HSK and changes in the medium of instruction. Unfortunately, it appears that secondary schools and universities are often mismatched in terms of undergoing the transformation from the mother tongue to a Chinese medium of instruction. This mismatch also occurs in places like Hong Kong where

156


Cantonese students switch from the mother tongue medium of instruction to English upon entering a university. Such a shift is still a big challenge for ethnic students, and is still incompletely managed in general. Due to social and economic changes, XUAR’s language policy of changing the mother tongue to a bilingual education will likely lead to monolingualism being replaced by bilingualism. If this present policy of bilingualism is to be further enriched to the level of tri-lingualism, then schools must be given the necessary resources to fulfill their mission. In sum, the ideal situation is a tri-lingual society where Uyghur is taken to be the language of solidarity, Chinese the language of power, and English as a language for globalization.

7 Bilingual Models of Minority Education in Yunnan

I am returning to where I left off, from my own Yunnan experiment which began in 1995. My impressions of this extraordinary world; its diversity, unique communities, different languages and culture, remain vivid after all these years. There, I met many professors and students proud of their identity. When they introduced themselves, they told me they were Bai, Naxi, Yi, Dai, Lisu, Lahu and so on. Although almost of them were conversant in Putonghua, all spoke in their own languages. This province is the southwestern gate of China, is 95 percent mountainous, and shares borders with Vietnam, Laos and Burma. Of all provinces in China, it is the most multi-ethnic with 25 official minority Table 7.1

Major minority ethnic populations of Yunnan1

Ethnic group

Population by 2005

%

Ethnic group

Population by 2005

%

Yi Bai Hani Zhuang Dai Miao Hui Lisu Lahu Va Naxi Yao Tibetan

4,935,800 1,613,000 1,478,300 1,232,100 1,232,100 1,068,000 689,200 652,400 453,500 399,800 297,800 202,000 134,700

11.09 3.62 3.32 2.77 2.77 2.40 1.55 1.47 1.02 0.90 0.67 0.45 0.30

Jingpo Blang Bouyei Pumi Achang Nu Jino De’ang Mongol Shui Manchu Derung Others

141,000 103,100 48,400 36,800 35,800 29,500 21,000 18,900 15,800 11,600 10,500 6,300 42,100

0.32 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.09

14,908,300

33.50

Total minority 157


communities. In fact, about a third of its population of 44.5 million is comprised of ethnic minorities living on both sides of its borders. Yunnan also has “unrecognized” nationalities, such as the Mosuo, who are awaiting official identification, as well as others applying for re-identification (see Table 7.1). Yunnan is a land of magnificent mountains, deep ravines, turbulent rivers and dense primeval forests. It is commonly accepted that over 120 languages are spoken here, although most are officially classified as dialects. For instance, it is recognized that the Yi speak more than six identified “dialects”, at least four of which are not mutually intelligible, and which in a strict linguistic sense are not dialects but languages. In 1989, the Education Commission of Yunnan Province estimated that over seven million minority people speak only their own native languages,2 and anecdotal evidence suggests that the number is greater. While most minority groups only have oral traditions, 14 minority nationalities in Yunnan use 22 written scripts. There is also evidence of great language loss. While economic and social pressures everywhere drive language change, favoring some languages above others, deliberate attempts to widen access to language groups in China have been a function of state language policy, and the school system, in particular. Given social resistance to Chinese language immersion programs and uncertain outcomes, China’s national language policy makers have begun field experimentation with bilingual programs. This chapter examines trial programs in Yunnan Province and the reactions of significant stakeholders, students, teachers, parents, principals and education officials.

Four models of bilingual programs in Yunnan The bilingual programs have been undertaken by four minority groups in this study: the Naxi in Lijiang Naxi Autonomous County, the Yi in Ninglang Yi Autonomous County, the Dai in Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture, and the Tibetans in Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture. Data was drawn from schools and the teachers, including Gongban (government employed staff) and Minban (community employed) teachers who receive half the salary of Gongban teachers. All involved teachers spoke Putonghua, because Minban teachers, since 1995, have been required to pass a Putonghua test before qualification for employment. The schools represented four types of language education programs: the “bilingual and Chinese-literacy” program (the Dai and Naxi schools),

Minority Education in Yunnan

159

the “bilingual and bi-literacy program” (the Yi school), the “language maintenance program” (the Dai school) and the “language enrichment program” (the Tibetan school). The “bilingual and Chinese-literacy” program maintains two oral languages, Naxi and Putonghua, but one literacy which is Chinese. The “bilingual and biliteracy” program utilizes two oral languages and includes minority written scripts. Meanwhile, the “language maintenance program” is defined as a minority language introduced as a subject, rather than as a medium of instruction. Finally, the “language enrichment program” is defined as a minority language taught as a subject, and used as a medium of instruction. Access to these educational programs was suggested by bureau education officials at the Yunnan provincial level supported by the special status of the minority groups. For example, Yunnan Province governor He Zhiqiang was from a Naxi background. The Yi in Ninglang were related to the Yi in Sichuan, who helped the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) during the Long March. The Dai have strong Buddhist beliefs and Buddhism is influential in Yunnan as well, As such, the Tibetan language group had religious and political ties through its associations with the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). According to government statistics, nine out of ten minority children had attended primary school, although a high drop out rate is conceded. Ninety of Yunnan’s 127 counties, including 52 minority autonomous counties, met the 6-year school requirements. However, only 34 counties met the compulsory nine-year education requirement. Four million people live in “poverty counties” where many school buildings are structurally unsafe. This state of affairs was tragically evident following the Sichuan earthquakes of 2008. The Yunnan provincial government had planned to introduce a 9-year compulsory education for 70 percent of its population by 2000. However, statistics show that these aims were far too ambitious. The new figures list 20,544 nationality primary schools, 3933 secondary schools, and over 3000 boarding and semi-boarding schools for minority students in mountainous regions. Eleven of the 28 teacher training colleges for primary teachers were for teachers from minority nationalities. Nevertheless, a severe shortage of minority primary school teachers exists. Huiyuan3 Primary School: the Naxi–Han bilingual program Huiyuan School is located 14 kilometres from the ancient city of Lijiang in Lijiang Naxi Autonomous County, which is a tranquil and beautiful site. Here, 95 percent of its 166 students are from Naxi families. The school is situated in the middle of the village, easily accessible from

160


Percentage of Language Instruction

the main road, and resembles a collection of farm houses with three classrooms on each side of a court-yard. There are rooms for teachers, including a dormitory for those coming from other areas, and a principal’s office by its entrance. All classrooms are mud brick, there are no window panes, and the spaces that are covered with paper are left open. The furniture consists of wooden chairs and tables made by local carpenters while most parents are engaged in farming or are local cadres. The average per capita income in 2004 was 3832 Yuan per year in Yunnan (the national average was 6227 Yuan) (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2005). Since 1983, the Naxi–Han bilingual program has used the Naxi language as the main medium of instruction for the Han language, mathematics, arts, music, sports, and ideology and character building (ICB). Teachers estimated that they used Naxi for instruction in Year 1 for 90 percent of the time, 70 percent in Year 2, and 40 percent in Year 3. Naxi was essentially eliminated in Years 4 to 6 as Han teachers took over the classes and the medium of instruction switched to Putonghua only (See Figure 7.1). According to the principal’s view, the objective of the bilingual education program is to reduce the dropout rate and improve students’ marks in the county and district examinations for the years 6 and 9. He maintained that the program is the “best practice” for students learning the Han language, mathematics, and other subjects, with the Naxi language serving as a bridge to help students until they were confident enough to learn through Putonghua. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grades Putonghua instruction Figure 7.1

Naxi instruction

Naxi and Putonghua instruction at Huiyuan School


161

Traditionally, Naxi has two written scripts, Dongba and Geba. A Latin based script was created in the 1950s. However, none of these written scripts has ever been introduced to students in the Huiyuan School. Classes used state-authorized textbooks in Chinese for the 9-year basic education, and its pupils sit for township and county general examinations in the Chinese language, mathematics, and ideology and character building. Since the introduction of the Naxi–Han bilingual education program there has been a dramatic improvement in examination performance. Moreover, the school’s achievements have been recognized through awards of excellence won from the County Education Bureau. Hongda School: the Yi–Han bilingual program Hongda School was a small building from a distance when it was pointed to me by the education officer. The official told me that it would take at least nine hours if I traveled by foot, because there were many hills along the way. So he ordered a jeep from the education department to visit the school with me. Even with a jeep, it took about two hours on dirt roads, zigzagging around the hills to get to the school. The school is located 17 kilometres from a county town in the Ninglang Yi Autonomous County in Xiao Liangshan (Small Cool Mountains) region bordering Sichuan and Yunnan. Ninglang has been rated as a poverty-stricken county, since the average per capita annual income of its farmers is only 200 Yuan. The school, with one of its main buildings used as a teachers’ dormitory and classrooms simultaneously, was poorly resourced with no telephone or computers. Overall, there were 123 students, 95 percent of whom were Yi, and two parallel pilot programs had been under trial for six years since 1989. One of its programs was referred to as the common class (putong ban), taught in Chinese only, and the other was referred to as the bilingual and bi-literate class (shuang yuwen ban), which was taught through Yi and Chinese. The common class used Putonghua, and the common curriculum of the county. Meanwhile, the bilingual class took a different approach. In Year 1 the medium of instruction was Yi, with Yi and Han language lessons taught for 14 and six periods a week, respectively. In Year 2, the Han language lessons were increased to 10 periods, and the Yi was dropped to eight periods. In Year 3, Yi lessons took six periods while Han took nine periods. Although mathematics was taught through Yi, all other subjects were taught in Putonghua. This pattern was maintained until Year 6 (see Figure 7.2). The principal declared that the Hongda’s objectives are to develop students’ Yi literacy and to enable them to learn Chinese. He further

162



90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grades Yi Instruction

Putonghua Instruction

Figure 7.2 Yi and Putonghua instruction at Hongda School

mentioned that learning the Yi script improves students’ cognitive skills. The Yi textbooks were compiled by the Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture under a program supported by the Yunnan Provincial Ethnic Affairs Commission, which provided 2000 Yuan annually towards costs. Moreover, the Commission organized in-service training for Yi teachers. After six years of experimentation, students from the bilingual and bi-literate class graduated with results above those of common class students. Lanping Primary School: the Tibetan–Han bilingual program Lanping Primary School is located in Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture on the border of Sichuan and Yunnan. Its snow-capped mountains, glaciers and ecological diversity characterize its unique setting and Tibetan lifestyle. The school was of modern design, square-shaped with one side of the building used as a student dormitory with six students per room on bunk beds. Two sides were used as classrooms, and the fourth side was comprised of offices. Established in 1980, Lanping Primary School maintained 273 students as boarders, 73 percent of whom were from Tibetan families along with other nationalities including Yi, Naxi, Lisu and Bai. Its enrolment policy was applied across nationalities, and the quota corresponded to the percentage in the general population of the prefecture. The school only took students from Grades 4 to 6, and 95 percent of parents were farmers with an annual per capita income


163


70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grades Putonghua Instruction

Tibetan Instruction

Figure 7.3 Tibetan and Putonghua instruction at Lanping School

below 300 Yuan. Most families lived more than 100 kilometres from the school; as such, the students returned home only during summer and winter vacations. Fifty percent of its funding came from the Yunnan provincial government, while the balance was from the prefecture government, and parents also shared 80 Yuan a year for food and other expenses such as fees. Prior to 1993, the provincial government provided 35 Yuan as warm clothes allowance but the practice was discontinued on grounds of costs. Under the Tibetan–Han Bilingual program, Tibetan was used to teach Tibetan language and culture, and Putonghua for the other subjects. Between 1989 and 1993, Tibetan was a compulsory subject for all students in Year 4 through 6 (see Figure 7.3). However, complaints from parents who opposed the teaching of Tibetan resulted in the latter becoming an elective taken mainly by Tibetan students. Surprisingly, the teachers indicated that even some Tibetan parents who were influential cadres in the prefecture did not want their children to learn using Tibetan as the medium of instruction. As an elective, Tibetan was taught for 14 periods per week, and the students who chose to study the subject must have taken seven periods more than those required for other electives. However, teachers believed that in order to fulfill the requirements of the Tibetan language syllabus, even more periods were necessary. The Tibetan language class aimed at teaching Tibetan children the “standard” Tibetan language spoken in Lhasa, because most Tibetan children in school spoke the Kangxi dialect. The program also aimed to

164


develop Tibetan literacy skills among students to serve as a basis for learning Han skills. The Tibetan language also formed part of the high school entrance examination with students given a 30 percent bonus mark in ranking if they attempted the Tibetan portion of the entrance examination. In 1995, a Tibetan county high school was established, and became the destination for most graduates from the Tibetan classes at Lanping. Zaining Primary School: the Dai–Han bilingual program


Zaining Primary School, 12 kilometres away from the county town in Luxi County, Dehong Dai, and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture has tropical surroundings consisting of trees and bamboo. The main school building was a three-storey concrete structure, with a few small rooms near the entrance on the ground floor. Four hundred and thirteen students were enrolled, and 97 percent came from the Dai nationality in Dehong. Most came from farming families, while a few students’ parents were engaged in business; the annual average income per capita was 800 Yuan. The stated objectives of the school were to help Dai children learn Putonghua through their mother tongue and to develop children’s cognitive skills. Its timetable was based on the minzu yu (minority languages) syllabus requirement of the Department of Education, Dehong Dai and Jingpo Prefecture. The timetable provided for 882 periods of Dai language taught through the course of six years of primary schooling. All other classes were held in Putonghua (see Figure 7.4). Students

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Grade Grade 1 2

Grade Grade Grade 3 4 5

Grade 6

Grades Yi Instruction Figure 7.4

Putonghua Instruction

Dai and Putonghua instruction at Zaining School

Minority Education in Yunnan Table 7.2

165

Comparative school data summary Huiyuan

Hongda

Lanping

Zaining

1. Population of students

166

123

273

413

2. Nationality of students

Naxi: 95% Pumi: 1.5% Han: 3.5%

Yi: 95% Naxi: 2% Pumi: 2.4% Han: 0.6%

Tibetan: 73.4% Yi: 6.1% Lisu: 5.1% Naxi: 11% Bai: 0.1% Han: 0.3%

Dai: 97% Han: 3%

3. Students’ Farmers: 97% family Cadres: 0.3% background Others: 2.7%

Farmers: 99% Cadres: 1%

Farmers: 89% Teachers: 6% Cadres: 5%

Farmers: 95% Business: 3% Teachers: 1% Cadres: 1%

4. Stated objectives of the bilingual programs

To help students to learn the Han language and other subjects.

To develop Han literacy skills through first language literacy. To develop students’ cognitive skills. To maintain the Yi language and culture.

To develop Han literacy skills through first language literacy. To maintain the Tibetan language and culture.

To develop Han literacy skills through first language literacy. To maintain the Dai language and culture.

5. Modes of delivery

Medium of instruction: NaxiPutonghua Naxi language (no script) Year 1–3 Putonghua Year 4–6

Medium of Instruction Yi-Putonghua Yi language (with script) Year 1–6 Putonghua Year 1–6

Medium of Instruction: Putonghua L1 as a Learning subject: Tibetan language (including script) is taught as a subject in Year 4–6

Medium of Instruction: Putonghua L1 as a leaning subject: Dai language (including script) is taught as a subject in Year 1–6

6. Textbooks

State unification textbooks for 9 Years Basic Education

State unification textbooks for 9 Years Basic Education Sichuan Liangshan Yi language textbook

State unification textbooks for 9 Years Basic Education Qinghai Province Tibetan language Textbook

State unification textbooks for 9 Years Basic Education Dehong prefecture Dai language textbook

Source: Tsung, 1999

166


received 30 bonus marks for Dai language learning in their high school entrance examination. Their Dai language textbooks were produced locally by the Education Department of the Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture. Languages spoken outside school Between the minority nationalities, clear differences emerged with regards to the languages spoken at home. Sixty percent of Dai students spoke their mother tongue at home, similar to 33 percent of the Naxi, 89 percent of the Tibetans, and 70 percent of the Yi students. Among Dai students, 38 percent spoke Putongua at home, while 36 percent of the Naxi did the same. Likewise, among the Tibetans and Yi students, 2.6 and 6 percent spoke Putonghua, respectively. Thus, the Tibetan students were the most linguistically insular; and the Naxi had the highest use of Putonghua. Student attitudes to bilingualism When asked whether students believed that bilingualism in minzu yu and Putonghua was a useful skill, 85 percent of the students agreed that command of both the mother tongue (minzu yu) and Putonghua was very useful, while 14 percent thought it was moderately useful. However, 97 percent of Naxi students stated that learning Putonghua was more important than Naxi. In contrast, only 10 percent of the Tibetans put Putonghua first. From the Naxi group, 97 percent agreed that the Han script was more important than the Naxi script. Perhaps, this is not surprising since the Naxi Dongba script is used mainly for religious practices and for shop signs to attract tourists while the Naxi phonetic script is used only as a bridging script in adult literacy classes. Only 5 percent of Tibetan students agreed that the Han script was more important than the Tibetan script. Furthermore, 49 percent among the Dai agreed that the Han script was more important. This is a surprising figure given the strong connection between the Dai language and its religion and culture. Student and language use Minority students expressed problems in understanding lessons in Putonghua irrespective of their motivation, and attitudes of their parents. Across all students, 42 percent experienced difficulties most of the time, including even those in grades 5 and 6. Dai and Naxi understood Putonghua-based instruction better than Yi and Tibetan students. When asked about their preferred language of instruction, 46 percent of the


167

students wanted their teachers to use bilingual instructions in minzu yu and Putonghua. However, there were significant internal differences as 61 percent of Naxi and 52 percent of Dai wanted Putonghua only; and 52 percent among the Yi and 42 percent of Tibetans wanted the mother tongue minzu yu only. This relatively high preference for Putonghua indicated by the Naxi and Dai students suggests an acceptance of integration and lack of minzu yu maintenance. When these students were asked if they felt a loss of identity when speaking Putonghua, only 2 percent said “always”, and 65 percent stated “never”. In contrast, Yi and Tibetan students were significantly more likely to rate Putonghua as a threat to their identity. In terms of student self-esteem with their own language, data showed strong positive effects stemming from the use of the mother tongue across all nationalities. Teachers and language use Principals and teachers alike argued that mother tongue instruction was essential, particularly if students had no Putonghua experience. Otherwise, the headmaster of Huiyuan Primary School, Mr He, declared that students were more likely to drop out of school. Thus, he allocated funds to hire minzu yu speaking teachers to teach Year One. Similarly, teachers recounted their experience when they themselves went to school during the 1970s. Then, the stern language policy was restricted to the use of Putonghua as the sole medium of instruction. One teacher recalled the difficult language barrier she dealt with. The language barrier was my most painful experience in my schooling. When I started primary school I could not understand Putonghua that my teacher spoke. I often ran back home. But my parents said if I did not go to school they would be fined 100 Yuan. My family was very poor. We could not pay 100 Yuan. I had to go back to school. (Yi) Similar problems arose when the teacher attended high school, where the medium of instruction was in Putonghua. As one Yi teacher explains: When I was a student, the most difficult thing was the language problem. When I was in primary school my teacher was a Han teacher. He taught us through the Yunnan dialect. I learnt how to understand and speak the Yunnan dialect. When I went to high school, my teacher used Putonghua to teach us. My classmates all spoke the Yunnan dialect. They had to change their Yunnan dialect to Putonghua. But I had to change from Yi to Yunnan dialect, then

168


Putonghua. In addition we had to learn English. My English teacher only used Putonghua to teach English. I had problems understanding her explanation in Putonghua. I was behind my classmates in all the subjects, because of my language problem. Meanwhile, some Yi teachers argued that the higher the grade level, the more the Yi language should be used since the abstract knowledge required by the school curriculum needed expression in the mother tongue.4 They were against the “pyramid model” by which minority languages are replaced by Putonghua in higher levels of primary schooling. Mathematics teaching in primary school was cited as an example. I use Yi to give instructions in math lessons. If children understand the instruction they can do the exercises very quickly. I think children always use Yi to work out answers. I allow them to talk to their classmates in Yi while they are doing their math. (Yi) One Yi teacher encouraged students to develop imaginative thinking skills through Yi language composition. He took notice that interesting ideas and vivid expressions were created through the children’s use of their first language. Children were encouraged to write essays in the Yi script, before translating them into the Han script.5 I asked children [in Year 5] to write about their most liked person in the Han language. At the beginning they wrote in the Han language and just copied what they had learnt about from the textbooks. No one wrote about a Yi person. When I asked them to write again in the Yi language, they wrote about a lot of Yi people in their life, for example, their parents and their neighbours. The writing was much more vivid and interesting. One of the students wrote about his grandfather who was a Bimo [Yi intellectual] and how his grandfather helped the Yi people. Bimos were charged as feudal gang masters in the Cultural Revolution. The government announced recently that they should now be addressed as Yi intellectuals. (Yi) At Huiyuan Primary School, the Naxi language was used to assist children in learning the Han language and math from Years 1 to 3. In this regard, the teachers discussed processes and outcomes: I explain the meaning of [Han] sentences to students in Naxi, so they can understand them. Then I ask them to read the sentences in


169

Putonghua. They remember them very quickly. In the past, students could memorize the whole sentence or short passage fluently without understanding the meaning. Bilingual teaching is the quickest way to do the job. Children can learn fast. I explain these rules to students, to correct their mistakes. (Naxi) Many minority nationalities in Yunnan only had an oral tradition. Officially, the government created 11 scripts for these nationalities, but none has been formally approved by the central government. Some teachers believed that the most people belonging to the minority nationality were against the use of these new scripts. One of them even maintained that the government opposed their use believing that it encouraged local nationalism. Generally, a few scripts were taught in Yunnan for experimental purposes, while majority of the created scripts were not in use, and children were currently taught the Han script exclusively. Moreover, the decision that the Naxi phonetic script would not be taught in Huiyuan Primary School was made by the school principal and teachers. They believed that although it was important to maintain their Naxi culture and oral language, the use of the Naxi script was considered superfluous. One teacher commented: We [Naxi] have three scripts: The Dongba, Geba and Latin scripts. The Dongba script is a pictograph script. It is very backward. We cannot teach this script to our children. A lot of people now use this script in their shops. They just want to attract tourists. The Geba was based on the Dongba. The Latin script was developed in the 1950s by the government but nobody actually uses it. (Naxi) In the Lijiang district where a large number of minority languages such as the Bai, Lahu, Va and Dulong have no functional written scripts, minority languages are used exclusively. This mode was pointed out by Mr He as commonly used in the one-teacher-one-school system (yishi yixiao) established due to a lack of both teachers and school premises in remote areas. In this system, students of several grades were taught in a single classroom which served as a teacher’s office and bedroom as well. The one-teacher school system has been dramatically reduced since the 1990s, and has been replaced by consolidated schools with six grades and more teachers. However, Mr He of the Lijiang County Education Department indicated that 180 out of the 240 schools operating in the county are the one-teacher type which employs the mother tongue medium of instruction only.


