An upscaling tool： English in Kongtong Mountain

梁本彬

【Abstract】In the era of globalization， English is spreading at an unprecedented speed in China. It functions not just a means for communication， but as an upscaling technique as well. Kongtong Mountain is used as an example to illustrate that English is used more for symbolic meaning in some cases in China.

【Key words】English； upscaling technique； Kongtong Mountain

I. English as a semiotic symbol in China

In recent decades， English has been widely spreading all over the world as an international language and the helper of globalization， which has exerted a far-reaching impact on the whole world. Because of globalization， thoughts， goods， and personnel are flowing across the geological boundaries of countries， at unprecedented speed， scale and quantity （Jensen， Arnett， & McKenzie， 2011）. Needless to say， in the wave of globalization， countries are provided with more potential chances to make use of diverse types of materials and resources to stimulate the development within their own territories. Their economy， education， culture and social justice could all be positively promoted. The ever-evolving technologies in the field of information and communication have profoundly accelerated the influence of globalization； meanwhile， English as the helper and carrier of globalization， is now enjoying an increasing popularity in use all over the world. Being the chief tools for international communication， English is now holding a very crucial position in the process of globalization and is placing a fundamental impact on the whole world. Its position and dominance in the world is best demonstrated by the gigantic bulk of non-native English speakers， which is estimated to be over a billion in the world （Alsagoff， 2012， p.109）.

In recent China， English is not just a media of global communication in terms of cultural exchange and business； it is subconsciously regarded as a marker of prestige and cosmopolitanism， and much social significance has been assigned to English， making English a social stratifying factor within Chinese people （Gao， 2012）， and is being widely capitalized as a “semiotic opportunity” （Blommaert， 2010） to upscale local business （Pan， 2010）. This is why English is widely used in signs and brand names in China. Wherever you go in cities， whether small cities or big cities， you can easily notice many English signs on the streets， on advertisements， on the packages of products. Even though English speakers are seldom regular comers in most cities in China， English still appears in such places， regardless the true communicative function of English as a language.

English is not just widely used in cities， it is also widely applied in rural areas. In tourist attractions located in rural areas of China， English is still being fully capitalized in recent years as a symbolic capital to upscale themselves. For tourist attractions， whether in cities or in small and remote villages， it is almost a standardized implicit requirement for them to place some English equivalents alongside the Chinese introductions or signs. At first glance， English equivalents might help foreign visitors gain a better understanding of the place and leave them a good impression， thus gaining more potential travels from abroad. But in a detailed analysis of the English used in such context， it will never be difficult to find that English doesnt exist in such places as the information-oriented signs； rather， English functions more as a semiotic symbol， merely a tool to make such places look internationally famous.

It will be even more comprehensible in the given context that China is the third most visited country in the world， and will become the largest tourist country and among the largest for overseas travel in 2020. This travel boom is also being driven by the emergence of an increasing number of rich middle class Chinese （Tourism in China， 2014）. Kongtong Mountain in Gansu Province， is one of the many rural-area tourist attractions in utilizing English for upscaling.

II. Kongtong Mountain and Tourism in China

Lying 7.5 miles to the west of Pingliang City in Gansu Province， Kongtong Mountain is noted for its marvelous natural scenery and exquisite manmade landscapes. It enjoys the reputation as “The Holy Land of Taoism”， “The Remarkable Spectacle of Western China” and “The First Mountain in Western China”. Kongtong Mountain， a tourist attraction in Gansu Province， is more than 600 kilometers away from Lanzhou， the capital city of Gansu Province. Despite its remote location， Gansu rich history and special geographic features transform it into a popular destination for domestic and international tourists， offering a wide variety of choices. Tourism therefore has been a shining star in contributing to its overall economy （Gansu， 2014）， and great efforts have been made by Gansu province in recent years to promote its tourism， including the “language industry” of English （Heller， 2010： 352）. However， for Kongtong Mountain， due to its remote geographical location and limited fame among overseas tourists， very few oversees tourists travel there， and it is therefore a tourist attraction more for the locale people， rather than for foreign tourists. On basis of the current practice in China， and the open data about the amount and structure of this tourist attraction， as well as theories and field studies in this field， the author argues that English is chiefly used as an upscaling mechanism to promote itself among domestic tourists.

III. Interpretation of English in Kongtong Mountain

Firstly， English in bilingual signs in Kongtong Mountain functions as transgressive signs， not situated semiotics. According to Scollon and Scollons theory of place semiotics （2003）， transgressive signs refer to signs that are in the wrong place， whereas the situated semiotics refers to signs and notices for regulation， directions or information （Pan， 2010）. The lack of readership of these English signs renders them into transgressive signs in the wrong place， depriving them of chances to convey information. To be specific， if there are no or very few English-speaking visitors in such places， we could say that these English signs， English introductions or anything related English have no readers. Since there are no readers of such English signs， English does not function as the means to convey information， direction or regulation； rather English functions as a symbol， and what matters most in such context is the symbol itself. For Kongtong Mountain， the overwhelming majority of its visitors are Chinese， and very few overseas travelers go there， even though hundreds of thousands of overseas travelers are being allured to Gansu by its rich tourism resources.

