Editor’s Note: Joël Bellassen on the “Lushan Phenomenon” in Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (Part 2). Click here to revisit Part 1.
II. Four Typical Examples of the “Mount Lu Phenomenon” in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language
(1) Example 1 of the “Mount Lu Phenomenon”: the concept of “substituting the part for the whole”
There is a term called “Western food”, which supposedly means “the cuisine of Western countries.” But in reality, these cuisines come from entirely different nations and cultures, each with its own distinct characteristics. Yet, without thorough scientific investigation or solid evidence, people created a definition that has no real meaning, based on a marginal feature — the knife and fork: any cuisine using such utensils is labeled “Western.”
There is another category called “English name.” How many French, Italian, or German HSK candidates are left confused by the requirement to “fill in an English name”! And how many Dutch, Russian, or Belgian experts stare in bewilderment at the “English name” field in exchange forms… All scripts written in the Latin alphabet are often mistakenly classified as “English,” an assumption that mixes the concepts of writing systems and languages, lumping all Latin-alphabet languages into “English.”
In Teaching Chinese as a Second Language, we commit similar errors.
There is a linguistic category called “minor languages.” All languages other than English are labeled “minor languages.” Under this classification, Spanish, French, Turkish, and Inuktitut become “equals.” In second-language teaching, Spanish, French, and German are also labeled “minor languages,” even though, globally, the teaching of Spanish or French as a second language far exceeds that of Chinese. As for the belief that “all foreigners in the world speak English,” it is even further from reality.
There is also a category of countries called “Europe and America.” Compared with “minor languages,” this concept creates even greater obstacles to the development of the discipline of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language. The notion of “Europe and America” ignores the cultural, educational, and pedagogical differences between “Europe” and “America.” In fact, there are enormous differences in how Chinese is taught and in teaching traditions between the United States and Europe, and even among European countries themselves — and these are precisely the issues we face most directly in practice. Furthermore, this concept overlooks both Latin America and Africa, the latter expected to represent 40% of the world’s population by 2100…
(2) “Lushan Phenomenon” Example Two: Classification without Scientific Analysis
In the field of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language (TCSL) in China, there exists an educational category known as “primary and secondary schools,” which encompasses primary school, junior high school, and senior high school within the basic education system. However, from the perspective of language acquisition, whether for “living languages” (languages still in use) or “dead languages” (languages no longer in use, such as Latin), differences in learners’ cognitive abilities and the existence of “cognitive thresholds” between developmental stages create a clear boundary between learners at the primary school level and those at the junior and senior high school levels. The cognitive learning curve of Chinese serves as one of the most important reference points for establishing the first dividing line between primary-level Chinese learners and secondary-level Chinese learners. The concept of “primary and secondary schools” lacks scientific research and analysis and represents a significant deviation in cognitive judgment. This conceptual ambiguity creates serious problems in reflecting upon and designing teaching methodologies, and it inevitably leads to deficiencies in the consideration of teaching models within basic education.
At the same time, this terminology also reflects a general neglect within the field of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language in China of the importance of Chinese language education at the basic education level. Yet Chinese teaching in basic education constitutes the very foundation of the TCSL discipline. A review of the history of foreign language education in European countries shows that the development and advancement of foreign language teaching methodologies have consistently benefited from pedagogical practice, accumulation, and progress within basic education or non-specialist instruction.
France serves as a representative example. In higher education, professional Chinese language instruction still largely remains at the traditional “grammar–translation” stage and has not evolved in step with contemporary pedagogical developments. In contrast, in non-specialist Chinese instruction at the secondary and higher education levels, teaching methodologies have developed more effectively, with new teaching and assessment models being adopted, such as the task-based teaching approach and podcast-based learning.
(3) Example 3 of the “Mount Lu Phenomenon”: self-referential “stereotypes”
Another frequently cited “old tune” within the “Mount Lu phenomenon” in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language is the claim that “Chinese is hard to learn.” The key mistake in this belief does not lie in how accurately the “difficulty” is measured, but in the process through which the idea is formed: repeatedly and in isolation emphasizing that Chinese is “hard,” while ignoring that within the “Mount Lu” perspective, Russian, German, French, Turkish, Finnish, Arabic… and even English are often regarded as “difficult languages.”It also overlooks that outside the “Mount Lu”, language learners do not necessarily classify Chinese as a “difficult language.”
Moreover, this notion ignores numerous factors that influence perceived “language difficulty”: learners’ study methods, personal motivation, and other factors can greatly increase or reduce the difficulty they experience.Therefore, in academic contexts, “language difficulty” is not a scientific concept — it is even considered a pseudo-problem.
We suggest instead using the concepts of “linguistic distance,” “distant languages,” and “close languages” when discussing the issue of difficulty.
(4) Example 4 of the “Mount Lu Phenomenon”: Misguided Ontological Cognition
In our discussions with colleagues, we have found that within the field of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language, two completely opposing viewpoints exist regarding the very core of our discipline — the nature of the Chinese language itself.
For example, in order to argue that there is no inherent connection between the meanings of characters and the meanings of words, some cite the example of “中国” (China), claiming that it is merely the abbreviation of “People’s Republic of China.” This view reflects a dangerous trend toward alphabetizing the Chinese language, completely disregarding its intrinsic characteristics — a trend that is deeply concerning.
Advocates of the idea that the “word” is the sole fundamental unit in Chinese teaching argue that explaining the characters within a word only increases the learning burden. For example:– the “中” in “中国” means “middle”;– the “国” means “country”;– in “电脑” (computer), “电” means “electricity” and “脑” means “brain.”
According to this view, explaining the characters would force learners to memorize four extra character meanings, thereby reducing learning efficiency.However, the reality is exactly the opposite: explaining characters reduces learners’ memorization load through semantic understanding and association, and also enhances their “active analytical ability” in reading.For instance, after learning “电脑,” learners can infer the meanings of words such as “电话” (telephone) and “电视” (television), thereby improving vocabulary acquisition and retention.Our own experience as learners of Chinese shows that understanding character meanings often enables one to accurately grasp the meanings of new words such as “厌食症” (anorexia) or “代驾” (designated driver) with no difficulty.Thus, neglecting the character as a basic unit violates the structural nature of Chinese and obscures the semantic transparency of Chinese characters.
This raises the question: Is the ontological foundation of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language monistic or dualistic? Does Chinese teaching require only one fundamental unit (the word), or two (the character and the word)?When we step outside the “Mount Lu” perspective and look at our discipline through a global lens, we find that Chinese is the only language in the world that requires two kinds of dictionaries — a character dictionary and a word dictionary. These two reference systems serve as strong evidence for a “dual ontological structure” in Chinese.This “dual ontology” means that Chinese teaching must rely on two basic units — the character and the word — rather than a single unit.
This dual ontology should serve as the basis for developing teaching methodologies, proficiency standards, classroom design, and especially teaching materials. Yet most current Chinese-as-a-second-language textbooks run counter to this principle: mainstream methods and textbooks continue to imitate the monistic models used in Western language teaching.This ontological deviation is precisely the result of our failure to step outside the “Mount Lu” perspective and examine our discipline and the Chinese language from a broader viewpoint.