Parental attitudes to language use Parental demand with regards to first language literacy had a strong influence on school language policy. Zaining Primary School’s principal, Mr Gao, said that Dai parents refused sending their children to school if teachers did not use Dai as the medium of instruction in Year One. In the early part of the 1990s, more children were sent to Buddhist temples than schools because parents wanted their children to learn the Dai script. Mr Gao explained: Our Dai people all believe in the Buddhist religion. It is our tradition to send our boys to temples for their education. A survey conducted in the 1950s revealed that 95 percent of Dai males were literate in the Dai script. The anti religion sentiment during the Cultural Revolution had the effect of creating illiteracy among the Dai people. The principal and teachers in the Dai school claimed that the introduction of bilingual education programs reduced the numbers of children attending class in temples. It seems that the new programs meet parents’ desires for their children to learn their own language and culture. One teacher commented: Since we started the bilingual education program, parents are happier to send their children to schools. Before that we had half the male students drop out to go to temples. Classes became girl classes. Parents said schools did not teach their language; they had to send their children to learn the Dai language in temples. On the other hand, Tibetan teachers in Lanping Primary School stated that local Tibetan schools changed their language policy to meet parent demands and to compete with monasteries for students. One principal and one teacher reported: Before we introduced the Tibetan language, many parents sent their children to the local monastery. In the religious boom years between 1983 and 1989, about 60 Tibetan children in Year 4 dropped out from schools and were sent by their parents to Songzhan Monastery [Gyathang Soomzenling]. The student drop-out rate has been reduced since schools started teaching the Tibetan language. (Han) The Tibetan language is an important part of the cultural heritage of the Tibetan people. Parents wish their children to maintain both our written and oral traditions. This is the reason why parents send their


171

children to monasteries. The Songzhan Monastery in the county is one of the biggest Monasteries in Yunnan province. The Monastery has a 500-year history, was established by the fifth Dalai Lama and has housed many famous Lamas. The Monastery was partly destroyed during the Cultural Revolution. Parents set more value on Tibetan education than Han education. An educated Tibetan must be literate in Tibetan script. I teach children our Tibetan culture. They are very motivated to learn the Tibetan language. (Tibetan) In the two language programs of the Zaining and Lanping Primary Schools in Yunnan, the Dai and Tibetan languages were taught as subjects and not used as the medium of instruction. Here, Tibetan takes 30 percent of the total teaching time while Dai takes 71 percent for Year 1. However, Dai instruction has been sharply reduced to 10.71 percent of the teaching time in Year 2, then further to 7.14 percent in Year 6. Overall, not enough time seems available. By the end of Year 1 children cannot read and write all the Dai scripts. They will be able to know Dai spelling rules and tones. They can use these tone symbols to read short texts. They can read a short essay and write messages such as sick leave forms. They can use punctuation. Dai is easier to learn [than Han]. But we need to have more time to develop their (Dai) literacy skills. This statement was supported by senior teachers. Professor Yang at the Yunnan Institute of Nationality Studies stated that it takes three years for adult Dai students to study the Dai script at their Institute. These Dai students must have good proficiency in spoken Dai and pass an oral test before joining the course. Furthermore, he believed that this weakness in literacy skills among Dai adults could be surpassed by increased instruction time in schools.

Driving language change: curriculum related issues and cultural aspects Although the syllabus of Han as a Second Language for Minority Students (HSLMS) was issued in 1983, it was not applied in the Yunnan province. Hence, all schools used the State Han language textbooks for their Nine Years Basic Education. In effect, this required the minority to learn the same curriculum as the Han. The centralized school curriculum requires that students undertake three compulsory subjects in

172


primary school for junior high school entrance examination – Chinese language, mathematics, and ideology and character building (ICB). ICB, which is compulsory from Year 1 to 6, aims to teach minority children about socialism, economics and patriotic thought. However, this subject was considered difficult for minority children to grasp. In this subject, many words describe abstract concepts that children have yet to encounter. Abstract words without explanations in the mother tongue are largely incomprehensible to them. Two teachers gave their opinions: I believe the most important and interesting things for children to learn are things around them; the vocabulary and phrases they use everyday; the stories they hear from their parents and their grandparents. We do not teach them this. The State textbook for nineyear basic education has very little content relating to children’s lives here. The most difficult subject is Ideology and Character Building. There are too many words with abstract concepts which are hard to explain to children. (Jingpo) We have been teaching children to have “Five loves” [love of motherland, Chinese people, socialism, labour, and science]. None of them is concrete and relevant to a child. We should teach them to love Yi people and make them proud of being Yi. A lot of words with abstract meanings, such as shehui zhuyi (socialism), and jingji fazhan (economic development), have proven very hard for children to understand. We just gave them examples in the Yi language. This really helped them understand the Han language. (Yi) Teachers also complained of a lack of relevant teaching content in the Han-dominated State textbooks used for the Nine Years Basic Education curriiculum. A Year 2 teacher commented: I have to teach one lesson in which the teacher took students to sweep snow. In Dehong we have never seen any snow in our lives. I explained to students that snow is a kind of rain, but because the weather was so cold the rain became snow; when the sun comes out the snow will become rain again. The students became confused. They could not understand why the teacher in the text would sweep the snow. If snow becomes rain we never sweep the rain. The meaningfulness of the Yi language textbook was also questionable as it was a mere translation of content taken from the Han textbook. Elements in the Yi texts appeared artificial even though the texts were written in Yi.


173

Examinations Examinations remain an important part of the Chinese education system. Historically, the Han literacy examination is disabling for minority students. However, the government has not attempted to change the examination system other than giving concessionary marks to students for university entrance. Quite expectedly, large numbers of students fail to qualify. Due to the shortage of junior high schools, competition is intense during Year 6. At this point, an examination is held to shortlist applicants for high school. In April during the final primary years, there is a general examination held by the township. Another test is required by the county in May, while the provincial test for graduation is held in July. Results determine whether the child needs to repeat a Year, could progress to high school, or be asked to leave school at this point. Subjects to be examined in primary schools are: the Han language, mathematics, and the ICB. Examination questions and answers are always in the Han language, including problem solving questions that attract the most marks in mathematics. Minority languages are either not examined or not counted in the results when entering high school. Furthermore, a teacher’s role is to ensure that their students passed all exams for high school entry. If a subject is considered unimportant for examination purposes, most teachers think it is not worth the time to teach. Local educational officials have emphasized that the priority should be to achieve “best results” in the “common examination.” Since the minority script is not a requirement, many think of it as a mere waste of time to teach. Consequently, most minority children generally regularly failed the examination annually. Teachers were particularly concerned that mathematics examination was conducted in the Han language, rather than in minzu yu (minority language). A teacher explained: I had a student who was very intelligent. He was very good in Mathematics. In the last three years general county examination he had always won the math award. But he failed his exam in the high school entrance examination because he could not understand one of the Mathematics questions. I believe the question should be in the first language or both. (Yi) Some teachers complained that the bilingual education policy and frequent examinations increased children’s workload because their students had to put extra time studying the mother tongue. The Han language syllabus for minority children issued by the State Education

174


Commission in 1983, described the Han language as a secondary for minority children. However, the demands of the syllabus seemed to put the language as primary and the students’ primary schooling was increased from a five- to a six-year system using the same curriculum in 1984. The commonly applied measure in assessing quality in education is called “marks”. Hence, improvement outcomes are judged according to the improvement of the students’ “common” examinations (tong kao) marks in the township, county and provincial exams. Mr Shen, a Naxi teacher and Hongda Primary School’s principal reported: In 1989, we started two classes. One was the bilingual class, the other one was a common class using the Han language only. The two classes just graduated last month. The bilingual class had 90 percent students passing the high school entrance examination, but in the common class only 30 percent passed. Only two students in the bilingual class dropped out during the six years; in the common class 11 students dropped out. The bilingual program has improved examination marks. In the “common examination” last year, my bilingual class had five students who received awards in Math. I received an award and salary bonus. Whether these claims would hold true outside an experimental situation awaits evaluation. The impact of cultural elements on language learning Differences in culture and living habits influence language learning. The teachers pointed out that apart from learning a new language, minority children must also learn an unfamiliar culture. Some Yi teachers discussed that the lack of a corresponding vocabulary from Yi to Han was a major difficulty confronting Yi students because their community is marked by different customs and lifestyles compared with the Han. Many words relating to the Han customs have no equivalent in Yi and these inhibitors were reflected in teachers’ comments: The Yi language is different from the Han language. Yi grammar has a subject-object-verb structure. The Han language has a subject-verbobject structure. A lot of Han vocabulary is not found in the Yi language, such as jiangyou (soy sauce), feizao (soap), and so on. We need to use the Yi language to explain this to students. These exercises prevent them from making mistakes in examinations. (Yi)


175

When Mr Sha, an educator from the Yunnan Teachers’ University, compared 1285 commonly used words in the Han language with the four minority languages in Yunnan, just over half of them (51 percent or 658 words) had no corresponding vocabulary. In the primary Han textbooks, 86 percent of words related to abstractions, such as politics and the economy which had no corresponding concepts in the minority vocabulary.6 Mr Sha pointed out that the differences in languages and culture should be recognized by language policy makers and curriculum designers but those needs have been frequently ignored. Indeed, minority languages were typically considered backward because of the lack of corresponding vocabulary. In recent years, the Yi nationality has exerted great efforts to revive its script which the government outlawed in the 1950s. One Han scholar admits that the abolishment of the Yi script was a result of a bad United Front policy.7 Yi teachers argue that usual practices have been discriminating against minority languages, despite being classified and recognized as independent languages in theory. The Yi script was considered backward and was replaced by a Latin script in the 1950s. As one Yi teacher pointed out: Our script was created at emperors’ almost the same time as the Han. Archaeologists have recently discovered the Yi emperors’ signature (chop) in the Yi script dating back to AD 900. Civil Service Examination papers dating to this period have also been discovered in Yi script. The penetration of Han script in education and the civil service during the Qing Dynasty reduced the use of Yi script to religious purposes. In the 1950s the government said our script was backward and religious. Therefore our script was abolished and replaced by Latin scripts. Our Yi people rejected the new script and refused to learn it. We insisted on the revival of our original script. Only in 1980 did the State Council recognize our position and approve our request. The bilingual education policy gives us the right to teach our children this script as part of their cultural and historical heritage. We teach our children to be proud of their background and to reject insinuations made by the Han that we are backward. Teachers from minority nationality backgrounds are more likely to be aware of the language barriers their students confront. However, teacher training institutions emphasize Putonghua and the policy does not mandate resource allocation for textbook production for teachers’ training in minority language components despite the needs of

176


minority students in the area. The constraints teachers encountered in bilingualism are increased by the centralized syllabus while curriculum with bilingual programs are seen as a means of phasing students into Putonghua, and the first language is usually phased out in Year 3. Therefore, it is not treated as an educational learning in its own right. Indeed, the “pyramid model” policy for minority students in Yunnan, which uses first language to be eventually eclipsed, could be considered a form of transitional integration. However, knowledge of Putonghua remains a crucial access to social mobility, opportunity and economic advancement. Thus, a strong desire in maintaining minority languages for local cultural identity and religious observance at the grassroots level exists.

8 Minority Communities in Post-colonial Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is not an interesting place for anyone examining China’s minority languages since nine out of ten residents speak Cantonese as a first language. Cantonese is considered a Chinese dialect, and has phonological, morphological and syntactic level differences with Putonghua. In fact, most Cantonese speakers find the Putonghua pronunciation system unfamiliar. This is because only a few of them have learned it through Hanyu Pinyin, the transcription system for romanizing Putonghua. In recent years, many mainland migrants have entered Hong Kong under family reunion or young professionals programs. Since these mainland migrants are predominantly Putonghua speakers, they form a minority community unlike Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong. This is despite the fact that more than 518,000 mainland Chinese have immigrated to Hong Kong since the 1997 handover. The majority of them are wives and children of Hong Kong citizens. This influx has changed the social dynamics in Hong Kong, as 35 percent of current marriages registered in Hong Kong involve a spouse from mainland China. This has also triggered a host of controversies that has sharpened the divisions between Hong Kong Chinese and mainland immigrants. Furthermore, these changes in recent years have been accompanied by increasing reports of discrimination and demands for more jobs from the newly arrived immigrants. The mainlanders are frequently stereotyped by Hong Kong residents as low-paid unskilled workers competing for limited jobs and welfare resources. Hence, they tend to face economic hardships and social marginalization as they are depicted as ill-mannered outsiders who speak Putonghua or Cantonese with an accent. Southern Asian minorities comprise the bigger part of minority communities who are non native speaking Chinese. Although it is not 177


widely recognized that these groups also claim Hong Kong as their home, many had begun living there during the time of British rule and finally decided to settle. According to the 2006 Population Census, Hong Kong has 342,198 permanent and mobile non-Chinese residents which accounts for 5 percent of its total population. More than half of these non-Chinese residents originally come from Southern Asian countries including the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Nepal and Pakistan. As such, Southern Asians in Hong Kong form various subgroups of diverse geographic, linguistic and religious origins. In 1841, Sikh soldiers participated in the flag raising ceremony at Possession Point declaring Hong Kong a British colony and went on to serve as the settlement’s earliest policemen. Indeed, the word for policeman in Cantonese “t∫hai55 jen21” comes from a derogatory expression referring to Indians and other Southern Asians in terms of their skin color. Currently, there are other Southern Asians as well as Europeans who continue to serve in Hong Kong’s police force. The largest among the minority groups are the 140,000 Filipinos working in Hong Kong, the majority of whom serve as foreign domestic helpers. A special feature of Hong Kong culture transpires every Sunday when thousands of Filipino domestic workers flock to attend Catholic mass in the morning and then gather around covered public places around Central Hong Kong and Kowloon. In these places they spend their day off socializing until about nine o’clock in the evening, after which they head back to the homes of their employers seemingly vanishing until the following Sunday. Most Filipino domestic helpers speak fluent English and a number of them even have university degrees. Thus, Western expatriates prefer to hire them since they can communicate much better. In effect, a number of Cantonese families engage with them because it provides their children with opportunities to practice English. Usually, Filipinos acquire some Cantonese through their daily interactions with their employers and during shopping and purchasing food at local markets. However, they have not been in Hong Kong long enough for a large number of their population to speak Cantonese fluently. Therefore, most Filipinos in Hong Kong communicate with the locals in English and with their compatriots in Tagalog. The first Filipinos came to Hong Kong in the years immediately following World War II, while others arrived through inter-marriages mostly with Western expatriates. Generally, they are considered as a transient group. Each year, large numbers of Filipinos leave Hong Kong permanently. They are consequently replaced by others who must learn some Cantonese anew. Although domestic workers greatly outnumber

Post-colonial Hong Kong

179

Filipinos belonging to other professions, Hong Kong has increasing numbers of Filipino professionals including architects, civil engineers, accountants and lawyers. Immigration to Hong Kong from Indonesia began in the 1960s, when Indonesian Chinese arrived seeking to escape discrimination at home. Similar to Filipinos, Indonesians find work mainly as foreign domestic helpers. In 2006, the approximately 102,100 Indonesian workers in Hong Kong represented a growth of almost 250 percent more than the 41,000 population reported in 2000. For the most part, they are believed to be superiorly trained in household work and known to speak good Cantonese. Since most Indonesians in Hong Kong are Muslims, their groups can be seen reading the Quran at Hong Kong Island’s Victoria Park during their day off. Among the 18,500 Indians living in Hong Kong, about 21 percent were born locally. The original Indian people arrived as laborers during the colonial era. Currently, most Indian men work as managers and administrators, while most of the women are non-professionals. A significant majority lives on Hong Kong Island and in Kowloon and about 16 percent reside in the New Territories. Four distinct Indian communities currently make Hong Kong their home. These include Sindhis, Sikhs, Jains and Parsis. The predominately Hindu Sindhis are the largest group which originally came from the Sind district which is now part of Pakistan. The Sindhis, with a population of about 10,000, are also Hong Kong’s wealthiest Southern Asian community. Historically, they have played an important role in trade, particularly in import and export businesses with Africa and the Middle East. They have also provided funds for the establishment of the University of Hong Kong and the 100-year-old Star Ferry.1 The Sikh community, which has a population of 7500, is a combination of the Indian and the Pakistani Punjabi people and cultures. Traditionally, they have worked as guards, police officers, watchmen and soldiers. The top Hong Kong civil servant, Mr Harnam Singh Grewal, comes from a Sikh family. He was also the former Secretary for Transport and the Secretary for Civil Service in the 1980s. Most recently, people from the Sikh community have found employment in the financial sector. Meanwhile, the Jains, with a population of 500, are not only one of the smallest, but also the youngest community in Hong Kong. Jains, who originally arrived from the provinces of Gujarat and Rajasthan, are prominent in the diamond trading business. Finally, Hong Kong’s smallest Indian community but one of its oldest comprises the Parsis.

180


Most of them work as traders, merchants and opium shippers. Parsis descended from a minority in India, tracing its ancestry back to Persia (Pars) and adhering to the Zoroastrian religion. According to a 2002 survey, Hong Kong had less than 200 Parsis. Despite this, they maintain a secure economic status like the Jains. The majority of the 12,500 Nepalese residing in Hong Kong are exGurkhas and their offspring. After the 1997 handover, several Gurkhas chose to remain in Hong Kong under the sponsorship of their Hong Kong-born children who have the right of abode. Currently, a significant number of ex-Gurkhas work as security guards for companies and live in Shek Kong and Yuen Long District, which was the site of an important British army base in earlier times. Similar to the Nepalese, many Pakistanis came to Hong Kong as army officers or as police force members during the colonial period. The 2001 Census reports that about 30 percent of the 11,000 Pakistanis living in Hong Kong were born in the former British colony. Nearly half of their men work in semi-skilled occupations while the women are mainly clerks, service workers and shop salespersons. Most Pakistanis live in Kowloon and in the New Territories. Census data reveal that with some exceptions, Southern Asian minorities in Hong Kong have lower economic status. The median monthly income from their main employment ($3,800) is only 38 percent of the average $10,000 salary of the total working population. According to a recent study, three-quarters of Southern Asians expressed that their biggest problem in job searching is that they do not understand Cantonese and Mandarin. Unfortunately, most jobs are advertised in Chinese (Ku, Chan and Sandhu 2006).