There are many world famous scenic spots for them to see， such as the Jiayuguan Pass of the Great Wall， Mogao Grottoes， Silk Road and Dunhuang City， Labrang Monastery， the Space Launch Center， to list just a few， which overshadow Kongtong Mountain. Meanwhile， Kongtong Mountain is too far away from the capital city Lanzhou， the starting point for most overseas travelers to explore Gansu； Kongtong Mountain was only promoted as a nationwide famous scenic spot in recent years， and the logistics and relevant services are not as convenient as those in other well-traveled places. It is easy to draw a brief conclusion that readers of bilingual signs and posts in Kongtong Mountain are not travelers from abroad， but local Chinese travelers. Therefore， signs in English are in a wrong place for wrong readers.

Secondly， English fails to serve as a linguistic resource in Kongtong Mountain. English in these bilingual signs in Kongtong Mountain is problematic because of the linguistic errors， randomly coined hybrid words， pinyin， and information loss， etc.

In picture one， English in the sign fails to represent the Chinese names of some scenic spots coherently in a culturally proper manner. In Chinese， these names are rich in culture and the numbers are of special value to Chinese people， but in the English version， these cultural elements are all intentionally omitted. The cultural significance of these Chinese names and numbers could only be fully understood and appreciated by providing adequate additional explanation in English. Some numbers are literarily represented in English equivalent （Three Religions Temple， Twelve Generals Temple）， while other numbers are simply replaced by Chinese Pinyin （Fu Lu Shou Temple， Yao Shun Yu Temple）. This incoherent representation of Chinese equivalents with no regard to the cultural connotation makes the English on the sign inconsistent and hinders it from conveying correct information to its readers.

In picture two， the connotation of the English version on the sign is improper； even though the English version is grammatically acceptable， it provides less than half of the original meaning in Chinese， failing to give adequate information to its readers. What is more shocking is that the birth date of the “Medicine King” was postponed for several centuries in the English equivalent！ It will not be difficult to imagine the confusion potential readers may have. To travelers in a different culture， confusion in meaning may equal no meaning at all.

In picture three， the English version does not make any sense at all. The Chinese in this sign indicates that this is the name of the Yan En Si Pagoda， but in English the pagoda is mistaken as a temple， which is totally different. This Pagoda（塔，ta in Pinyin） was built on the site of a famous temple（寺， si in Pinyin）， and named after the temple. The English translation wrongly represents the relationship between the temple and the pagoda. Besides， the word “tower” has nothing to do with the Chinese temple or pagoda. The most serious problem of the English version lies in its wrong translation of the name of the temple （延恩，Yan En， in Pinyin）. “延恩” （Yan En， in Pinyin） means the long lasting of Grace from Buddas； in English， the positive wishes turns into something negative， totally damaging the originality and appropriateness of Chinese wishes. The English version in this sign insults the religious feeling of Chinese， which might be the first reaction surging into readers mind.

IV. Conclusion

In Kongtong Mountain， only some of the signs and notices are bilingual， and most signs are in Chinese alone （see picture 4）； moreover， in such bilingual signs， English is often shadowed by big size Chinese characters. More often than not， Chinese characters often appears at the top of their English counterparts， rendering English into a secondary position in terms of importance. This pehnomenon implies that Chinese visitors are Kongtong Mountains dominant visitors. The analysis of Englishs use and purposes in these cases may lead to this conclusion： These English signs are not designed for giving regulation， direction， information or any other communication-oriented purposes； the rampant errors， improperness of expression and lack of adequate and accurate information highlight the underlying intention of design. Therefore， the only possible explanation of the existence of English in Kongtong Mountain is that English is used just as a sign of prestige， a semiotic capital， to upscale Kongtong Mountain as a world-famous place among domestic visitors， the dominant consumers there.

Reference：

[1]Alsagoff，L.（2012）.Identity and the EIL learner.In L.Alsagoff，S.L.Mckay，G.Hu，&W.A.Renandya（Eds.），Principles and Practices for Teaching English as an International Language（pp.104-122）.New York： Routledge.

[2]Blommaert，J.（2010）.The Sociolinguistics of Globalization.Cambridge，U.K./New York： Cambridge University Press.

[3]Gao，S.（2012）.Commodification of place，consumption of identity： The sociolinguistic construction of a ‘global village in rural China.Journal of Sociolinguistics，16（3），336–357.

[4]Gansu.（n.d.）.Gansu.Retrieved February 22，2014，from http：//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansu.

[5]Jensen，L.A.，Arnett，J.J.，& McKenzie，J.（2011）.Globalization and cultural identity.

[6]In S.J.Schwartz，K.Luyckx，& V.L.Vignoles（Eds.），Handbook of identity theory and research（pp.285–301）.New York，NY： Springer.

[7]Pan，L.（2010）.Dissecting multilingual Beijing：the space and scale of vernacular globalization.Visual Communication，9（1），67-90.

[8]Scollon，R.& Scollon，S.（2003）.Discourse in Place： Language in the Material World.London： Routledge.

[9]Tourism in China.（n.d.）.Retrieved February 22，2014，from http：//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_China.