Language policy and education practice The language policy goal of the HKSAR government is for all residents to become trilingual in Cantonese, English and Putonghua, and biliterate in Chinese and English. Currently, Hong Kong’s population is 95 percent ethnic Chinese, of which 89 percent speak Cantonese as their first language.2 Before 1997, Cantonese was used for instruction in primary schools while English was used for secondary schools. However, the Hong Kong government issued a “firm guidance” directive requiring Chinese (Cantonese) to be the medium of instruction after 1997. It was agreed that after July of that year, Hong Kong would become a place where Putonghua is the language of politics and administration, English for technology and trade, and Cantonese as the household


181

language. However, Putonghua has displaced English as the language of technology and trade as more Hong Kong people seek employment and business opportunities on the mainland. Under its “firm guidance” directive, HKSAR ordered the start of mother tongue instruction from Secondary One. As a matter of fact, out of the 421 government and government-subsidized schools, only 114 were approved to use English as the Medium of Instruction (EMI), and Chinese was to be taught simply as a subject. Meanwhile, the remaining 307 were approved for the use of Chinese as the Medium of Instruction (CMI). Nevertheless, there was considerable debate over the number of EMI schools. Many believed that mother tongue instruction raised the quality of education and enabled students to achieve higher performance levels (Shek et al., 2001). Irrespective of these arguments, the new policies that focused on teaching at least some Chinese in all schools failed to address the concern. Specifically, they were not able to resolve two of the main difficulties faced by many Southern Asian students. First, only a few schools can provide Southern Asian students with instruction in their mother tongue, as there are neither the teachers nor the curriculum resources to do so. Second, there are only a limited number of schools catering to Southern Asian students. Since 1997, international and local laws and regulations applying to Chinese and permanent non-Chinese residents guarantee educational access even for foreign minority children. These differ from stipulations provided to children in the mainland. Under Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economics, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the educational rights of Hong Kong people are protected. This is in effect as along as all parties acknowledge free and compulsory primary and general secondary education, including access to tertiary education. Furthermore, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) is relevant to Hong Kong. In fact, the right to education and training for all, regardless of race, color and national or ethnic origin was acceded and stipulated in Article 5 in 1969. Currently, the Education Bureau (EDB) of HKSAR has declared that all eligible local children, including those belonging to ethnic and non-Chinese speaking (NSC) minorities, are entitled to nine years of free and universal education. The HKSAR’s policy is designed to facilitate the early integration of these ethnic minority students into local education systems. With this policy, the parents can enroll their children either by applying directly to schools or through the EDB, which will arrange places for them within 21 working days. According to the latest statistics, there are a total 28,722 ethnic minority

182


students studying full-time in schools or educational institutions in Hong Kong. The data also shows that 12,879 are enrolled in primary while 7,773 are in the secondary level, and 1,293 are enlisted in tertiary schools (Census and Statistics Department, 2007, p. 51.) However, there are only a few directly subsidized public or government schools that provide education to suit the needs of pupils who speak English but not Chinese or those who speak neither. The EDB’s 2002 “Education Facilities for Non-Chinese Speaking Children”, lists only six primary and eight secondary government and government-aided schools. Since some of the schools listed are quite prestigious, admission usually involves stiff competition and superior academic achievement requirements (Loper, 2004). Hence, ethnic minority students are at a disadvantage given that they typically attend lower quality primary schools (Ming Pao Weekly, 2003, cited in Ku et al., 2005, p. 6). Furthermore, English Foundation Schools and private international schools are likewise listed in the survey. Unfortunately, studies show that their high fees are beyond the limited means of most ethnic minority families in Hong Kong who belong to a lower economic status (Ku, Chan, Chan, & Lee, 2003; Ku et al., 2005). Despite these, the EDB claims that access to education for ethnic minorities has improved since 2004. The bureau stated that there are currently 10 designated primary and five (from the previous two) designated secondary schools which traditionally accept students of ethnic minority groups. Since the 2004 allocation exercise, however, students admitted to Primary 1 and Secondary 1 have also been allowed to opt for mainstream schools. Thus, non-Chinese speaking (NCS) students, though there are few, have been widely distributed among more than 40 schools. The five designated secondary schools have the greatest number of Southern Asian students in their respective educational regions. Conversely, it does not necessarily mean that they have largest number of such students in Hong Kong. As Southern Asians increasingly opt to study in mainstream schools, major problems arise from their difficulties in learning Chinese and the absence of an alternative curriculum for them.3 In this scenario, parents face the dilemma of having to choose between a school with Chinese as a medium of instruction or one with English; and since English is the de facto second language for most of them, many parents prefer the latter. The setback is that there are only three designated English medium secondary schools: Taiyee Memorial School, Lokmei Secondary School and Hong Fung Secondary School. On the other hand, some parents prefer their children to continue


183

studying in a Chinese medium secondary school. This is usually the case for children who attended a Chinese medium primary school in Hong Kong. However, these students may be forced to study in an English medium school since they are designated as NCS. Generally, Hong Kong students who wish to be admitted to university undergraduate programs funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC) are required to pass the Advanced Supplementary Level Use of Chinese Language and Culture portion of the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE). There is relatively difficult among NCS students as the Chinese language requirements for university admission can be conceived as a form of racial discrimination. In this regard, UGC-funded institutions exercise flexibility in the admission process, including recognizing other examination entry scores, waiving some Chinese language requirements, and considering outstanding results in non-language subjects. Ethnic minority students risk failure as NCS students attending Chinese medium schools may fail due to language barriers. Similarly, NCS students attending English medium schools may fail to receive adequate education in Chinese. In another case, secondary school students may be forced to drop learning French in pursuit of Putonghua or Cantonese.

Programs in support of NCS students It is widely known that members of ethnic minority groups who lack Chinese skills face obstacles in their efforts to integrate into the Hong Kong community. As a response, the HKSAR and EDB convened in April 2007, to appoint the author as project leader in operating support centers in five government-aided secondary schools during the from 2007–2008. Through the assistance of the University of Hong Kong, NCS students and Chinese language teachers were targeted and three tasks were identified: (1) to operate a one-year course of afterschool and holiday learning activities catering to NCS students with multiple entry and exit levels; (2) to provide NCS students taking the 2007 public examinations with an intensive program of instruction in Chinese; and (3) to conduct teacher development workshops. The program operated on a voluntary basis and was free of charge for South Asian students who could also take other examinations such as the GCSE Chinese (the General Certificate of Secondary Education) in the United Kingdom and the HKCEE (Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination).

184


Survey of students and teachers In July 2007, a student needs survey was conducted with 387 respondents and in-depth interviews with teachers. Accordingly, over 95 percent of the students claimed to understand, speak, read and write English and over 50 percent stated that they understand and speak Cantonese. However, only 8 percent claimed to understand Putonghua and even fewer respondents actually speak it. Nearly 80 percent said that they were “very good”/“good” at speaking their mother tongue while 50 percent declared themselves good at writing with it. Finally, 70 percent said that English was the most commonly spoken language at home. Consistent with their comparatively strong English skills, the student respondents expressed that English was their preferred language both in and out of school. On the other hand, 74 percent of the respondents said that they learned Cantonese at school, and 24 percent learned it outside school. In contrast, only 4 percent indicated that they learned Putonghua at school and 2 percent learned it outside. Meanwhile, French was popular among respondents with nearly 7 out of 10 studying it in school “in order to pass an examination”. When asked why they were studying Chinese, half of them indicated “to get a job” while for others, it was “to pass examinations,” “make friends,” and “to talk to neighbors.” Some students also claimed to have learned a little Chinese from watching Chinese TV programs or DVDs. On the other hand, those who were not learning Chinese responded that it was “too difficult to learn”, and “Chinese lessons were boring”. Clearly, the majority of them thought that they could get by without ever learning it. Notwithstanding their low levels of ability in comprehending Chinese, students commonly viewed it as important. In fact, more than eight out of ten student respondents expressed that learning Chinese was “very important” and only two percent said otherwise. However, when the students were asked whether they were willing to attend Chinese tutorial class after school or on Saturday mornings, the majority refused, saying “no”. Only one in ten ethnic students said that they would choose to attend Chinese medium schools. Teachers also provided comments on student attitudes: Many NCS students do not attach much importance to the learning of Chinese. Some of them have been living in Hong Kong since they were born and they have finished primary education in Hong Kong, but they still cannot speak the language. They seem to ignore the language.


185

Most of them, the Form 1 NCS students, actually do not want to learn Chinese. But their parents think they do, and we teachers also think they wish to learn. In fact, I find them experiencing enormous difficulties and bitterness in learning. They learn the language unwillingly. They feel the Chinese courses are too difficult and boring. They [NCS students] tend to live in their own circle of life and have little chance to use what they have learnt in Chinese courses in daily life. According to some staff, NCS students appeared to be more willing to learn listening and speaking skills rather than reading and writing skills. The [NCS] students are much more active in learning how to speak the language. They want to acquire some simple conversational Cantonese so that they can communicate with Chinese students. They are also happy when they participate in speaking activities. However, they are reluctant to learn the characters because they think that they have no need. It was found that the teaching of Chinese to NCS students is not the same as teaching Putonghua among Cantonese students. Hence, it is believed that specifically developed teaching methods are required when NCS students approach Chinese as a second or third language. In lieu of this, some schools have attempted designing their own Chinese Second Language (CSL) curriculum and have tested its effectiveness. On the other hand, the majority have only basically opted to shorten and simplify the existing Chinese language curriculum for local Cantonese speaking students. Meanwhile, several schools are still confused as to what and how to teach Chinese among these students. In addition, schools experience a shortage of qualified and experienced CSL teachers. Since NCS students cannot understand Chinese, English language teachers who speak Chinese are usually appointed to teach them. We appointed an English teacher when we first began [to teach NCS students Chinese]. The Cantonese teacher had a major in Translation and was proficient in both Chinese and English. The second teacher’s specialty was also in Translation. As for training, we do not know how to train second language teachers or who could train them. Our teachers did not have any training in teaching Chinese

186


as a second language. Still, general teaching principles and techniques helped. We find students at Form 1 usually feel that the Chinese course is easy but by Form 2 differences in learning ability begin to emerge, with only the fast learners able to cope with the course; and by Form 3 these differences enlarge. We think the content and design of the course are ok, but students are making little progress. So we think there must be something that we lack. We are now still looking into this issue. One of our beliefs is that the NCS students must have special needs, and they need special teaching strategies. The NCS teaching staff in secondary classes also identified other issues: Some NCS students in my class are new arrivals, and have not learnt Chinese before and have no foundation. Some others have learnt the language in Hong Kong primary schools so when they upgrade to secondary school, they basically have no big problem in listening and speaking. So it is difficult to teach [such a class]. At first, I normally used English to teach, and three weeks later, I taught firstly in Cantonese and then in English to facilitate understanding. We do not have enough teaching resources and supplementary learning materials. If we had more materials such as character cards and bulletins, it will be easier for us to explain and for the students to understand. I have some problems with class discipline. It is not easy to focus their attention because their Chinese level varies a lot. Learning the characters presented another major challenge. Writing Chinese characters is too difficult for them [the NCS students]. They said the characters look like pictures. They are simply not able to “draw” the characters that have many strokes. Therefore, at first, I taught them the components to give them some ideas of the structure of the characters. If they can understand, I will remind them of the appropriateness of the strokes when they are writing. In this way, I think they will develop an awareness of following the strokes while writing the Chinese characters. Moreover, other difficulties were emphasized in learning to speak Cantonese. Despite the help of Jyutping (a romanized system based on


187

Cantonese pronunciation), students still experience difficulties with pronunciation and tone. One of the reasons which emerged is that so many characters are associated with the same pronunciation, and another problem is that students are unwilling to speak and practice during class. According to teachers, they want their students to talk more since they believe that a greater willingness to speak would lead to more success in other language skills such as listening and reading. It was also reported that a few NCS students had learning difficulties like dyslexia, which renders them unable to differentiate the strokes and their length. The difficulties in learning vocabulary depend on its use and grammar. Since NCS students seldom use Chinese in their daily affairs, they have limited opportunities to practice vocabulary and grammar outside class. Another factor preventing them from acquiring a larger Chinese vocabulary is their resistance to memorization, and where in fact, several NCS students displayed a hatred for memorizing. Yet, learning Chinese requires a certain degree of memorization particularly with respect to pronunciation and characters. It seems that cultural differences are among the major factors leading NCS students to resist rote memorization. Southern Asian parents’ voices As stated earlier, 22 NCS parents were also interviewed to solicit their views on learning Chinese and their children’s education. Among them, 17 have been residing in Hong Kong from seven to 18 years and are already permanent residents. The others are new arrivals (from several months to one year) and those who have been living in the city for less than seven years. From the interview set, eight parents have university degrees. The fathers worked as security guards, construction workers, restaurant waiters or office clerks, while the mothers serve as domestic helpers, secretaries and cleaners. They are comprised of four nationalities organized as follows: Nine come from Nepal, seven from Pakistan, five from the Philippines, and one from Vietnam. General views about learning Chinese These interviews suggest that parental support, encouragement and some pressure are vital for children to learn Chinese well. It was found that well-educated parents recognized the importance of education and paid more attention to their children’s learning habits than those with little or no education at all. They believed in personal development and flexible forms of education, in which they also tried creating a desirable

188


learning environment at home. Apparently, the increasing numbers of Nepalese and Pakistani parents expect their children, whether they are boys or girls, to receive tertiary education in Hong Kong. It indicates that the traditional view in their culture that girls should get married after high school is already diminishing. They agreed that Chinese has become increasingly important since Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997. Moreover, the current promotion for the wider use of Putonghua in Hong Kong has sent a clear message that knowing English only could be disadvantageous for their children’s future education and job oppurtunities. Views about learning Putonghua When provided with choices, all NCS parents preferred their children to learn English first, followed by Cantonese, and then Putonghua. The emphasis on English is primarily due to its widely recognized image as an international language. Furthermore, English is the second language of many NCS children and is also the language they learn best. Undoubtedly, Cantonese is the most useful language within the Hong Kong context since it is the most frequently heard and used language in the city. However, all NCS parents agreed that learning Putonghua is necessary nowadays. It is indeed very important for their children’s future because China is rapidly becoming into one of the most powerful countries in the world. Moreover, the working environment in Hong Kong is changing, as the city becomes more economically connected to mainland China. Thus, the NCS parents want their children to learn Putonghua well in order to become more competitive in the new economic environment. One Pakistani mother said: Of course, I think learning Putonghua is important for my children. My husband is working in Shanghai now, you know, for a project. He is in the construction field. He hears Putonghua everyday and he thinks the language is useful ... We hope our children can learn Putonghua well, so they can get good jobs in future. (Parent 12) A Filipino father who has his own business in the mainland commented as follows: Putonghua is becoming important, even in Hong Kong. Many employers wish their workers can speak fluent Putonghua. Cantonese is only a dialect but Putonghua is a national language. Putonghua is more


189

useful outside Hong Kong, in all the other Chinese communities around the world, in Taiwan, in Singapore, in China. (Parent 15) Views about learning difficulties Parents seemed to concur that memorizing and writing characters were the most prominent. In most cases, they could not exactly identify the difficulties because they themselves had never received any formal education in the Chinese language. Although some were fluent speakers of Cantonese, they had acquired the language through assimilation and daily exchange. In reality, only very few of them were illiterate in Chinese. The parents like their children, had no awareness of the structure, components and strokes of Chinese characters. In addition, a large proportion of NCS students were not able to learn Chinese in primary school. For these students, particularly for the new arrivals, learning Chinese in secondary school was a huge challenge. This is usually the case given that they were expected to learn other subjects through Chinese. In this regard, the NCS parents suggested that specially designed tutorials should be provided for these students to meet specific needs. Views about teaching methods Some NCS parents complained that their children found learning Chinese difficult and boring because teachers use ineffective teaching methods. Copying and repetition are the typical methods used by several Chinese-speaking learners. However, both NCS parents and students considered this to be boring and undesirable, and were to some degree resistant to such methods. For example, one Nepalese interviewee said: My daughters are asked to copy new characters many times. Sometimes, they say they cannot remember them although they copy many times. They say many characters look very similar, but they are different and have different meanings. It is difficult to tell the difference. And they often do not know which one to pick for use. (Parent 4) Some methods used by Chinese speaking students who study Chinese as a first language are deemed ineffective for NCS students who are learning it as a third language. Therefore, appropriate methods must be developed to address their special needs. The biggest challenge is to teach them how to use Chinese appropriately in their daily lives.

190


Otherwise, they will quickly forget what they have learned in class without ever putting it into use. Views about learning Chinese grammar Since NCS students are typically good at English, parents suggested that Chinese language teachers should utilize English when teaching grammar. For instance, this can be done by comparing the word order and syntax of both Chinese and English sentences. Thus, English can definitely be used as a tool to help NCS students develop a feel for Chinese. Meanwhile, a minority of parents expressed a desire for their children to be taught Chinese grammar systematically from the beginning of their study. They felt that schools emphasized practical everyday Chinese while the importance of formal grammar was compromised. Although the students were able to use what they had practiced in school, they were still unable to employ this in creating new sentences and texts. The sole Vietnamese interviewee with foreign language learning experience commented: Grammar is very important for learning Chinese; for learning any foreign language, I think. Good grammar can help students understand how to form a sentence and then a paragraph of text. If the teachers teach good grammar, the students will improve a lot in writing. This is because they know how to use what they have been taught in class to form sentences to express their ideas. (Parent 7) Limiting the input of Chinese grammar received by NCS students eventually limits their output. Evidently, over-reliance on repetition can restrict the ability of NCS students from fully expressing themselves in Chinese, as shown by the students’ poor performances in all Chinese tests. In this case, the traditional grammar-translation method can play a vital role in teaching grammar systematically. Also, should the schools and teachers use the method flexibly (and in conjunction with other methods) in everyday classes the method need not be considered as an outdated mode of foreign language teaching. Discriminations in schools and society Three interviewees claimed that their children had experienced racial discrimination at school. They complained that local teachers tend to regard Southern Asian children as slow learners, thereby underestimating


191

their learning potentials. One Pakistani father made the following comment: My daughter told me that their teachers think minority students are not as clever as the local students and they cannot possibly be good students. She feels the teachers treat minority students differently from others. (Parent 13) Another Nepalese interviewee made a similar complaint: When a minority student does something wrong, the teacher will punish him seriously. But if this happens to a Hong Kong student, the teacher maybe ignores the incident and lets him go. (Parent 7) The biases of many Hong Kong teachers towards minority students may impose more pressure on the latter. It is more likely that any unfair treatment will exacerbate the difficulties that minority students face. Invariably, they would have to work much harder than local students simply to be thought of as good students. In addition, NCS students seem to be isolated from the majority of local Chinese speaking students. Hence, the mutual understanding between these groups appears hard to achieve. According to the interview findings, several NCS students felt that establishing friendships with local Chinese students was quite difficult. In effect, NCS parents also said that their children only develop friendships with other minority ethnic groups. It is likely that the language barrier is one major reason. One Filipino mother said in an interview: They do not know each other’s language well, so they cannot understand each other very well. And so they cannot make good friends. (Parent 21) Furthermore, given that NCS students have very poor pronunciation in Cantonese, some local people like their classmates make fun of them. The NCS parents felt that such ridicule discouraged their children and they no longer dared to speak the language. Thus, the parents suggested that schools should work out some solutions to improve the relationships between minority and local students for the two parties to support each other in learning. Another problem is the lack of encouragement. a number of NCS students, particularly the new arrivals, confront great difficulties in

192


learning and will need encouragement from teachers and classmates. However, some interviewed NCS parents complained that local teachers were neither encouraging nor sufficiently patient when it came to teaching their children. They think that most teachers failed to help minority students build self-confidence and develop effective approaches to learning. They believe that given more care and encouragement, their children would be more successful learners.

Where do foreign minority languages stand? The current mother tongue instruction policy of HKSAR for ethnic minorities is clearly expressed by the Education Bureau. Our MOI policy is premised on sound education philosophy and it takes into account the practical circumstance of Hong Kong. Our public-sector schools will not adopt ethnic minority language as the MOI, for this would not be conducive to the learning of Chinese by ethnic minority students. Nor would it help their integration into the school and the wider community. (EDB, 2006) Currently, Hong Kong has no policy towards language equality. Usually, the mother tongues of Southern Asian ethnic minorities are not encouraged, and the schools have no resources to teach and learn them. In principle, this appears to contradict Hong Kong’s language policy which states that students will learn more efficiently and achieve better results in their mother tongue. Ideally, the large Southern Asian communities could be provided with mother tongue instruction, or at least the chance to study some school subjects in their native language. The policy should then be directed both at creating a suitable CSL curriculum with appropriate textbooks and examinations and at encouraging Southern Asian students to learn Cantonese and/or Putonghua, and written Chinese as a gateway to a full advantage of the political, social, educational and economic opportunities guaranteed all citizens. In fact, there is a growing awareness of these language needs. The newly released 2008–2009 budget proposes a recurrent annual allowance of $300,000 starting from the abovementioned school year. This will be granted to 19 designated primary and secondary schools to help them implement the School-based Support Scheme for NCS students (HKSAR government, 2008). However, how these schools will use this financial support and what specific services will be provided to their minority students remains an unresolved issue.


193

In January 2008, the EDB developed a supplementary guide for teaching Chinese to NCS students as part of the central Chinese Language curriculum. It details the principles, strategies and recommendations regarding how schools teaching NCS students will mitigate the ongoing concern. However, the guideline has received controversial and conflicting views from the public. The response is summed up by this statement: “ ‘A step forward’ say some, ‘unprofessional’ say others’.” The said statement was actually the headline of Hong Kong’s leading English newspaper, the South China Morning Post in its 19 January 2008 issue. The issue of foreign minority languages in the education system is not confined to Hong Kong alone. As foreign communities grow in size in Chinese cities due to economic advantage and the movement of sizable refugee groups, the issue of Chinese learning as a second language will significantly increase. Moreover, the language learning situation occurring in Macau has problems resembling those being experienced in Hong Kong. The Macanese community, a mixed-race community with Portuguese and Chinese ancestry, represents a significant minority with a population of about half-a-million. With Macau’s handover to China at midnight of 19 December 1999, this community felt neglected by the new government. This can be described as a political “orphan” facing an uncertain future. Historically, many ethnic Macanese have spoken the Macanese language, a Portuguese-based creole, now virtually extinct. Today, many are fluent in both Portuguese and Cantonese. Since the ruling Portuguese rarely learned Chinese and the local Chinese were not taught Portuguese at school, this middle group of Macanese has become influential bureaucrats who bridge the cultural gap and exert significant social influence.

9 Progress, Challenges and Prospects

The importance of China’s 106 million ethnic people in its social fabric is well recognized. Although economic development has brought work and income to many regions, growth has been uneven and is frequently accompanied by a heavy environmental cost. Thus, pressures for separatist activity aggravated by religious and secular differences are apparent. Despite the massive drop in extreme poverty figures, life remains predominantly difficult for the overwhelming majority. In fact, the disparity between living standards in the relatively affluent eastern part of China compared with the west has widened. While recent Chinese governments have talked about redressing the economic balance, in reality, it has been market forces which have dictated the melody. The exact situation of these minorities and their languages varies across China though similar underlying trends impact the whole scenario. The policies of the CCP government on minority languages were promulgated in the early 1950s. These strategies attempted to reconcile the protection of the minorities’ language domain with the interest of the state. It further argued that national cohesion must be safeguarded by facilitating the modes of national communication. However, these policies were founded on a long history of hostility between the state and the minorities, which only allowed for brief periods of appeasement. As has been noted, the CCP line of thinking drew mostly on theory derived from Soviet ideology. Generally, the CCP’s own programs are actually a fusion of the Soviet model and its own recent experiences. There was a prevailing notion that the inequalities between men and women are basically due to economic conditions and social class differences, and not through any inherent ethnic or racial inequality. Hence, it was anticipated that once the economic status of minorities was raised, the social antagonisms would then finally be resolved. Actually, the 194


195

CCP had much to gain in promoting good relations with its minorities: the border regions would be more secure; minorities’ resources would be accessible for trade and exploitation; and their population would be more amenable to progress towards communism. Correspondingly, the Party’s approach to minority languages echoed these assumptions: it would accept and maintain the mother tongue while instituting linguistic reform. This should include new scripts preferably based on the Latin alphabet, and an expanded modern education system would be its carrier. In contrast to previous governments, the CCP favoured multilingualism because it is believed to be capable of serving the ends of social stability and it favored a pluralist or integrationist model over an assimilationist one. Officially, the CCP approved 55 ethnic minorities apart from the Han. Soon after its assumption to power, the Party moved quickly to survey and assess language use among the minorities. They also introduced new or revised minority scripts designed to better serve modernization and social advancement. Overall, the CCP was an interventionist government which put forward definite policies for language reform and sought to implement them down the line. This language policy was expected to dovetail with its educational effort, which was rapidly expanding under rural reorganization and the commune movement.

Coercion takes centre stage Unfortunately, the good will and hopeful expectations for early script reform and preference for mother tongue teaching were not fully realized. While the gains from a national perspective were quite rapid in a statistical sense, they were also misleading partly due to the low commencement base. However well-intentioned they were and in line with the CCP’s educational tenets, these programs were driven by a top down approach and introduced with limited resources and little monitoring. The CCP’s assumption of progress encouraged change based on its own presuppositions and not on careful feedback and modification. Ironically, this was the case despite the Party’s trumpeting of its “mass line” approach to social issues. After 1957, overt political issues became more intrusive. The CCP sought to speed up social progress by attacking class enemies, which included linguists, and by instigating the unattainable Great Leap Forward economic targets. This situation put an end to its language policy reforms, which accepted language differences. Wherever possible, the

196


old reforms were subsequently replaced by the new, which also meant the extension of Putonghua and Hanyu Pinyin teaching. The argument was rested on the premise that the minorities’ claims for differential treatment were based on their backward social condition. Furthermore, these people were to be lifted from their backwardness by the momentum of a Han leadership which sought to achieve communism in a lifetime. The devastating failures of the 1958–59 Great Leap Forward policies led to a relaxation of political demands on minorities. In turn, the government reverted to its earlier policies in language accommodation, thus making the reprieve short-lived. Meanwhile, the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution re-asserted the primacy of Han language across China under the slogan, “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Although the political justification was to the fore, the Cultural Revolution policies fed those who believed that an enforced common language was to the advantage of China’s unification, which has been a century old position held by its leadership. These early language policies have been passed down a chain of command which was assiduously built up by the CCP in the 1950s, set up when comprehensive attempts were built to promote the national policy at the regional and local levels. The organizational and enforcement structure was bolstered by an ideological enthusiasm which also unleashed latent idealism in China. The collapse of the Great Leap Forward compelled some regions to start ignoring or delay changes dictated from the top. However, the charisma of leaders like Mao and Zhou remained a persistent force until they were finally snuffed out by the excesses of the day. As part of the cleansing under Deng Xiaoping, national government ministries began to reconsider their own roles by becoming policy makers rather than implementers down the line.

Minority languages re-assert themselves With the return of local governance, the schools were forced to reorganize since they were no longer supported by the commune system. This forced many middle school classes to close, and the new arrangements required funding and staffing. Sensing an opportunity at the grassroots, both the northern and southern minorities returned to mother tongue instruction particularly at the primary level. The move was supported by regional governments which felt increasingly empowered themselves. The new style of government gave the minority people a pro-active role, and they became capable of resisting some policies and adapting others. For instance, the policy of changing writing scripts in the 1950s was


197

overturned and the original minority writing scripts of Yi, Dai, Uyghur and Kazak were restored. This situation is well illustrated in Xinjiang, which is probably the most successful region in utilizing mother tongue instruction. The policy, which is considered segregationist rather than integrationist, has been successfully implemented in several districts through the maintenance of a separate school system for the Uyghur, Kazak, Mongol, Xibe and Kirgiz. Across the region, minority curricula and examinations supported mother tongue instruction from primary school through senior high school. Overall, the system was able to produce many competent and talented minority academics in Xinjiang who were bilingual. Moreover, many of these academics were from remote rural areas, and their parents had received no formal education before 1949.

Economic opportunities and language change Under Deng’s open door policy and market economy, fresh imperatives impacted the language policy. Some of them were directly challenged by minorities, most especially on the emphasis of regional governments to mother tongue education. Deng’s appeal to self interest over conventional thought affected the Han and minorities’ relationship. For example, the explorations of oil, gas and minerals in the western region (xibu da kaifa) of the Xinjiang region, perceived to contain one third of China’s oil reserves and most of the country’s uranium ore, have impacted the economies of minority communities. It was also increasingly accepted that the minorities would benefit from learning Chinese, especially Putonghua, as the demand for Chinese-speaking labor has been steadily growing. In addition, new language players began to emerge from the business sectors, such as the Xinjiang Arman Industry and Commerce Limited, a Uyghur private multi-million Yuan (RMB) company that maintains its own recruitment and training programs, independent language schools, and colleges for adults which encourage Chinese learning. Actually, minority leaders were not slow to observe a widening gap between themselves and the Han people, who gained much of their wealth from the former’s natural resources. Generally, the minorities’ failure to share in the surging industry was attributed not on their incapacity but on their inadequate educational background and lack of Chinese skills. The latter was seen as a direct outcome of deficient arrangements in language teaching. It has become apparent that learning Chinese does not only provide mobility for minority people seeking

198


opportunities outside their homeland, but it also contributes to their local market value. The economic force of the Chinese language was more powerful than the Party’s political design. This factor obliged the minority parents to select schools which offered Chinese education for their children. The recent boom in Uyghur children being sent to Chinese schools is a substantiation of the changing attitude. However, this has not been an easy choice for parents to make. Despite their desire for their children to maintain their own culture and language, they would also want for them to participate in national and international markets. Now, if the children were sent to Han schools, they would have to endure difficulties in acquiring knowledge through a second language. If they attend ethnic schools, the teaching of Chinese there is inadequate and they risk not learning sufficient Chinese in order to compete in the current career structure and meet further education demands. To equally compete with the Han in the current economic climate, non-Han people would have to master at least one or two of the languages of power, Chinese and English. English is heralded as a global language that opens the way for graduates to work in an international context, and its alphabetic script is widely accepted in the Internet and other modes of communication. There is presently a rising trend for both Han and non-Han students to learn English. For example, many non-Han parents in Xinjiang want to enroll their children in schools that teach English. Since the time demands for Chinese are limited, they are willing to reduce mother tongue instruction. As much as possible, they prefer Uyghur teachers to teach English. Unfortunately, only a limited number of Uyghurs can teach the subject. Therefore, English is taught through Chinese but has been proven to be an unsatisfactory arrangement. Here, major questions remain. How will minorities maintain their current cultural and linguistic identity if they are under pressure to learn a national and an international language simultaneously? Also, what would be the kind of social dislocation following the creation of a Chinese-English-speaking elite? For the most part, the educational outcomes of minority students have been less than satisfactory. Minority groups constitute 8.4 percent of China’s population, which accounts for approximately 106 million people (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2002), and occupies about 64 percent of the country’s land area. Although some groups, such as the Koreans, have higher percentages of college-educated people and educational outcomes than most of the Han population, most minority groups have lower educational experiences and outcomes in terms


199

of college and secondary education. Out of the 55 minority groups, 40 have lower than average percentages of the college-educated, while 43 have lower than average percentages in terms of secondary education (Zhou, M., 2001). Meanwhile, the Uyghur and Tibetans have much lower educational outcomes among the large minority groups. The recent economic boom in China has broadened the economic gap between the minority and Han majority. This is also evident with the differential impacts on educational outcomes of eastern and western China, where 44 of the 55 minority groups thrive (Yang, J., 2005). In 2005, the average GDP per capita was 8,970 RMB in western provinces compared to the east’s 22,200 RMB (Jinrongjie website, 2007). In addition, the coastal regions attracted 93 percent of foreign investment during the 1990s while the western regions only drew below 3 percent (Fan, 2002). In 1985, the decentralization of education administration gave local government increased financial responsibility in implementing basic education. This resulted in an 11 percent total educational expenditure drop for the central government by the late 1990s (Hu, G., 2003; Ross, 2000; Wang, C., 2002). Unfortunately, this economic gap extended to financial resources for education as evidenced by the prosperity of the western Han regions in contrast to minority education which is still characterized by insufficient resources and teacher training (Postiglione, 2000; Tsung, 1999). These economic and social developments have encouraged a shift in government policy and community attitudes towards the system of mother tongue to bilingual education for minorities. In the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), the Han Chinese population has increased from 6 percent in 1949 to approximately 40 percent. For western regions, the national language, Putonghua, has been perceived as a language of power and means to economic wellbeing. This has led to greater demands by minorities for Putonghua education. Consequently, a significant number of enrollees have transferred from minority schools to Putonghua medium-based schools. In fact, some Han Chinese secondary schools in coastal cities have started accepting minority students from Xinjiang. Nowadays, parents either send their children away to be educated in Putonghua (Yang, L., 2004; Zhang, Y., 2004), or to Neidiban (inland schools) for education (Postiglione, Jiao & Manlaji, 2007). Concurrently, the government policy seems to have shifted away from supporting minority education. According to many researchers, the minority education policy in China has always been underpinned by pragmatism. In Marxist-Leninist thinking, ethnic groups are seen


as vestiges of capitalism that would eventually integrate into a unified community under communism. However, the pace of this evolution has varied at various periods in China’s minority policy (Dreyer, 1976; Mackerras, 1994; Zhou, M., 2001). In effect, minority and bilingual education policies vary region by region. Often, the term “bilingual” is merely equated with the extended use of Putonghua in teaching (Tsung, 1999). Uyghur mother tongue education in XUAR is normally used from primary up to tertiary levels. The region, however, experienced a policy shift in 2000, when the use of Putonghua was implemented at the university level. In addition, gradual steps veering away from mother tongue education was begun at secondary and primary levels.

Internationalizing the Chinese language Apparently, there has been an increasing interest in the study of Putonghua to be accepted as the standard Chinese language. In lieu of this development, the Chinese government has supported standardized testing to assess proficiency levels of its citizens. The end-goal is to elevate the status of Chinese as an international language as soon as possible. More than 150 Confucius Institutes, named after the famous Chinese philosopher and teacher (551–479 BC), have already opened in other countries. These are exemplary of the Chinese government’s commitment to spread the Chinese language and culture world wide. Internationalizing Chinese language teaching is part of the government’s “image project” (xingxiang gongcheng), which aims to assert cultural as well as economic authority in order to portray the country’s “self power”. Accordingly, the said program has made learning Chinese popular in Central Asia as evidenced by figures from the Xinjiang University where the international student population has increased. The enrollees come from five countries in Asia and their numbers have already reached over 1000; their principal motivation in learning Chinese is for business purposes. Mother tongue learning does not equip minority school students with competent Chinese language skills. Research and class observations have revealed that the teaching of Chinese as a second language in mother tongue schools is poorly handled. This analysis was measured in terms of syllabus requirements, teaching resources, teaching methodology and teacher training. For instance, the demand of Uyghur academics and teachers is not to replace their mother tongue instruction altogether. Rather, they would like the government to provide for the hiring or training of Chinese language teachers. Although Putonghua


201

has been continuously promoted as an inter-ethnic communication tool, the policy has not been uniformly implemented. In attempts to regain initiative during the 1990s, the national government stepped up its bilingualism advocacy among minority communities. Influenced by the concept of “killing two birds with one stone”, both Putonghua and the minority language were encouraged. Putonghua continues to be lauded for its benefits in economic development. There is a considerable demand for bilingual education. Hence, the XUAR in the north has been particular with school reorganization and its acceptance of Chinese-speaking Uyghurs in government. Uyghur minority schools have started merging with Han schools, and the plan is expected to be completed by 2008. During the initial phase of bilingualism, the first part of the curriculum will remain in the mother tongue. With the introduction of instruction in Putonghua, it is anticipated that mother tongue instruction will be completely replaced in the second stage. This policy shift follows the practice adopted in the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region and Yanbian Korean Prefecture, where mother tongue teaching has been gradually reduced in the formal curriculum. In this scenario, administrators face several issues, such as the recruitment of Han teachers to remote schools and improved Putonghua learning opportunities for Uyghur personnel. However, the underestimation of both necessary planning and the time required for this major language shift is evident. The absence of a dominant language in a community is generally accompanied by the lack of social power. Minority students’ weak academic and career outcomes can be attributed to disabling second language factors, such as cognitive, linguistic, pedagogical and social ones. For most minorities, ethnic identity is inseparable from language and religion. Virtually all Uyghurs identify themselves as Muslims, as Tibetans are identified with a Buddhist way of life. For these minorities, their language is used to practice religion and receive basic education simultaneously. Thus, a shift to Putonghua entails a concomitant loss of language power which also represents a decline of social status in their community. Although minority parents are already sending their children to Han Chinese schools for further education and expanded career perspectives, there are still those who want their children to remain in minority schools or classes. In doing so, they believe that they can maintain their language and culture, as well as their ethnic status and identity. As much as possible, they wish to protect their language and ethnic rights which were granted by the central government in the first place.


Similarly, minorities like the southern Yi people in Liangshan want more mother tongue education to ensure the maintenance of their ethnic identity. Furthermore, they seek greater recognition for their languages in education, especially their traditional written scripts. One of the strengths of Yunnan’s language policy has been the introduction of the transitional or pyramid program in the early years of primary schooling. This method sees to it that Chinese instruction gradually replaces the minority languages to assist the students in learning Chinese better. However, the bilingual emphasis has not received full support from regional officials for it to expand. In fact, the implementation of bilingualism in the south has been weakened by the lower status ascribed to the mother tongue. One reason for this is the lack of traditional scripts corresponding to these languages. Another factor working against the vitality of the mother tongue is that none of the languages enjoy a regional status like Uyghur or Tibetan. This is partly due to fact that many of these minority groups are scattered across a large area in relatively small packets. Despite this, new opportunities have been seen to emerge lately. The social demands for tourism have propelled the minority people in Yunnan, such as Naxi, Bai, Dai and Yi, to display their cultural heritage and languages to attract more visitors. Hence, increased benefits are seen as in-country tourism will definitely boost the region’s revenues. A related problem with the current language situation pertains to mother tongue education not being extended to Han residents. This seeming imbalance stems from the reality that even though minorities must learn Chinese, the Han do not have to learn Uyghur or any minority language to advance both economically and socially. Despite the fact that more than 40 percent of Xinjiang’s population is Han Chinese, finding a Chinese teacher to teach in Uyghur schools continues to be a problem. Since Han Chinese teachers cannot understand Uyghur, they cannot communicate with their Uyghur students or co-teachers effectively. Hence, the usual outcome would be for the isolated Han teachers to leave minority schools as soon as possible. Overall, minorities are placing more value on pragmatic advantage than on language maintenance, including the extension of mother tongue use in urban areas. In fact, the current policy in the southwest may endanger minority languages, since these are not normally used and taught in schools. With an impending decline of minority languages in the community, the younger generation will most likely adopt Chinese and their mother tongue will gradually disappear. In general, the CCP government’s interest is to recognize and promote multi-ethnicity and multilingualism. However, the direction of


203

its general policy has been inadequately articulated and implemented. Not much has relatively been done to protect vulnerable minority languages or help them pass through the social change process. As a whole, regional policy has forked into two parts or branches. While the policy has allowed options in bilingual education in minority regions such as Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia, it has permitted substantial Han language encroachment in the south. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, its current mother tongue education policy since 1997 has been guided by how general learning is improved at best. In contrast to its previous policy, this approach argues the case of learning English for status and job marketability. For about 95 percent of Chinese society, it is axiomatic that most citizens would learn best in the Chinese medium, thus the government policy aims to ensure that they get the best Chinese medium instruction available. In addition, schools are expected to strengthen their English language instruction capacity to meet Hong Kong’s world city aspirations. However, the situation for Southern Asian minority students in Hong Kong is quite different. In the former British colony, the issue is how better to integrate Chinese society and job marketability. For mother tongue speakers of minority or foreign languages, obstacles are mostly derived from the lack of resources and limited access to higher education and the job market. Hong Kong’s mother tongue instruction policy offers a limited option to Chinese minority students. Those who are capable of learning English efficiently can learn through English medium instruction, provided that the teachers have the required special skills. Otherwise, they may still opt to attend Chinese supplemented English language classes. However, neither CMI nor EMI schooling validates the home languages of Southern Asian students. Similar to the situation in Xinjiang, the government has paid little attention to the quality of education through mother tongue instruction. Thus, if minority students are placed in mainstream schools then special support has to be provided to ensure equal learning outcomes. In contrast, if minority students are placed in separate schools, then the quality of teaching a major language is necessary if equitable learning outcomes are to emerge.

Re-thinking language programs Another driver of the post-Deng era policy towards the minority was aimed at placating the seekers of greater autonomy following the break up of the Soviet Union. This has provided an equal shock to the

204


Chinese leadership and the West, and undermined the significance of good working relationships with the threat of its own dismemberment. In the 2000s, increased attention has since been focused on minorities, particularly those areas near the newly created Central Asian Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Here, the language issues have caused unrest which might eventually threaten national unity; the central government has been preparing to support different approaches. Also, Tibet remains a source of internal and external contention despite conciliatory gestures by the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, who suggested a one country two systems formula. In 2008, the Chinese government restarted talks with the Dalai Lama; however, the impending outcomes do not appear encouraging. The “war against terrorism” has also heightened tensions between minorities and the government. The latter regarded the 50 or so Uyghur groups as “Islamic terrorists” because these groups backed the “Eastern Turkestan” movement. Worse, they even condemned them as “terrorist, separatist and extremist” publicly. These groups have also been accused of securing strategic and economic alliances in the region including those with Russia. In effect, those requesting for more minority rights fear being categorized as terrorists in the current political climate. Some minority communities are uneasy about speaking up even on language issues, such as on expanding mother tongue teaching over Putonghua and English learners. Language is not only a communication tool but an asset and resource for social learning and integration. It is a means to ease the tension between Han and non-Han people that would bring cultural and economic benefit to both parties. Hence, the empowerment of ethnic languages in social domains is worthy of becoming a national priority. However, the widening gap between the rich and poor, as well as the chasm between the East and West threatens communal structures. It also threatens minority languages as the opportunities to access language remain restricted. Thus, regional governments should invest more in minority education, especially in training minority teachers the capability to teach Chinese and English. They should also encourage Han teachers to master the local vernacular to become more effective in offering Chinese as a second language. In this manner, language teaching will be supported in a multilingual country that would eventually result in an expanded intercommunication among all citizens. By itself, language contact has resulted in most minority people becoming either bilingual, or trilingual. Meanwhile, contact with contemporary language has led to a language shift as the younger generation


205

now speaks better Chinese than their mother tongue. Hence, mother tongue dominance is increasingly challenged resulting in some minority languages being endangered. In relation, economic migration outcomes have been able to bring some minority people to have close connections with the Han. However, through proximity and inter-marriages, their own languages have started to lose their comprehensive functions as well. Unknowingly, these social contacts have had strong impacts on family language patterns since the younger generation can use other languages for school, work and play. Therefore, if parents are not able to maintain their language at home, a language shift and decreased mother tongue use will soon follow. For example, this situation is particularly threatening to the southern people of Yunnan but not much with the Xinjiang. Although religion plays an important role in language maintenance, history may repeat the case of the Hui who have maintained their religion without using their own language. As of late, many minority languages have been continuously vanishing in China. Changes in CCP policies which were discussed at the Sixteenth Party Congress in 2007 presage modifications in minority policies as well. The concept of “building a harmonious socialist society”, first proposed by the current CCP leader, Hu Jintao, was on the core agenda of the sixth Plenary Session of the 16th CCP Central Committee. Hu’s pronouncement on 8 October 2006 in Beijing has been seen to bolster attempts to provide a flexible and non-coercive language policy which could also guide language and script work. This assessment was reinforced by Zhao Qinping, current director of the State Language and Script Committee of the PRC. During the 11th Five-Year Plan Committee Meeting, he declared that the new goal for language and script work is to build a “harmonious language life” in China. The new policy guidelines suggest that the dominant language may have to play a subordinate role to mother tongue learning for the purpose of social consensus. Moreover, it was proposed that economic development is not an end in itself. Hu argued the case for social development, while reaffirming CCP’s role as the sole party in power. Most importantly, his statement signalled the acceleration of the priority shift from eastern China to the northeast “rustbelt” up to the marginal western regions which has been courting foreign investment. Increasing expenditure in education and health is advocated as a means of reducing social disparities between urban and rural areas. Furthermore, increased attention will be paid to food production and the environment on a national scale. Meanwhile, China’s soft power will be extended globally, with emphasis placed on “development” and not “growth” alone.


However, whether or not China will accept new insights from international entities with regards to language rights remains arguable. Indeed, some language activities falling into that category have been viewed by the Chinese as a threat to the state’s social and political stability. Its leaders even concede that improvement in law and intra-party democracy has fallen short of expectations and that corruption at all levels remains a major problem. Definitely, upgrading second language teaching, removing school fees, and improving teacher education are the necessary steps to move forward. Equally, China’s determination to replace low skill with high-tech service industries in the international context will have major implications for language learning. Perhaps greater emphasis on language rights and the means to exercise them are needed to readdress previous violations through a charter and tribunal. Overall, respect for language diversity and tolerance, including a defined space for minority languages, are laudable aims for China which can be preserved and added to its great linguistic treasure.

Appendix 1: Population of Ethnic Groups from China’s Fifth Census in 2000 Ethnic groups Han Zhuang Manchu Hui Miao Uyghur Tujia Yi Mongol Tibetan Bouyei Dong Yao Korean Bai Hani Kazak Li Dai She Lisu Gelao Dongxiang Lahu Shui Va Naxi Qiang Tu Mulam Xibe Kirgiz Daur Jingpo Maonan Salar

Population

%

1,159,400,000 16,178,800 10,682,300 9,816,800 8,940,100 8,399,400 8,028,100 7,762,300 5,813,900 5,416,000 2,971,500 2,960,300 2,637,400 1,923,800 1,858,100 1,439,700 1,250,500 1,247,800 1,159,000 709,600 634,900 579,400 513,800 453,700 406,900 396,600 308,800 306,100 241,200 207,400 188,800 160,800 132,400 132,100 107,200 104,500

91.59 1.28 0.84 0.78 0.71 0.66 0.63 0.61 0.46 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.046 0.041 0.036 0.032 0.031 0.024 0.024 0.019 0.016 0.015 0.013 0.011 0.010 0.009 0.008 Continued

207

208 Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Continued Ethnic groups Blang Tajik Achang Pumi Ewenki Nu Gin Jino De’ang Bonan Russian Yugur Uzbek Monba Oroqen Drung Tatar Hezhen Gaoshan Lhoba Others Total

Population

%

91,900 41,000 33,900 33,600 30,500 28,800 22,500 20,900 17,900 16,500 15,600 13,700 12,400 8,923 8,196 7,426 4,890 4,640 4,461 2,965 735,400

0.007 0.003 0.0027 0.0027 0.0024 0.0023 0.0018 0.0017 0.0014 0.0013 0.0012 0.0011 0.0010 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.058

1,265,830,000

100.00

Source: Zhongguo 2000 Nian Renkou Pucha Ziliao (Tabulation on the 2000 Population Census of the People’s Republic of China) (2002). Compiled by Guowuyuan Renkou Pucha Bangongshi (Population Census Office under the State Council) & Guojia Tongjiju Renkou He Shehui Keji Tongjisi (Department of Population, Social Science and Technology Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics of China). Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe (China Statistics Press).

Appendix 2: Numbers of Autonomous Prefectures/Counties/ Banners and Population in Autonomous Areas of Some Regions

Region Chongqing Gansu Guangdong Guangxi Guizhou Hainan Hebei Heilongjiang Hubei Hunan Inner Mongolia Jilin Liaoning Ningxia Qinghai Sichuan Tibet Xinjiang Yunnan Zhejiang Total

Autonomous prefecture

Autonomous county/ banner

Minority population in autonomous areas of each region

Total population in autonomous areas of each region

Number

Percentage

– 2 – – 3 – – – 1 1 –

4 7 3 12 11 6 6 1 2 7 3

2,444,400 3,116,200 461,900 44,890,000 15,123,300 1,485,600 1,916,000 245,800 4,416,800 4,726,200 23,760,000

1,697,700 1,743,300 172,100 17,210,000 8,824,400 745,100 1,095,300 51,600 2,327,600 3,321,700 4,930,000

69.45 55.94 37.26 38.34 58.35 50.15 57.17 20.99 52.70 70.28 20.75

1 – – 6 3 – 5 8 –

3 8 – 7 4 – 6 29 1

3,292,900 3,342,700 5,620,000 3,094,200 6,061,100 2,620,000 19,250,000 20,687,600 176,800

1,149,400 1,738,800 1,941,100 1,839,000 3,342,600 2,460,000 11,430,000 11,222,200 17,500

34.91 52.02 34.54 59.43 55.15 93.89 59.38 54.25 9.90

30

120

166,731,500

77,259,300

46.34

Source: Zhongguo Tongji Nianjian 2001 (China Statistical Yearbook 2001). Compiled by Guojia Tongjiju (National Bureau of Statistics of China). Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe (China Statistics Press).

209

Notes 1

Introduction

1 The Han, comprising the majority population of China, is only one of the 56 officially recognized nationalities (ethnic groups) in China. The term “Chinese people” can be used to refer to any of the 56 nationalities, surely including the Han people. The language used by the Han people is called Hanyu (Han language) and their script called Hanzi (Han script). Nonetheless, the general term “Chinese language” typically refers to the Han language while written Chinese or Chinese characters refer to the Han script. Therefore, in this book when the word “Han” is used to refer to a language, it would be interchangeable with “Chinese language/script” whereas “Han” only refers to the people of Han ethnicity when used in the descriptions of population and communities.

2


1 Interview with officials in State Commission of Nationality Affairs. 2 The population figures are based on 2005 national and regional 1% population sample survey cited in: Zhongguo Renkou Tongji Nianjian 2006 (China Population Statistics Yearbook 2006). Compiled by Guojia Tongjiju Renkou He Jiuye Tongjisi (Department of Population and Employment Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics of China). Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe (China Statistics Press). 3 The 2000 census figures used in this book are from Zhongguo 2000 Nian Renkou Pucha Ziliao (Tabulation on the 2000 Population Census of the People’s Republic of China) (2002). Compiled by Guowuyuan Renkou Pucha Bangongshi (Population Census Office under the State Council) & Guojia Tongjiju Renkou He Shehui Keji Tongjisi (Department of Population, Social Science and Technology Statistics, National Bureau of Statistics of China). Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe (China Statistics Press). 4 See Admin (2007). Wo zhou you duoshao liushou zinü? (How many staying children left in our prefecture?), available online at http://www.ybedu.net/ web1/show.aspx?id=216&cid=23

3 Minorities in the Past: Historical Experience 1 The Jingshi University was first established in 1898. 2 Rehe was a province under the KMT period, it was re-zoned to the Inner Mongolia Region in 1949. 3 In order to spread the Christian religion, Western missionaries created Latin romanization scripts for those minority nationalities without written scripts. For example, from 1912 to 1914, Lisu script, and Va script was created by 210

Notes 211

4

5 6 7 8

9

British missionaries; Zaiwa and Jingpo scripts were created in 1895 and 1889 by American missionaries; Naxi script was created by a Dutch missionary. Xikang was a province under the KMT government and early PRC government. It was abolished and re-zoned into Sichuan and Yuannan provinces in 1955. One kuping (treasury) tael is about 37.3 grams in weight. The 200 million kuping taels are about 7.45 million kg of silver. This figure was from 1922, and also included Gaoshan children. A letter was written by Gong Zizhi to the Ministry of Education in 1934. The source is from Cai, S. et al. (1992), p. 268. See Snow, H. (1977), Inside Red China, p. 149. Da Capo Press. This statement was not agreed to by the Yi scholars interviewed who claimed the Yi from the Cool Mountains in Sichuan had a written script created in 2000 BC. See Snow, E. (1937), Red Star over China, Victor Gollancz, p. 17. It was quoted from the Editorial of the People’s Daily, 9 September 1953, “Further Implementation of the Autonomous Policy in the Ethnic Nationality Areas”.

4 New Policies and Practices under Communism 1 See Collections of Provisions of Minority Nationality Autonomous Regions of the PRC, State Council of the People’s Republic of China (22 Feburary 1952), p. 429. 2 See Collections of Provisions of Minority Nationality Autonomous Regions of the PRC, State Council of the People’s Republic of China (22 Febuary 1952), p. 70. 3 See Shaoshu minzu wenzi gaige de yuanze (The principles of script reform for minority nationalities), a report by Zhou Enlai at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (10 January 1958), cited in X. Liu & C. Zhang (eds.) (1994), Zhongguo Gongchandang Zhuyao Lingdaoren Lun Minzu Wenti (On Nationality Affairs by Chinese Major CCP Leaders), Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe (Nationality Press), p. 190. 4 Interview with Chen Jianmin, August 1995. 5 Interview with Wang Jun, September 1997. 6 See Shaoshu minzu wenzi gaige de yuanze (The principles of script reform for minority nationalities), a report by Zhou Enlai at the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (10 January 1958), cited in X. Liu & C. Zhang (eds.) (1994), Zhongguo Gongchandang Zhuyao Lingdaoren Lun Minzu Wenti (On Nationality Affairs by Chinese Major CCP Leaders), Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe (Nationality Press), p. 190. 7 Interview with Wang Jun, October 1996. Wang was one of the deputy heads of survey teams that went to the Southwest of China in the 1950s. 8 Interview with Wang Jun, November 1997. 9 Ibid., September 1997. 10 Ibid., November 1996. 11 Interview with Cui, September 1995. 12 Interview with Chen Naixiong, October, 1997. 13 Interview with Chen Jianmin, August 1995. 14 Interview with Zhou Qingsheng, August 1995.

212

Notes

15 Interview with Duoshi Yongtang, a Dai official, November 1995. 16 Interview with Wang Jinwu, an educational official in Yunnan, October 1995. 17 Interview with Li Xingren, Kunming, August 1997. 18 See Welcome speech to nationality delegation from the southwest by Deng, X. (1951), which was published in X. Liu & C. Zhang (eds.) (1994), Zhongguo Gongchandang Zhuyao Lingdaoren Lun Minzu Wenti (On Nationality Affairs by Chinese Major CCP Leaders), Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe (Nationality Press), p. 59. 19 Interview with Luo Qiyoung, September 1995 Luo recalled his teaching experience from 1954 to the 1960s in Manyan primary school, Menghai county, Yunnan province. 20 Interview with Yang Ming, a former teacher and head of the Department of Basic Education, August 1997. 21 Interview with Wang Jun, November 1996. 22 Ibid. 23 Interview with Duoshi Yongtang in Dehong Prefecture, Yunnan, November 1995. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Interview with Zhou Qingsheng, November 1995. 27 See She Shaocheng reports on Miao and Dong scripts trial, in Yuyan Guanxi yu Yuyan Gongzuo (Language Relationship and Language Work), edited by Dai Qingxia (1990), Tianjin: Tianjin Guji Chubanshe (Tianjin Classics Press), p. 54. 28 Interview with Wulan Tuke, October 1995. 29 Interview with Chen Jianmin, August 1995. 30 Interview with Feng Chunling, September 1995. 31 Interview with Duoshi Yongtang, July 1997. 32 Interview with Professor Lu Yi, August 1997. 33 Interview with Wang Jun, May 1997. 34 Interview with Professor Lu Yi, August 1997. 35 Ibid. 36 Interview with He Chengyong, an Education offcial in Lijiang County, September 1995. 37 Thomas Heberer (1989), pp. 28–9. He quoted from Minzu Tuanjie 2 (1979), pp. 2–4; Minzu Tuanjie 5 (1980), p. 22; Renmin Ribao, 20 October 1978 and 15 December 1978.

5

Minority Language Issues under the Open Door

1 See Zhou Minglang (2003). Multilingualism in China: The Politics of Writing Reforms for Minority Languages 1949–2002. p. 78. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. He quoted from Lieberthal, K. G. & Dickson, B. J. (1989). A Research Guide to Central Party and Government Meetings in China, 1949–1986. pp. 258–61. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. 2 Interview with Wang Jun, Novermber 1996. 3 Interview with Dai Qingxia, November 1998.

Notes 213 4 5 6 7

14 15 16 17 18

Interviews with minority officials in 1995. The State Language Commission 1986 Report. Ibid., p. 34. Based on information from Dai et al. (1997) pp. 147–51. The Tibetan system is still six years of primary schooling. Others have five years in primary. Interview with Professor Zhang Qiulin at Yunnan Institute of Nationality Studies, September 1995. Interview with Yang Zhiming, October 1995. Uradyn E. Bulag. (2003), Mongolian ethnicity and linguistic anxiety, available at http://www.smhric.org Interview data. Ibid. See Liu, Q. (1991), p. 192. Liu is based on the situation in 1991. The numbers of Tibetan medium primary schools declined in 1995. Interview with teachers in Yunnan, October 1995. Interview with teachers and education officials, August 1995. Interviews with Yi education officials in 1998. Reported by He Bin 14 August 2006 at http://www.XJ.xinhuanet.com Reported by Han Xue 11 January 2007 at http://www.tianshannet.com.ca

6


8 9 10 11 12 13

1 XUAR has the same political structure as all other Chinese provinces and regions. At the top is the Xinjiang Regional Politburo Standing Committee under the direct control of the Central government. The Regional Party Congress, the Military Affairs Commission, the Regional People’s Congress, and the Regional Government come after. Within the regional government there are three administrative levels duplicating the central system in Beijing: regions, districts and counties/cities. The regional government has direct control over two cities, eight districts, and five autonomous prefectures. There are 79 counties/cities and six autonomous counties below the districts and the prefectures. Among them, 35 are border counties. 2 In urban areas, married couples from minority communities can have two children and in rural areas they can have three children. 3 Volume 2 Chinese textbook (Hanyu), page 2, 1998, Xinjiang Education Press. 4 Chairman Mao Zedong said this in 1951 to praise and encourage a very brave 8-year-old pupil in Suzhou, Chen Yongkang, who helped to catch a spy. Mao’s words have become a nationwide slogan and have been posted in nearly every classroom in China since then. 5 Volume 2 Chinese textbook (Hanyu), pages 18–19, 1998, Xinjiang Education Press. 6 Volume 2 Chinese textbook (Hanyu), pages 12–13, 1998, Xinjiang Education Press. 7 Project 211 is the Chinese government’s endeavor aimed at strengthening about 100 institutions of higher education and key disciplinary areas as a national priority for the 21st century. 8 Zhou Jun (ed.), (2000), pp. 891–2.

214

7

Notes

Bilingual Models of Minority Education in Yunnan

1 Figures are from Yunnan Tongji Nianjian (Yunnan Statistical Yearbook) (2006). Compiled by Yunnansheng Tongjiju (Bureau of Statistics of Yunnan Province). Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe (China Statistics Press). 2 Source: Yunnan Provincial Education Commission (1989). On the Use of Minority Languages in Education. Yunnansheng Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Yunnan Provincial Education Press), p. 196. 3 To protect the real identity of the informants, the names of the schools are fictitious. However, this does not in any way affect the authenticity of the information. 4 Interview with Teachers 1, 7 and 10, September 1995. 5 Interview with Teacher 11, September 1995. 6 Interview with Mr Sha, August 1997. 7 Interview with Wang Jun, November 1997.

8

Minority Communities in Post-colonial Hong Kong

1 Source of information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asians_in_Hong_ Kong 2 Census and Statistics Department 1991, HKSAR. 3 Education and Manpower Bureau, HKSAR, http://www.emb.gov.hk

Bibliography Aubourg, M. (2005). Towards unity in diversity? A study of the proposed race discrimination legislation and its shortcomings from the perspective of the inequality faced by minority students in the Hong Kong educational system. Institute of Political Science of Lille, France. Bagan, C. (1981). Jianchi minzu yuyan wenzi de pingdeng diwei (Equal status of nationality languages and scripts). In Neimenggu Zizhiqu Minzu Yanjiu Xuehui Shoujie Nianhui Lunwen Xuanji (The Proceeding of the 1st Congress of the Inner Mongolian Nationality Research Association) (pp. 120–30). Becker, C. H., et al. (1932). The Reorganisation of Education in China: The League of Nations’ Institute of Intellectual Cooperation. Bilik, N. (1998a). Language education, intellectuals and symbolic representation: Being an urban Mongolian in a new configuration of social evolution. In W. Safran (ed.), Nationalism and Ethnoregional Indentities in China (pp. 47–67). London: Frank Cass. Bilik, N. (1998b). The Mongol–Han relations in a new configuration of social revolution. Central Asian Survey, 17 (1), 69–91. Blachford, D. R. (2004). Language spread versus language maintenance: Policy making and implementation process. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 99–122). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bland, J. O. P., & Backhouse, E. (1910). China under the Empress Dowager. London: William Heinemann. Bloomfield, L. (1967). Language. London: Allen & Unwin. Bulag, U. E. (2003). Mongolian ethnicity and linguistic anxiety in China. American Anthropologist, 105 (4), 753–64. Cai, S., et al. (1992). The General Account of Minority Educational Development in Yunnan. Kunming: Yunnan Daxue Chubanshe (Yunnan University Press). Caodaobateer (2004). The use and development of Mongol and its writing systems in China. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 289–302). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Census and Statistics Department (2002). Population Census 2001: Thematic Report, Ethnic Minorities. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department. Chen, L. H. D. (1999). Chen Jiongming and the Federalist Movement: Regional Leadership and Nation Building in Early Republican China. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, the University of Michigan. Chodag, T. (1988). Tibet: The Land and the People (translated by W. Tailing). Beijing: New World Press. Cleverley, J. F. (1991). The Schooling of China: Tradition and Modernity in Chinese Education (2nd edn.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Coulmas, F. (1996). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dai, Q. (1994). Yuyan he Minzu (Language and Ethnicity). Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe (The Central University for Nationalities Press). 215

216

Bibliography

Dai, Q., et al. (1997). Introduction to Bilingual Education for China’s Ethnic Minorities. Shenyang: Liaoning Minzu Chubanshe (Liaoning Nationalities Publishing House). Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W. (eds.). (1996). The World’s Writing Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DeFrancis, J. (1984). The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Dikötter, F. (1992). The Discourse of Race in Modern China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Dreyer, J. T. (1976). China’s Forty Millions: Minority Nationalities and National Integration in the People’s Republic of China. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Dwyer, M. A. (2005). The Xinjiang conflict: Uyghur identity, language policy, and political discourse. Available at website: www.eastwestcenterwashington,org/ publications,. Editorial Board (1989). Dangdai Zhongguo Minzu Gongzuo Dashiji 1949–1988 (Events of Nationality Work in Contemperary China 1949–1988). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe (Nationality Press). Education Bureau of HKSAR (2006). On medium of instruction, citation from “Not learning Cantonese in Hong Kong”, available at: http://notlearningcantonese. blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html Evans, S. (2002). The medium of instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and practice in the new English and Chinese streams. Research Papers in Education, 17 (1), 97–120. Available at http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals Fairbank, J. K. (1992). China: A New History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Fan, L. (2002). Waiguo duihua touzi de diqu fenbu jiqi dui renkou qianyi he quyu fazhan de yingxiang [Foreign investment in different regions in China and its impact on migration and regional development]. Journal of Demography, 6, 18–22. Fei, X., et al. (1989). Zhonghua Minzu Duoyuan Yiti Geju (The Pluralism and Unity of Chinese Nationality). Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe (Central University of Nationality Studies Publisher). Feng, K. (1994). Educational History of the Republic of China. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (The People’s Publisher). Feng, X. (1994). The History of Education in Sui, Tang and Five Periods in China. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (The People’s Publisher). Fritz, J. (1988). China’s Long March: 6000 Miles of Danger. New York: Putnam’s. Geary, D. N., et al. (2003). The Kam People of China: Turning Nineteen? London: RoutledgeCurzon. Geary, D. N., & Pan, Y. (2003). A bilingual education pilot project among the Kam people in Guizhou province, China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 4 (24), 274–89. General Office of Ministry of Education. Documents No. 9, 2000 and No. 5, 2001. Guo, L. (2004). The relationship between Putonghua and Chinese dialects. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 45–54). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Bibliography

217

Han Shu (Book of Han) (1962). (Vol. 89), Beijing Zhongguo Shuju Jiaodianben, Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju (China Book Publishing Company). Harrell, S. (1995). The history of the history of the Yi. In S. Harrell (ed.), Cultural Encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers (pp. 63–91). Seattle: University of Washington Press. He, G. (1990). The Research on the Origin of the East Barbarian. Nanjing: Jiangsu Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Jiangsu Education Publisher). Heberer, T. (1989). China and its National Minorities: Autonomy or Assimilation? New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc. HKSAR Government (2008). The 2008–09 Budget. Retrieved on 20 March 2008 at: http://www.budget.gov.hk/2008/eng/budget60.html Hu, G. (2003). English language teaching in China: Regional differences and contributing factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24, 290–318. Hu, S. (1996). The History of Vernacular Literature. Beijing: Dongfang Chubanshe (East Press). Huang, G., & Shi, L. (1995). The Nationality Identification in China. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe (Nationality Press). Huang, X. (1992). On writing systems for China’s minorities created by foreign missionaries. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 97, 75–85. ICESCR Second Report (2003). Second Report of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China in the Light of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. paras 13–24. Jian, B. (1965). The Outline of Chinese History (Vol. 2). Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (The People’s Publisher). Jinrongjie (2007). Zhongguo dongbu renjun GDP wei xibu 2.2 bei (The average GDP per capita of the eastern region of the PRC is 2.2 times higher than that of the western region). Retrieved on 30 July 2008 from the Jinrongjie Website: http://finance.jrj.com.cn/news/2007-08-15/000002549864.html Knight, D. B. (1985). Territory and people or people and territroy? Thoughts on postcolonial self determination. International Political Science Review (Revue Internationale de Science Politique), 6 (2), 248–72. Ku, H. B., Chan, K. W., Chan, W. L., & Lee, W. Y. (2003). A research report on the life experiences of Pakistanis in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Center for Social Policy Studies, Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and S.K.H. Lady MacLehose Center. Ku, H. B., Chan, K. W., & Sandhu, K. K. (2005). A research report on the education of south Asian ethnic minority groups in Hong Kong (2nd edn.). Hong Kong: Center for Social Policy Studies, Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Unison Hong Kong. Ku, H. B., Chan, K. W., & Sandhu, K. K. (2006). A research report on the employment of south Asian ethnic minority groups in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Center for Social Policy Studies, Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Laitinen, K. (1990). Chinese Nationalism in the Late Qing Dynasty: Zhang Binglin as an Anti-Manchu Propagandist. London: Curzon Press. Legge, J. (1967a). Chinese Classics. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Legge, J. (1967b). The Li Chi. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

218 Bibliography Li, X. (2001). Xinjiang minhan hexiao de yanbian jiqi fazhan qianjing (Evolution of school merger for both Han people and ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and its development prospect). Journal of Xinjiang University (Social Science Edition) 29 (2), 22–8. Li, X., & Huang, Q. (2004). The introduction and development of the Zhuang writing system. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 239–56). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lieberthal, K. G. & Dickson, B. J. (1989). A Research Guide to Central Party and Government Meetings in China, 1949–1986 (pp. 258–61). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Lin, J. H. (1997). Brief summary of the history of evolution of school education in the Ganzi Tibetan Region. Chinese Education and Society, 30 (5), 7–19. Liu, Q. (1991). Tibetan Basic Education and Tibetan Language Teaching. In The Use and Development of Languages and Scripts of China’s Minority Nationalities. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangwen Chubanshe (China Tibetan Press). Liu, X., & Yang, Y. (1994). The Educational Policy of the Qing Dynasty. Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (The People’s Publisher). Liu, Y. (1992). Education Events Dictionary of China. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Zhejiang Education Press). Loper, K. (2004). Race and equality: A study of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong’s education system. Hong Kong: Center for Comparative and Public Law, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong. Ma, J. (ed.). (1995). The Living Buddha’s Memories: Luoshang Yishi. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe (Yunnan Nationality Press). Ma, X. (1954). Zhongguo Shaoshu Minzu Yuyan (Minority languages of China). Zhongguo Jianshe (China Reconstructs), May–June 1954, 37–41. Ma, Z. (1992). Theory and Policy of Minority Languages. Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe (Yunnan Nationality Press). Mackerras, C. (1994). China’s Minorities: Integration and Modernization in the Twentieth Century. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Mackerras, C. (1995). China’s Minority Cultures: Identities and Integration since 1912. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Mackerras, C. (2003). China’s Ethnic Minorities and Globalisation. London; New York: RoutledgeCurzon. Menggu Ribao [Mongolian Daily]. 24 August 1948. National Bureau of Statistics of China (2002). Zhongguo 2000 Nian Renkou Pucha Ziliao (Tabulation on the 2000 Population Census of the People’s Republic of China). Beijing: Zhongguo Tongji Chubanshe (China Statistics Press). National Bureau of Statistics of China (2005). 2004 nian Yunnansheng guomin jingji he shehui fazhan tongji gongbao (Yunnan 2004 statistcs on economical and social development). Available at National Bureau of Statistics of China Website: http://www.stats.gov.cn/was40/gjtjj_detail. jsp?channelid=4362&record=153 Newetz, G. (1978). Language and Multicultural Education: An Australian Perspective. Sydney: ANZ Book Co. Pierson, H. (1998). Societal accommodation to English and Putonghua in Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong. In M. Pennington (ed.) Language in Hong Kong at Century’s End (pp. 91–112). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Bibliography

219

Pong, D., & Fung, E. S. K. (eds.). (1985). Ideal and Reality: Social and Political Change in Modern China, 1860–1949. Lanham, Md: University Press of America. Postiglione, G. A. (2000). National minority regions: Studying school discontinuation. In J. Liu, H. A. Ross and D. P. Kelly (eds.) The Ethnographic Eye: Interpretive Studies of Education in China (pp. 51–72). New York: Falmer Press. Postiglione, G. A., Jiao, B. & Manlaji. (2007). Language in Tibetan education: The case of the Neidiban. In A. Feng (ed.), Bilingual Education in China: Practices, Policies and Concepts (pp. 49–71). Clevedon; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. Pu, X., & Liu, J. (1996). Yi-Han shuangyu jiaoyu yanjiu (Yi-Han Bilingual Education Research). In Yunnan Shaoshu Minzu Shuangyu Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Bilingual Education Research to Yunnan Minority Nationalities) (pp. 59–65). Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe (Yunnan Nationality Press). Pu, Z. (2004). Policies on the planning and use of the Yi language and writing systems. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 257–76). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Purcell, V. (1963). The Boxer Uprising: A Background Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quarterly Chronicle and Documentation (2004). The China Quarterly. pp. 1123–72. Quarterly Chronicle and Documentation (2007). The China Quarterly. 189, pp. 232–84. Qumu, T., & Shama, B. (1991). The Significance of the Yi Script in Enhancement of Yi Peasants. In The Use and Development of Languages and Scripts of China’s Minority Nationalities. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangwen Chubanshe (China Tibetan Press). Ramsey, R. S. (1987). Languages of China. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. Renmin Ribao [People’s Daily]. 1 December 1961. Rigger, S. (1994). The voice of Manchu identity, 1635–1935. In S. Harrell (ed.), Cultural Encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers (pp. 186–214). Seattle: University of Washington Press. Rohsenow, J. S. (2004). Fifty years of script and written language reform in the PRC: The genesis of the language law of 2001. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 21–44). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ross, H. A. (2000). In the moment: Discourses of power, narratives of relationship: Framing ethnography of Chinese schooling, 1981–1997. In J. Liu, H. A. Ross and D. P. Kelly (eds.) The Ethnographic Eye: Interpretive Studies of Education in China (pp. 123–52). New York: Falmer Press. Schiffrin, H. Z. (1968). Sun Yat-Sen and the Origins of the Chinese Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Serruys, P. (1959). The Chinese Dialects of Han Time According to Fang Yen. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Shek, K. T., et al. (2001). The transition from English to mother tongue Chinese as a medium of instruction, issues and problems as seen by Hong Kong teachers. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 1 (1), 9–36. Shenamjil (1990). Yuyan yu Zhili Kaifa (Language and Intellectual Development). Hohhot: Neimenggu Renmin Chubanshe (Inner Mongolian People’s Press).

220

Bibliography

Shenamujila, T. (1995). Mongolian language and script and the cognitive development of Mongol people. In The Language and Script Use and Development of the Minority Nationalities in China (pp. 16–22). Beijing: Zangwen Chubanshe (Tibetan Press). Siu, P. K. & Mak, S. Y. (1992). The relationship between the medium of instruction and the teaching activities in junior secondary classrooms. Hong Kong Education Journal, 20 (2), 101–11. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Cummins, J. (eds.) (1988). Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Snow, E. (1937). Red Star over China. London: Victor Gollancz. Society for Community Organization (2004). A Study of the Nepalese community in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Movement Against Discrimination. Song, B. (1950). Yunnan Minzu Qingkuang Huiji (Collections of Report on Yunnan’s Nationalities) (Vol. 1). Edited by the Second Team of the Central Delegation, Kunming: Yunnan Minzu Chubanshe (Yunnan Nationality Press). South Asians in Hong Kong. Retrieved from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia on 30 November 2007. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_ Asians_in_Hong_Kong Stalin, J. (1913). Stalin Quanji (Complete Works of Stalin) (Vol. 2). reprinted in 1973, Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press). Stalin, J. (1950). Stalin Xuanji (Selected Works of Stalin). printed in 1979, Beijing: Renmin Chubanshe (People’s Press). State Language Commission (1995). Yuyan Wenzi Gongzuo Baiti (100 Questions in Language Orthography Work). Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe. Sun, H., Hu, Z., & Huang, X. (eds.). (2007). Zhongguo de Yuyan (The Languages of China) Beijing: Shangwu Yinshuguan (The Commercial Press). Sun, R., Teng, X., & Wang, M. (1990). Introduction to Education of Minority Nationalities in China. Beijing: Zhongguo Laodong Chubanshe (China Labour Press). Tai, P. (2004). Language policy and standardization of Korean in China. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 303–16). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Tanzeng, J., Baima, C., & Suolang, D. (1995). Practice of and Exploration into Bilingual Education in Tibet. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Ethnic-Minority Education and Multi-Culture. 15–18 November 1995, Kunming. Teng, X. (1996a). Zhongguo shaoshu minzu shuangyu jiaoyu yanjiu de duixiang, tedian, neirong yu fangfa (Subjects, features, content and methodology in researching bilingual education for Chiense minority groups). Minzu Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Ethnic Education Research), 2, 44–53. Teng, X. (1996b). “Zhonghua minzu duoyuan yiti geju” sixiang yu zhongguo shaoshu minzu shuangyu jiaoyu (The structure of pluralist inclusion of Chinese minorities) yanjiu. Minzu Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Ethnic Education Research), 4, 42–9. Teng, X. (2000). Liangshan yizu shequ xuexiao shishi Yi-Han shuangyu jiaoyu de biyaoxing (Necessity of conducting Yi–Han bilingual education in community schools in Liangshan). Minzu Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Ethnic Education Research), 1, 5–25.

Bibliography

221

Teng, X. (2004). Xiaokang shehui yu xibu pianyuan pinkun diqu shaoshu minzu jichu jiaoyu (On the well-off society and elementary education for the poor minorities in West China). Yunnan Minzu Daxue Xuebao (Journal of Yunnan Nationalities University), 21 (4), 148–50. Tian, J. (1993). Research on Ethnic Policies in China. Lanzhou: Qinghai Renmin Chubanshe (Qinghai People’s Publisher). Tsui, A., et al. (1999). Which agenda? Medium of instrction policy in post-1997 Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12 (3), 196–214. Tsung, T. H. (1999). Minorities in China: Language Policy and Education. Unpublished PhD thesis, the University of Sydney. Tsung, T. H. (2004). A case study of endangered languages: The language situation of Xiandao. Journal of Chinese Sociolinguistics, 2 (3), 45–50. Tsurumi, E. P. (1977). Japanese Colonial Education in Taiwan, 1895–1945. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Upton, J. L. (1999). The development of modern school-based Tibetan language education in the PRC. In G. A. Postiglione (ed.), China’s National Minority Education: Culture, Schooling, and Development (pp. 281–340). New York: Falmer Press. US Department of State (2001). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Hong Kong. Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor on 23 February 2001. Retrieved on 30 November 2007 at: http://www.state. gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/eap/686.htm Wang, C. (1996). The world bank and China: Investing in human resources development. Unpublished MEd thesis. Sydney: The University of Sydney. Wang, C. (2002). Minban education: The planned elimination of the “peoplemanaged” teachers in reforming China. International Journal of Educational Development, 22, 109–29. Wang, J. (ed.) (1995). Dangdai Zhongguo Wenzi de Gaige (Language Reform of Contemporary China). Beijing: Dangdai Zhongguo Chubanshe (Contemporary China Press). Wang, T. (1989). The History of China’s Nationalities. Shanghai: Shanghai Shudian (Shanghai Book Store). Wang, X. (1990). Nationalty Education in China’s Border Regions. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue Chubanshe (Central University of Nationality Studies Publisher). Woodhead, H. G. W. (ed.) (1922). The China Year Book, 1921–2. Peking: Tientsin Press. Woodhead, H. G. W. (ed.) (1931). The China Year Book. London: Simpkin Marshall. Wu, Z. (1991). The great effect of the Yi script in Liangshan Yi areas. In The Use and Development of Languages and Scripts of China’s Minority Nationalities. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangwen Chubanshe (China Tibetan Press). Wulan, T. (1994a). General Situation of Inner Mongolian Education. Hohhot: Neimenggu Wenhua Chubanshe (Inner Mongolian Culture Publisher). Wulan, T. (1994b). Introduction to Inner Mongolian Education. Hulunbeier: Neimenggu Wenhua Chubanshe (Inner Mongolian Culture Press). Wulan, T. (1997). Neimenggu Zizhiqu Minzu Jiaoyu Zuituchu de Wenti, Qi Chansheng Yuanyin ji Duice (ethnic education in Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region: Problems, reasons, and policies). Minzu Jiaoyu Yanjiu (Ethnic Education Research) (2).

222

Bibliography

Xie, Q. (1989). Zhongguo Minzu Jiaoyushi Gang (The Historical Outlines of Nationality Education in China). Nanning: Guangxi Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Guangxi Educational Press). Yan, X. (1990). The rationalisation of bilingual education. In Research Papers on China’s Bilingual Education for Minority Nationalities. Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe (Nationality Press). Yang, L. (2004) Shiji zhijiao de Xinjiang shuangyu jiaoxue [Bilingual education in Xinjiang at the turn of the century]. In Q. Dai (ed.) Shuangyuxue Yanjiu: Di Er Ji [Bilingual Studies, II] (pp. 114–25). Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House. Yang, J. (2005). English as a third language among China’s ethnic minorities. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8 (6), 552–67. Yunnan Provincial Education Commission (1989). On the Use of Minority Languages in Education. Kunming: Yunnan Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Yunnan Educational Publishing Hous). Zhang, T. (1992). Zhaimen qian de Shimenkan-Jidujiao Wenhua yu Chuanqiandian bian Miaozu Shehui (The Narrow Gate of the Shimenkan-Christian Culture and the Miao Society in the Cross-Border of Sichuan, Yunnan and Guizhou). Kunming: Yunnan Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Yunnan Educational Publishing House). Zhang, Y. (2004) Xinjiang shuangyu jiaoxue de xinfazhan [Recent developments in bilingual education in Xinjiang]. In Q. Dai (ed.) Shuangyuxue Yanjiu: Di Er Ji [Bilingual Studies, II ] (pp. 108–13). Beijing: Ethnic Publishing House. Zhongguo Minzu Tongji Nianjian 1949–1994 (China’s Ethnic Statistical Yearbook 1949–1994) (1994). Beijing: Minzu Chubanshe (Nationality Press). Zhou, J. (ed.) (2000). Chinese Universities and Colleges (3rd edn.). Beijing: Gaodeng Jiaoyu Chubanshe (Higher Education Press). Zhou, M. (2000). Language policy and illiteracy in ethnic minority communities in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21 (2), 129–48. Zhou, M. (2001). The politics of bilingual education and educational levels in ethnic minority communities in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4 (2), 125–49. Zhou, M. (2003). Multilingualism in China: The Politics of Writing Reforms for Minority Languages 1949–2002. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Zhou, M. (2004a). Minority language policy in China: Equality in theory and inequality in practice. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 71–96). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zhou, M. (2004b). The use and development of Tibetan in China. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 221–38). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zhou, Q. (2003). The problem of continuous decline of students enrollment in maintenance bilingual program in Inner Mongolia.Unpublished manuscript. Zhou, Q. (2004). The creation of writing systems and nation establishment: The case of China in the 1950s. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 55–70). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Zhou, Y. (1990). Education in Contemporary China. Changsha: Hunan Education Publishing House.

Bibliography

223

Zhou, Y. (1992). Xin Yuwen de Jianshe (New Language Construction). Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe (Language Publisher). Zhou, Y., & Fang, F. (2004). The use and development of Dai and its vernacular writing systems. In M. Zhou & H. Sun (eds.), Language Policy in the People’s Republic of China: Theory and Practice since 1949 (pp. 201–20). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Index affirmative action, and minority languages, 98 Altay, and Tatar community, 20 and Russian community, 21 Am Kad (Tibetan dialect), 24 ancestor worship, 28, 29, 32 animism, 23, 29, 32 Anti-Han Chauvinism campaign, 89, 95 Anti-Japanese Military and Political University, 63 Anti-Narrow Minded Local Nationalist movement, 86, 87, 89, 93 Anti-Rightist campaign, 84 Apei Awangjinmei, 67 army service, and language learning, 4 autonomous government and introduction of, 66 and levels of, 10–11 autonomous regions, 2, 9–10 and criticism of, 10 and establishment of, 9 and legal basis of, 10 and Regional Autonomy for Minority Nationalities law (1984), 98, 100–1 and rights of, 10 and use of minority languages, 66 Bai and script reform, 80 in southern region, 30–1 banners, and autonomous government, 10–11 Beidi (Northern barbarians), 34 Beijing and Korean community, 15 and Mongol community, 16–17 Beijing Manchu School, 15 Bendi, as Li ethnic group, 32 bilingual education and academics learning Chinese: academic interviewees, 143; choosing children’s education, 224

148–51, 155; importance of, 147; language proficiency, 143; learning other foreign languages, 147–8; through Chinese immersion (min kao han), 144–5; through the mother tongue (min kao min), 145–7; University language policy, 151–2 and approaches to, 104–7 and bilingual and bi-literacy program, 159; Yi–Han bilingual program, 161–2 and bilingual and Chinese-literacy program, 158, 159; Naxi–Han bilingual program, 159–61 and challenges facing, 120 and definitions of, 105–6; meaning of bilingualism, 104–5 and demand for, 201 and different applications of, 106 and education policy, 123–4 and effectiveness of, 111 and inequality in education, 152; Han/Uyghur divide, 153–4; urban/rural divide, 152 and introduction to China, 105 and language enrichment program, 159; Tibetan–Han bilingual program, 162–4 and language maintenance program, 159; Dai–Han bilingual program, 164–6 and non-formal language learning, 4, 106 in the north, 112–17, 123, 128 and “one dragon” model (mother tongue instruction), 105, 112–17, 128 and political and educational context, 127–8 and popularity of term, 128 and problems facing, 129

Index 225 bilingual education – continued and pyramid model, 106, 107–11, 121, 128, 202 and school merging policy, 124–5 and shift towards, 199 in the south, 107–11, 121–3, 128 and State Council Document (1991) 32, 101 and tasks for minority language programs, 108 and Tibetan model, 117–20, 128 and trilingual education, 122–3 and written scripts, 109–10 in Yunnan province, 202; curriculum, 171–2; Dai–Han bilingual program, 164–6; examinations, 173–4; four models of, 158–9; impact of cultural elements, 174–5; languages spoken outside school, 166; Naxi–Han bilingual program, 159–61; parental attitudes, 170–1; problems facing, 175–6; student attitudes, 166; students and language use, 166–7; teachers and language use, 167–9; Tibetan–Han bilingual program, 162–4; Yi–Han bilingual program, 161–2 see also primary schools Bingshan shang de Laike (Visitors to the Ice Mountain, film), 7 Bonan, in central west region, 23–4 Buddhism, 1, 25, 26 Cai Yuanpei, 55, 56 Cangluo Monba, 25 Cantonese, and Hong Kong, 177 Capital University, 45 Central Committee on Script Reform, 88, 89 Central University for Nationalities (CUN), 7, 76 central west region of China and Islam, 22–3 and minority communities, 21–4 centralization and curriculum, 103–4, 171–2, 173–4 and script unification, 36

Changbai Korean Autonomous County, 15 Changchun, and Korean community, 15 Changji, and Tatar community, 20 Chen Jiongming, 55 Chen Yi, 88 Chiang Kai-shek, 47, 53–4 and New Life Movement, 58 China Research Association for Teaching Chinese to Minority Students, 105 China Research Association of Bilingual Education for Minority Nationalities, 105 Chinese Academy of Sciences, 85 see also Institute of Linguistics Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 99 Chinese Community Party (CCP) and attitude towards minorities, 61; on Long March, 61–2 and decision-makers, 67–8 and education policy, 62–3, 66; as agent of political and social change, 81; minorities, 63 and “eight character” policy, 90–1 and establishment of autonomous regions, 9 and language as instrument of political struggle, 53 and language policy, 65, 66, 195–6, 202–3; new policy guidelines, 205; reform activity among minorities, 69–71; reforms, 69 and minorities policy, 64–5, 67, 68, 194–5, 196; Common Program of the People’s Republic of China, 66; identifying nationalities, 71–4; political factors, 68–9; recent changes, 205 and minority languages, 3, 64, 66, 195–6; classification of, 68 and script reform, 63–4, 69–70; Zhuang, 70–1 and self-determination of minorities, 60–1; abandonment of policy, 64 Chinese nationalism and growth of, 35 and minzu, 35

226

Index

Chinese Script Reform Association, 69 Chinese Women’s University, 62 Chongqing Municipality, and Tujia community, 29 Christianity, 26, 29, 30 and Christian schools, 57 and Korean community, 15 Chuluun Bagan, 112 civil service examinations and language change, 37–9 under Qing Dynasty, 42, 48 under Yuan Dynasty, 41 colonialism, and Japanese language policy in occupied China, 50–1 Commission for the Unification of the National Language, 55 Commission on the Standardization of the Sounds of the National Language (1912), 55 Common Program of the People’s Republic of China, 66 Communist Party School, 63 community policy, 1 Cona Monba, 25 Confucianism, and language change, 36–7 Confucius Institutes, 200 Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and autonomous regions, 10 and minority rights, 95 Constitution of the Republic of China, and minority languages, 3 counties, and autonomous government, 10–11 Cultural Revolution, 92–4, 95–6, 196 and outcomes of, 96–7 culture, and impact on language learning, 174–5 Dai, 8 and bilingual education, 109–10, 158, 164–6; languages spoken outside school, 166; parental attitudes, 170; student attitudes, 166; students and language use, 166–7 and literacy, 81–2

as medium of instruction, 91 and revival of traditional script, 109–10 and script reform, 79–80 Dai Qingxia, 99 Dali Bai Autonomous Prefecture, 30 Daoism, 26 Datong, and Tu community, 22 Daur in northeast region, 13–14 in northern region, 17 Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture, and bilingual education, 158, 164–6 Deng Xiaoping, 82, 90, 95, 98, 119, 120, 196, 197 dialects and Han language, 4, 73 and identifying separate languages, 72–3 and Miao, 28, 73 and Tibetan, 24 and Yi, 30, 72–3, 158 Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and bilingual education, 158, 162–4 Dong and bilingual education, 121–2 and legal status as nationality, 72 and script reform, 72; abandonment of, 87 Dongxiang, in central west region, 23 Dongxiang Autonomous County, 23 economic development and demand for Chinese, 153, 197–8 and impact of, 194 and inequality, 194, 199 and minority communities, 197 and minority languages, 129 education policy, 1 as agent of political and social change, 81 and central government, 3 and centralized curriculum, 103–4, 171–2, 173–4 and Chinese Communist Party, 62–3, 65, 66; minorities, 63 and civil service examinations, 37–8; under Qing Dynasty,

Index 227 education policy – continued 42, 48; under Yuan Dynasty, 41 and Cultural Revolution, 92, 93–4, 95–6 and Hong Kong, 181–3 and Kuo Min Tang, 54–5, 56–7, 65; border education, 57–60 and language learning, 4 and Law on Regional Autonomy for Minority Nationalities, 100–1 and Law on the promotion of Putonghua, 102–3 and medium of instruction, 80–3, 95, 107 and minority education, 62–3, 106–7; outcomes of, 197–8 and moderate approach (1961–65), 90–2 and priority of ideological demands, 84–5 and promotion of Putonghua, 88–9 under Qing Dynasty, 43, 44, 45–6, 47–8, 49–50 and re-assertion of minority languages, 196–7 and script reform, 46–7 and spread of common language, 5 and teacher shortages, 82 see also bilingual education “eight character” policy, 90–1 Engle language of Yugurs, 23–4 ethnic amalgamation, and identification of minority nationalities, 71 ethnic identification and identification of minority nationalities, 71–2 and political purposes of, 74 ethnic identity, and minority languages, 201–2 ethnic townships, 11 Ewenki, in northern region, 17 examinations, and bilingual education, 173–4 Fei Xiaotong, 67 foreign language learning, 147–8 and popularity of, 4–5 Fu Maoji, 67, 80

Gai, as Li ethnic group, 32 Gansu province and Bonan community, 23–4 and Dongxiang community, 23 and minority communities, 22 and Mongol community, 16–17 and Tibetan community, 24–5 and Tu community, 22–3 and Yugur community, 24 Gaoshan, and legal status as nationality, 71–2 Gong Zizhi, 57 Great Leap Forward, 84–5, 195, 196 and collapse of, 90 and promotion of Putonghua, 88–90 and student enrolment, 87–8 Grewal, Harnam Singh, 179 Guangxi Institute of Nationalities, 70 Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region (GZAR), 10, 70 and bilingual education, 110 and minority communities, 26–8 and Zhuang community, 26–8 Guangxi Zhuang School, 71 Guizhou province and Bai community, 30–1 and bilingual education, 121–2 and Miao community, 28, 29 and minority communities, 26–8 and Tujia community, 29–30 Guoluo Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Tibetan community, 22 Guoyin system, and language teaching, 5 Haibei Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Tibetan community, 22 Hainan province and Li community, 32 and minority communities, 26–8 Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Tibetan community, 22

228 Index Haixi Mongol and Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, 16 and Kazak community, 19 and Tibetan community, 21–2 Han, as majority nationality, 1, 9 Han as a Second Language for Minority Students (HSLMS), 171, 173–4 Han Dynasty and Confucianism, 36–7 and linguistic diversity, 37 and script unification, 36 Han language (Hanyu), 210 n1 and advantages of using, 2, 104, 129, 197–8 and centralized curriculum, 103–4, 171–2, 173–4 and civil service examinations, 37–9 and Confucianism, 36–7 and dialects, 73 and differences from minority languages, 4 and difficulties in learning, 4 and Hanyu Pinyin alphabet, 3, 5 and language fusion policy, 85–8; anti-Chinese language sentiment, 99–100 as medium of instruction, 81, 82, 87, 95; Inner Mongolia, 75, 76; Tibet, 77–8; Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, 76–7; Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, 74 and minority adoption of, 11 and New Writing System, 63–4 under Qing Dynasty, 43, 44, 45, 49 and script unification, 35–6 and speech reform, 49 and spread of, 2 and Yi community, 4 under Yuan Dynasty, 40–1 see also bilingual education; Putonghua (Mandarin) Han script (Hanzi), 210 n1 and promotion of, 36 Han Wu, Emperor, 36 Hani and language script, 78

and script reform, 78, 80 Hanyu Pinyin alphabet, 3, 5 He Xiu, 37 He Zhiqiang, 159 Hebei, and Mongol community, 16–17 Heilongjiang province and Hezhe community, 15–16 and Kirgiz community, 19 and minority communities, 13 and Mongol community, 16–17 and Oroqen community, 16 and Russian community, 21 Hezhe and language of, 15–16 and legal status as nationality, 71 in northeast region, 13–14, 15–16 Hmong, 28 Hong Kong, 155–6, 203 and Cantonese, 177 and education practice, 181–3 and foreign minority languages, 192–3 and language policy, 180–1, 192, 193 and mainland migrants to, 177 and non-Chinese speaking minorities: education policy, 182–3; guide for teaching Chinese to, 193; issues in teaching Chinese to, 185–7; programs in support of, 183; student attitudes towards Chinese, 184–5 and parents of non-Chinese speakers, 187; on discrimination, 190–2; views on learning Chinese, 187–8; views on learning Chinese grammar, 190; views on learning difficulties, 189; views on learning Putonghua, 188–9; views on teaching methods, 189–90 and Putonghua-speaking minority, 177 and Southern Asian minorities, 177–8, 203; economic status of, 180; Filipinos, 178–9;

Index 229 Hong Kong – continued Indians, 179–80; Indonesians, 179; Jains, 179; Nepalese, 180; Pakistanis, 180; Parsis, 179–80; Sikhs, 179; Sindhis, 179 Hongda School, and bilingual education, 161–2, 174 Hu Jintao, 205 Hu Qiaomu, 88 Huangnan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Tibetan community, 22 Hubei province, and Tujia community, 29 Hui and adoption of Chinese, 11 and bilingual education, 114 in central west region, 22 and ethnic identity, 72 in northeast region, 14 Huiyan Primary School, and bilingual education, 159–61, 167, 168–9 Hunan province and Miao community, 28 and minority communities, 26 and Tujia community, 29–30 Hundred Flowers Movement, 84 Huzhu, and Tu community, 22–3 Ili, and Tatar community, 20 Ili Kazak Autonomous Prefecture, 19 Imperial Colleges, 38 inequality, and economic development, 194, 199 Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region (IMAR), 10 and bilingual education, 112–14, 129, 201 and Daur community, 16–17 and decline in Mongolian-language education, 125–7 and Ewenki community, 17 and incentives for studying Mongolian, 127 and language policy implementation, 75–6 and minority communities, 16–17 and Mongol community, 16–17 and Oroqen community, 16

and resistance to learning Mongolian, 125–6 and Russian community, 21 and script reform, 76, 87 and use of Mongolian in schools, 91; decline in, 125 Inner Mongolian Institute of Military and Political Studies, 75 Institute of Linguistics of the Chinese Academy of Science, 68, 70, 83 internal security, and minority nationalities, 9 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), 182 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 182 internationalization, and Chinese language, 200 Islam, 1, 18, 19–20, 22–3, 130 Japan, and language policy, 48 occupied China, 50–1 Ji, as Li ethnic group, 32 Jiamao, as Li ethnic group, 32 Jiarong, 11 Jilin province and bilingual education, 116–17 and Korean community, 15 and minority communities, 13 and Mongol community, 16–17 Jing, Emperor, 37 Jingpo, 73 and script reform, 78 Jino, and legal status as nationality, 72 Kam, and bilingual education, 121–2 Kazak and bilingual education, 114 and language policy implementation, 76–7 and language preservation, 19 and language script, 19 in northwest region, 18, 19 and script reform, 77, 116 Kazakhstan, Republic of, 19 Kejia (Hakka), as Han dialect, 4

230 Index Kemei, 11 Kemu, 11 Kham Kad (Tibetan dialect), 24 Khubilai, Emperor, 39 Kirgiz and bilingual education, 114 and language use, 19 in northwest region, 18, 19 Kizilsu Kirgiz Autonomous Prefecture, and Kirgiz community, 19 Korean and bilingual education, 116–17, 201 and language policy implementation, 74–5 and language skills, 15 in northeast region, 13–14, 15 Korean War, 69 Kuo Min Tang (National Party), 52 and attitude towards minorities, 53–4 and education policy, 56–7; border education, 57–60 and language as instrument of political struggle, 53 and language policy, 54–5, 65 and script reform, 56 Kyrgyzstan, 19 Lahu, and script reform, 80 Lamaism, 22, 23 Lang, and Lhoba community, 25 language change, and historical drivers of, 35, 51–2 civil service examinations, 37–9 Confucianism, 36–7 Japanese policy in occupied China, 50–1 Manchu invasion and the Qing Dynasty, 41–6 Mongol dominance and Yuan Dynasty, 39–41 script reform under Qing Dynasty, 46–9 script unification, 35–6 speech reform under Qing Dynasty, 49 language fusion policy, 85–8 and opposition to, 99–100 and turmoil associated with, 99

language policy, 1, 65, 66 and assimilationist approach, 5 and campaign for promotion of Putonghua, 88–90 and central government, 3 and centralized curriculum, 103–4, 171–2, 173–4 and Cultural Revolution, 92, 93–4, 95–6, 196 and “eight character” policy, 90–1 and equality of nationalities, 64 and future directions, 204, 206 and Great Leap Forward, 84–5, 195, 196 and Hong Kong, 180–1, 192, 193 and implementation of: impatience with progress, 83; Kazak, 76–7; Korean, 74–5; medium of instruction, 80–3; Mongolian, 75–6; problems with, 5, 83–4; southwest, 78–80; Tibet, 77–8; Uyghur, 76–7 and isolationist approach, 5 and Japan, 48 and Kuo Min Tang, 54–5, 65; border education, 57–60; school curriculum, 56 and language fusion policy, 85–8; opposition to, 99–100; turmoil associated with, 99 and Law on Regional Autonomy for Minority Nationalities, 100–1 and Law on the promotion of Putonghua, 102–3 and medium of instruction, 80–3, 91, 95, 107 and minority education, 62–3, 106–7 and moderate approach (1961–65), 90–2 and new policy guidelines, 205 and pluralist/integrationist approach, 5 and post-Cultural Revolution policies, 99–102 and priority of ideological demands, 84–5 and reform of, 69; among minorities, 69–71; Zhuang, 70–1

Index 231 language policy – continued and spread of common language, 5 and State Council Document (1991) 32, 101–2 see also bilingual education Lanping Primary School, and bilingual education, 162–4, 170–1 League of Nations, 3 League of Nations Commission, and Chinese education policy, 56–7 Lenin, 60, 62 Lhoba, 11 and legal status as nationality, 72 in southwest region, 26 Li and ethnic groups, 32–3 and script reform, 80 in southern region, 32 Li Jiansheng, 123 Li Weihan, 67, 69–70, 73, 90, 93 Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, and bilingual education, 110–11 Liaoning province and minority communities, 14 and Mongol community, 16–17 Lijiang City, and Naxi community, 31 Lijiang Naxi Autonomous County, and bilingual education, 158, 159–61 Lin Biao, 94 Lingao, and identification as Han, 73 Linzhi Prefecture, and Lhoba community, 26 Lipuo (Yi dialect), 73 Lisu and language script, 109 and script reform, 78, 79, 80 literacy, 81 and religion, 81–2 Liu Bin, 102–3 Liu Bocheng, 62 Liu Shaoqi, 90 living standards, 194 local government, and levels of autonomous government, 10–11 Long March, 61–2 Long Qinghou, 42 Longzi, and Lhoba community, 26

Lu Dingyi, 90, 104 Lu Wanzhong, 42 Lu Zhuangzhang, 49 Luoyu, and Lhoba community, 26 Ma Bufang, 63 Macau, 193 Manchu and language change under Qing Dynasty, 41–6 and legal status as nationality, 72 in northeast region, 12–15 and number of, 15 and switch to Chinese, 11 and threat to language’s survival, 15 Manchu, Mongolian and Tibetan Language University, 45 Manzhou guo (Manchu State), 64 and Japanese colonial language policy, 51 Mao Zedong, 61, 63, 64, 83, 86, 90, 95, 104, 196 and attacks on education system, 92 and minorities policy, 68 and power of, 67 and script reform, 69 Marxism, 66–7 May 4 Movement, 53 and script reform, 56 Meifeu, as Li ethnic group, 32 Miao and education policy under Qing Dynasty, 47–8 and language dialects, 28, 73 and language script, 28, 78 and script reform, 46–8, 79, 80; abandonment of, 87 in southern region, 28–9 Milin, and Lhoba community, 26 Min, as Han dialect, 4 Ming Dynasty, 41 Minhe, and Tu community, 22–3 minority languages, 1, 210 n1 and adoption by other minority communities, 11 and challenges facing, 5–6 and classification of, 68; by language family, 12

232 Index minority languages – continued and Common Program of the People’s Republic of China, 66 and Constitution of the Republic of China, 3 and decline in, 202, 205 and differences from Han language, 4 and economic development, 129 and empowerment of, 204 and ethnic identity, 201–2 and identification of, 71–4; political purposes of, 74 and language fusion policy, 85–8; opposition to, 99–100; turmoil associated with, 99 and Law on Regional Autonomy for Minority Nationalities, 100–1 as medium of instruction, 80–3, 91, 107 and number of, 11 and official status of, 66 and origins of, 1 and political significance of, 3, 6, 203–4 and re-assertion of, 196–7 and script reform, 70 and use in autonomous regions, 66 see also bilingual education; language change, and historical drivers of; language policy minority nationalities and adoption of other minority languages, 11 and autonomous regions, 2, 9–10 and central government, 3 and concept of, 2 and distribution of, 12–13; central west region, 21–4; northeast region, 13–16; northern region, 16–17; northwest region, 17–21; southern region, 26–32; southwest, 24–6 and diversity amongst, 8–9 and educational outcomes, 197–8 as frontier space, 2–3 and identification of, 71–4; political purposes of, 74

and impact of Cultural Revolution, 96–7 and importance of, 194 and language issues, 3 and minzu, 2 and number officially recognized, 1 and political significance of, 203–4 as proportion of population, 9 and significance of, 9 and stigma associated with, 2 and use of term, 1 minzu, 35 missionaries and schools run by, 57 and script reform, 46–7, 210 n3 Monba in southwest region, 25 and two languages of, 25 Mong, 28 Mongol and bilingual education, 112–14, 125–6, 129, 201 and Cultural Revolution, 93 and decline in Mongolian-language education, 125–7 and employment opportunities, 125–6 and incentives for studying Mongolian, 127 and Katso language, 31 and language policy implementation, 75–6 and language policy of Kuo Min Tang, 54–5 and language under Qing Dynasty, 43, 45–6 and language under Yuan Dynasty, 40, 41 and Mongolian as endangered language, 17 in northeast region, 13–14 in northern region, 16–17 and resistance to learning Mongolian, 125–6 and script reform, 76, 87 in southern region, 31 and university entrance requirements, 125

Index 233 Mongol – continued and use of Mongolian in schools, 91; decline in, 125 Mongolian Hanlin Academy, 41 Mongolian Imperial College, 40 Mongols, and Yuan Dynasty, 39–41 Mosuo, 8–9 Motuo, and Lhoba community, 26 multiculturalism, and diversity amongst minorities, 8–9 Nanman (Southern barbarians), 34 Naran Bilik, 113, 126 National College for the Study of Muslim Culture, 40 National Conference on Minority Education, 80 National Conference on Minority Languages and Scripts, 86 National Orientation Conference on Putonghua teaching, 88–9 nationalities, see minority nationalities Naxi, 8 and bilingual education, 158, 159–61; languages spoken outside school, 166; student attitudes, 166; students and language use, 166–7; teachers and language use, 168–9 and language script, 161 and script reform, 79, 80 in southern region, 31 New Life Movement, 58 New Writing Association, 64 New Writing System, 63–4 Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, 117 Ninglang Yi Autonomous Prefecture, and bilingual education, 158, 161–2 Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (NHAR), 10 and Dongxiang community, 23 and Hui community, 22 northeast region of China and bilingual education, 114, 116–17 and characteristics of, 14 and minority communities, 14–16

northern region of China and bilingual education, 112–14, 123 and minority communities, 16–17 northwest region of China and bilingual education, 114–16 and characteristics of, 18 and Islam, 18, 19–20 and minority communities, 18–21 Nusuo (Yi dialect), 73 Oroqen and language of, 16 in northeast region, 12–14, 15, 16 Outer Mongolia, and secession of, 53 Pang Xianwei, 124 Peng Zhen, 83 People’s Government Organization Act, 74 People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Constitution of, 10, 95 and declared a united country, 9 and minority languages, 3 see also Chinese Community Party (CCP) pictographs, 8, 31 Pishan, and Tajik community, 21 Pollard, Samuel, 46 poverty, 194 prefectures, and autonomous government, 10 primary schools, in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) and Chinese teaching materials, 138–40 and Han and Uyghur school, 133 and lack of pupil integration, 135–6 and language issues, 132–4 and learning Chinese, 134–5 and parental attitudes, 136–7 and shortage of Chinese teachers, 137–8 and Uyghur parents’ choice of school, 140–2 and Uyghur school, 133–4 Promoting Putonghua Committee, 88 provinces, and Autonomous Prefectures, 10

234 Index Putonghua (Mandarin) and campaign for promotion of, 88–90 and definition of, 88 and economic development, 201 as Han dialect, 4 and internationalizing Chinese language, 200 and Law on the promotion of, 98, 102–3, 128 and minority languages, 3 and National Conference on the Promotion of (1986), 102–3 and promotion as inter-ethnic communication tool, 200–1 see also Han language (Hanyu) Qiang (Eastern barbarians), 34 Qin Dynasty, and language change, 35–6 Qin Shi Huang, Emperor, and script unification, 35–6 Qing Dynasty and education policy, 43, 44, 45–6, 47–8, 49–50 and language change, 41–6 and overthrow of, 52 and political system, 41–2 and script reform, 46–9 and speech reform, 49 Qingdao, and Korean community, 15 Qinghai as Autonomous Prefecture, 10 and Hui community, 22 and minority communities, 21–2 and Mongol community, 16 and Tibetan community, 21–2, 24 and Tu community, 22 Raohul language of Yugurs, 23 Regional Autonomy for Minority Nationalities, law on (1984), 98, 100 and minority languages, 100–1 religion and bilingual education, 109–10 and Cultural Revolution, 92–3 and language maintenance, 1 and literacy, 81–2

and minority languages, 201 Republic of China (ROC) and attitude towards minorities, 53–4 and education policy, 57–60 and establishment of, 52 and language policy, 54–5 and minority languages, 3 and script reform, 56 and speech reform, 55 Revolution in Education, 94, 95–6 Ricci, Matteo, 46 Russians, in northwest region, 21 Salars in central west region, 22–3 and dying language, 23 Sarikol Tajik language, 21 schools and civil service examinations, 38 and Cultural Revolution, 92, 93–4, 95–6 and enrolment rates, 82–3 and implementation of language policy, 5; Korean, 74–5; Mongolian, 75 and language learning, 4 and medium of instruction, 80–3, 91 and parental resistance to, 82 and school merging policy: bilingual education, 124–5; Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, 131–2, 201 and spread of common language, 5 see also primary schools script reform and Bai, 80 and Chinese Communist Party, 63–4, 69–70 and Christian missionaries, 46–7 and Dai, 79–80 and Dong, 72, 87 and halt to, 87 and Hani, 78, 80 and impatience with progress of, 83 and Kazak, 77, 116 and Kuo Min Tang, 56 and Lahu, 80 and language fusion policy, 86, 87 and Li, 80

Index 235 script reform – continued and Lisu, 78, 79, 80 and Miao, 46–8, 79, 80, 87 and minority languages, 70 and Mongolian, 76, 87 and Naxi, 79, 80 and New Writing System, 63–4 and problems with, 84 in Republic of China (ROC), 56 in southwest, 78–9 and Tatar, 77 and Uyghur, 77, 87, 116 and Uzbek, 77 and Va, 80 and Yao, 80 and Yi, 79, 80, 87, 91 and Zaiwa, 78, 79, 80 and Zhuang, 70–1, 80, 87, 91 script unification, 35–6 Serdyuchenko, G. B., 67, 70 Shache, and Tajik community, 21 Sham al-Din, Saiyid Ajall, 39 Shamanism, 32 and Hezhe, 16 and Oroqen, 16 Shandong, and Japanese colonial language policy, 51 Shanghai, and Korean community, 15 She, and switch to Chinese, 11 Sheng Shicai, 58 Shenyang, and Korean community, 15 Shimonoseki, Treaty of (1895), 50 Shui, and language script, 78 Sichuan province and Bai community, 30–1 and bilingual education, 122–3, 128 and Miao community, 28–9 and minority communities, 26 and Tibetan community, 24–5 and Yi community, 30 Sino-Japanese war, 50 Siyi (barbarians of the four quarters), 34 social cohesion and language policy, 3 and minority nationalities, 9 Social Darwinism, 52

Socialist Education Movement, 92 Songpan County Tibetan-Language School, 122–3 Southern Asians, 177–82, 187, 190, 192, 203 southern region of China, and bilingual education, 110–11, 121–3 southwest region of China and bilingual education, 107–10 and language policy implementation, 78–80 and minority communities, 24–6 speech reform under Qing Dynasty, 49 in Republic of China (ROC), 55 Stalin, J., 61, 85–6, 104 State Commission on Nationalities Affairs, 85, 98 and conference on minority languages (1980), 99 and minority education, 106–7 and re-establishment of, 99 State Council and Document (1991) 32, 101–2 and Five Principles, 83 and minority education, 106–7 and minority languages, 95 and promotion of Putonghua, 88 and script reform, 70 State Education Commission, 99, 102 and bilingual education, 111 and centralized curriculum, 103–4 State Language Commission, 11, 98, 102 Steering Committee for Minority Language and Research, 70, 83 Subei Mongol Autonomous County, 17 Sui Dynasty, and civil service examinations, 37–8 Sun Hongkai, 99 Sun Yat-Sen and minorities, 52–3 and Three People’s Principles, 54 Sunan Yugur Autonomous County, and Yugur community, 24 Tacheng and Russian community, 21 and Tajik community, 21 and Tatar community, 20

236

Index

Taiwan, and Japanese colonial language policy, 50–1 Tajiks in northwest region, 20–1 and three languages of, 21 Tang Dynasty, and civil service examinations, 38 Tanzeng Jinmei, 118, 119 Tao Zhu, 104 Taoism, 22 Tatar and language script, 20 in northwest region, 18, 20 and script reform, 77 Tatarstan, Republic of, 20 Taxkorgan, and Tajik community, 20 teacher training and Putonghua proficiency, 103, 137–8 and shortage of Chinese teachers, 137–8, 150–1, 154 Tenzin Gyatso, 204 terrorism, war on, 204 textbooks and Chinese teaching materials, 138–9, 172 and script unification, 36 Tian Chi (lake), 14 Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), 10, 24 and bilingual education, 117–20, 128 and Lhoba community, 25–6 and Monba community, 25 and schools, 25 and Tibetan community, 24–5 and use of Chinese, 24 Tibet University, 25 Tibetan Institute for Nationalities, 95 Tibetan(s), 8 and bilingual education, 117–20, 122–3, 128, 158, 162–4; languages spoken outside school, 166; parental attitudes, 170–1; student attitudes, 166; students and language use, 166–7 in central west region, 21–2 and educational outcomes, 198

and language dialects, 24 and language policy implementation, 77–8 and language policy of Kuo Min Tang, 54–5, 59 and language under Qing Dynasty, 43, 45–6 and “related languages”, 11 in southwest region, 24–5 and trilingual education, 122–3 Tonghai County, and Mongol community, 31 Tor Tajik language, 21 tourism, and minority languages, 202 Trigault, Nicolas, 46 tri-lingual education, 122–3, 156 Tsangyang Gyatso, 25 Tu, in central west region, 22 Tujia and endangered language of, 29–30 in southern region, 29–30 Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, 29 Ulanhu, 67, 75, 76, 87, 93, 113 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), 3, 9, 67 and break-up of, 203–4 United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO), 31 Conference on Mother Tongue Education, 105 universities and entrance examination, 151 and medium of instruction, Xinjiang University, 151–2 and minority enrolment, 95, 125, 129 see also Xinjiang University Urumqi and Russian community, 21 and Tatar community, 20 Uyghurs, 7–8 and bilingual education, 114, 124–5 and educational outcomes, 198 and ethnic/cultural identity, 155

Index 237 Uyghurs – continued and inequality in education, 152; Han/Uyghur divide, 153–4; urban/rural divide, 152 and language policy implementation, 76–7 in northwest region, 18–19 and number of speakers of language, 18 and script reform, 77, 87, 116 and teaching and learning Chinese, 154–6; inadequate implementation, 154; lack of opportunity, 154; provision of resources, 154–5 and Uyghur script, 18–19 see also primary schools, in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR); Xinjiang University Uzbek and language script, 20 in northwest region, 18, 19–20 and script reform, 77 Uzbekistan, 20 Va, and script reform, 80 Wakhan Tajik language, 21 Wan Li, 102 Wang Hairong, 92 Wang Jun, 99 Wang Ming, 63 Wang Xi, 43 war on terrorism, 204 Wu, as Han dialect, 4 Wu duo Jinhua (Five Golden Flowers, film), 7 Wu Jinghua, 67 Wu Yuzhang, 63, 89 Wulan Tuke, 125 Wulin, 11 Wuling Rang, and Tujia community, 29 Xiandao community, and use of Jingpo language, 11 Xiang, as Han dialect, 4 Xibe and bilingual education, 114

in northeast region, 14, 20 in northwest region, 20 Xinjiang Arman Industry and Commerce Limited, 151, 197 Xinjiang Language and Script Guidance Committee, 77 Xinjiang University, and academics learning Chinese, 142 academic interviewees, 143 choosing children’s education, 148–51, 155 importance of, 147 language proficiency, 143 learning other foreign languages, 147–8 through Chinese immersion (min kao han), 144–5 through the mother tongue (min kao min), 145–7 University language policy, 151–2 Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), 10 and academics learning Chinese, 142; academic interviewees, 143; choosing children’s education, 148–51, 155; importance of, 147; language proficiency, 143; learning other foreign languages, 147–8; through Chinese immersion (min kao han), 144–5; through the mother tongue (min kao min), 145–7; University language policy, 151–2 and bilingual education, 112, 114–16, 123, 128, 156, 199, 201 and characteristics of, 17–18, 130 and Dongxiang community, 23 and education system, 131–2; school merging policy, 131–2, 201 and inequality in education, 152; Han/Uyghur divide, 153–4; urban/rural divide, 152 and Islam, 130 and Kazak community, 19 and Kirgiz community, 19–20 and lack of pupil integration, 135–6 and language policy implementation, 76–7

238 Index Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) – continued and linguistic diversity, 130–1 and minority communities, 17–21, 130 and mother tongue instruction, 197 and political structure, 213 n1 and primary schools and language issues, 132–4; Chinese teaching materials, 138–40; Han and Uyghur school, 133; learning Chinese, 134–5; parental attitudes, 136–7; shortage of Chinese teachers, 137–8; Uyghur parents’ choice of school, 140–2; Uyghur school, 133–4 and Putonghua, demand for education in, 132, 153 and Russian community, 21 and school merging policy, 124–5 and Tajik community, 20–1 and Tatar community, 20 and teaching and learning Chinese, 154–6; inadequate implementation, 154; lack of opportunity, 154; provision of resources, 154–5 and Uyghur community, 18–19 and Uzbek community, 19–20 and Xibe community, 20 Xirong (Western barbarians), 34 Xu Teli, 63, 64 Yan Xuequn, 105 Yan’an Institute of Nationalities, 63 Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, 15, 74 and bilingual education, 112, 116–17, 201 and language policy implementation, 74–5 Yang Jingren, 67 Yang Xiong, 37 Yang Zisen, 60 Yao and language script, 78 and script reform, 80

Yehonala, Empress Dowager, 45 Yellow Emperor, 34 Yi, 8 and bilingual education, 110–11, 158, 161–2; impact of cultural elements, 174–5; languages spoken outside school, 166; students and language use, 166–7; teachers and language use, 167–8 and division of, 30 and ethnic identity, 202 and language dialects, 30, 72–3, 158 and language script, 73, 175 and language under Qing Dynasty, 44 and script reform, 79, 80, 91; abandonment of, 87 in southern region, 30 Yining, and Russian community, 21 Yuan Dynasty, and language change, 39–41 Yuan Jiahua, 70 Yue (Cantonese), as Han dialect, 4 Yugur in central west region, 23–4 and three languages of, 23–4 Yunnan Institute for Nationalities, 79–80 Yunnan province and Bai community, 30 and bilingual education, 107–10, 111, 128, 202; curriculum, 171–2; Dai–Han bilingual program, 164–6; examinations, 173–4; four models of, 158–9; impact of cultural elements, 174–5; languages spoken outside school, 166; Naxi–Han bilingual program, 159–61; parental attitudes, 170–1; problems facing, 175–6; student attitudes, 166; students and language use, 166–7; teachers and language use, 167–9; Tibetan–Han bilingual program, 162–4; Yi–Han bilingual program, 161–2

Index 239 Yunnan province – continued and characteristics of, 157, 158 and ethnic diversity of, 157–8 and linguistic diversity, 158 and Miao community, 28–9 and minority communities, 26–8 and Mongol community, 31–2 and Tibetan community, 24–5 and Yi community, 30 Yunnan Provincial Education Commission, 108 Yushu Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, and Tibetan community, 22 Zaining Primary school, and bilingual education, 164–6, 170, 171 Zaiwa and identification as Jingpo, 73, 86 and script reform, 78, 79, 80 Zang Boping, 107 Zeng Guofan, 42

Zepu, and Tajik community, 21 Zhang Xiruo, 69 Zhao Erfeng, 49 Zhao Qinping, 205 Zhao Ziyang, 95 Zhou Enlai, 9, 67, 85, 96, 196 and minorities policy, 68 and promotion of Putonghua, 88 and script reform, 69 Zhou Qingsheng, 84 Zhou Yang, 64 Zhu De, 63, 68, 104 Zhu Huanxian, 47–8 Zhu Yuanzhang, Emperor, 41 Zhuang and bilingual education, 110 and language script, 26, 78, 109 and legal status as nationality, 71 and script reform, 70–1, 80; abandonment of, 87; use of script, 90 in southern region, 26–8 Zuo Zongtang, 42

Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Language and Education in Japan: Unequal Access to Bilingualism (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts: Australian and European Perspectives (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Democratic Policies for Language Revitalisation: The Case of Catalan (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Jobs and Economic Development in Minority Communities

Galician and Irish in the European Context: Attitudes Towards Weak and Strong Minority Languages (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Language and Conflict in Northern Ireland and Canada: A Silent War (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Europe and the Politics of Language: Citizens, Migrants and Outsiders (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Sustaining Language Diversity in Europe: Evidence from the Euromosaic Project (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Discourse and Struggle in Minority Language Policy Formation: Corsican Language Policy in the EU Context of Governance (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Sustaining Language Diversity in Europe: Evidence from the Euromosaic Project (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks, Status, Prospects

Language, ethnicity & Education: Case Studies On Immigrant Minority Groups and Immigrant Minority Languages (Multilingual Matters)

Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts: Australian and European Perspectives

Identity in Education (Future of Minority Studies)

Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education

Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe (The Wiles Lectures)

Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories (IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society)

Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages (Impact: Studies in Language and Society)

Unaccusative Verbs in Romance Languages (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Languages and Cognition)

Marginalization in China: Recasting Minority Politics

National Language Planning and Language Shifts in Malaysian Minority Communities: Speaking in Many Tongues

Minority Languages And Cultural Diversity in Europe: Gaelic And Sorbian Perspectives (Liguistic Diversity and Language Rights)

Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective

Third International Conference on Minority Languages: Celtic papers

Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages: Volume 1: General Papers

Minority Reports: Identity and Social Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century American Literature (The Future of Minority Studies)

Healing Communities in Conflict

Communities in Cyberspace

Tourism in Destination Communities

Minority Languages, Education and Communities in China (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Language and Education in Japan: Unequal Access to Bilingualism (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts: Australian and European Perspectives (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Democratic Policies for Language Revitalisation: The Case of Catalan (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Jobs and Economic Development in Minority Communities

Galician and Irish in the European Context: Attitudes Towards Weak and Strong Minority Languages (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Language and Conflict in Northern Ireland and Canada: A Silent War (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Europe and the Politics of Language: Citizens, Migrants and Outsiders (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Sustaining Language Diversity in Europe: Evidence from the Euromosaic Project (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Discourse and Struggle in Minority Language Policy Formation: Corsican Language Policy in the EU Context of Governance (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Sustaining Language Diversity in Europe: Evidence from the Euromosaic Project (Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities)

Minority Languages in Europe: Frameworks, Status, Prospects

Language, ethnicity & Education: Case Studies On Immigrant Minority Groups and Immigrant Minority Languages (Multilingual Matters)

Maintaining Minority Languages in Transnational Contexts: Australian and European Perspectives

Identity in Education (Future of Minority Studies)

Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education

Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe (The Wiles Lectures)

Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories (IMPACT: Studies in Language and Society)

Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages (Impact: Studies in Language and Society)

Unaccusative Verbs in Romance Languages (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Languages and Cognition)

Marginalization in China: Recasting Minority Politics

National Language Planning and Language Shifts in Malaysian Minority Communities: Speaking in Many Tongues

Minority Languages And Cultural Diversity in Europe: Gaelic And Sorbian Perspectives (Liguistic Diversity and Language Rights)

Language and ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective

Third International Conference on Minority Languages: Celtic papers

Fourth International Conference on Minority Languages: Volume 1: General Papers

Minority Reports: Identity and Social Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century American Literature (The Future of Minority Studies)

Healing Communities in Conflict

Communities in Cyberspace

Tourism in Destination Communities

Recommend Documents