Language Proficiency in Foreign / Second language Learners 93 

Language Proficiency (LP) and Academic Learning. In a number of studies, international EFL / ESL students identify LP as the most questionable aspect of academic learning. They face obvious difficulties in listening and oral communication, lack of knowledge of local contexts or cultures and inadequate vocabulary, and they usually struggle to meet the requirements for academic writing (for example, Lee, 1997; Lin & Yi, 1997; Sawir et al., 2012).

(for example, Gatfield et al., 1999; Malcolm & McGregor, 1995). A number of studies on language-related learning difficulties as encountered by international EFL / ESL students suggest that international students frequently experience language-related challenges in their academic work (for example, Daroesman et al., 2005; Hellstén & Prescott, 2004; Pantelides, 1999; Robertson et al., 2000; Singh, 2005). Similar findings have been indicated in a number of studies in the US, Australia and the UK in that the most frequently quoted language-related learning problems in international EFL / ESL students in terms of priority are writing followed by oral comprehension and communication (for example, Robertson et al., 2000; Singh, 2005). Hellstén and Prescott (2004) highlighted the issue that due to mental translation, international EFL / ESL students have to spend much time on their studies, assignment preparations, lecture playback and verbal communications with the locals at low speed. Some of those students have problems with the local English accent and culture, which differ from the kind of English they acquired in their home countries (Singh, 2005).

LP and Daily Lives outside the Classroom. Sawir et al.’s (2012) study confirmed the findings in a number of studies that insufficient LP in international EFL / ESL students hinders their cross-cultural communication, affects their PA and stress level (Andrade, 2006; Hechanova-Alampay et al., 2002; Rajapaksa & Dundes, 2002; Ramburuth, 2001; Ramsay et al., 1999; Redmond, 2000; Yeh & Inose, 2003; Zhao et al., 2005), and isolates them from their local peers (Hayes & Lin, 1994; Ippolito, 2007; Li & Kaye, 1998; Trice, 2003). Hayes and Lin (1994) argued that LP is essential in social communication and adjustment. Besides, Sawir et al.’s (2012, p. 15-16) study confirms that “A strong finding of the research is that issues of language proficiency and communication are ubiquitous in the international student experience. They are of much concern for EFL students, who face the most difficulties in communication. … The findings highlight difficulties with writing, oral communication, and

comprehension, as do Robertson et al. (2000) and Singh (2005).”

A number of studies highlight the challenges faced by Chinese students in relation to issues of LP in English such as much struggle and frustration with their academic studies and social adjustment (for example, Donovan, 1981; Kao, 1987; Sun & Chen, 1997; Wan, 2001; Ye, 1992; Yeh, 2000).

Language difference is a distinctive feature between cultures, and this might hinder the adaptation of many international EFL / ESL students. They might have to face problems in understanding local accents and idioms (Ng, 2006; Poyrazli et al., 2001). A number of them might have their first-ever lesson instructed in English, and have to communicate with L1 speakers in the classroom (Li, 1993). As highlighted in Section 1.2, for those Chinese students studying in English-speaking countries, four major factors may attribute to their language-related problems. They are under the influence of the Chinese language in which ‘Chinglish’ might be used unconsciously. They might have limited understanding of the cultures of the host country. They might have inadequate training in English lessons, and they might not have many opportunities to practise the English language in their home country. Moreover, some Chinese students might create further obstacles for themselves in English language learning in that they may prefer grouping with Chinese rather than local peers (Wang, 2003).

LP Constructs. To explore the various constructs of LP in the literature, Hulstijn (2012) surveyed empirical studies of all papers published in 14 volumes of Bilingualism:

Language and Cognition journals from the first issue of volume 1 (1998) to the last

issue of volume 14 (2011). I noted one of the writer’s comments “ ... In my reading of the literature on bilingualism, more often than not, the notion of LP, be it in a first language (L1) or second language (L2), is often taken for granted, and so are the notion of language dominance and the notion of native speaker (Hulstijn, 2012, p. 423).” In

Hulstijn’s (2011) paper, I recognised that the writer endeavoured “to define the construct of LP beyond a general statement, such as ‘a person’s overall competence and ability to perform in L2’ (Thomas, 1994, p. 330, footnote 1).” As such, I attempted to focus on the notion of LP in L1 & L2 speakers as postulated by Hulstijn (2011). In terms of language skills in LP, Hulstijn (2011) advocates ‘basic language cognition’ (BLC) and ‘higher language cognition’ (HLC). The writer asserted that (ibid. p. 230) “BLC is what all native (L1) speakers have in common; HLC is the domain where differences between native (L1) speakers can be observed.”

LP Constructs in L1 Speakers. According to Hulstijn (2011, p. 230), the notion of BLC refers to “(a) the largely implicit, unconscious knowledge in the domains of phonetics, prosody, phonology, morphology and syntax; (b) the largely explicit, conscious knowledge in the lexical domain (form-meaning mappings), in combination

with (c) the automaticity with which these types of knowledge can be processed.”

Notably, the writer restricts BLC to oral language: speech reception (listening) and speech production (speaking), which do not comprise reading and writing (written language). The writer elaborates that BLC is restricted to the frequent lexical items and frequent grammatical structures that are used by all adult L1 speakers in any communicative situation regardless of age, literacy or educational level. However, the speed of processing of linguistic information may decrease with increasing age.

Hulstijn (2011, p. 231) postulated that “HLC is the complement or extension of BLC. HLC is identical to BLC, except that in HLC, utterances that could be understood or produced contain low-frequency lexical items or uncommon morphosyntactic structures, whereas HLC utterances pertain to written as well as spoken language. In other words, HLC utterances are lexically and grammatically more complex (and often longer) than BLC utterances and they need not be spoken.” HLC discourse refers to topics discussed on special occasions that call upon literacy skills such as topics other

than simple daily matters. To facilitate a better understanding of the writer’s postulation of BLC and HLC in LP, Hulstijn (2011) suggested that BLC refers to the language knowledge shared by all adult L1 speakers, whereas HLC demonstrates individual differences in language mastery that could be potentially affected by certain attributes such as literacy, age, and level of education, profession or leisure-time activities. Nonetheless, the LP constructs postulated by Hulstijn (2011) have not yet been empirically tested.

LP Constructs in L2 Speakers. Hulstijn (2011) noted that in the field of L2 teaching and testing, LP levels and components are both commonly emphasised. Early models of LP in L2 speakers consisted of a two-dimensional presentation: components of language knowledge (knowledge of lexis, morphology, syntax and phonology / orthography) crossed with the four language skills (listening, reading, speaking and writing) (Lado, 1961; Carroll, 1961, 1972). However, Hulstijn (2011, p. 236) pointed out that “Scholars who had proposed multi-component models of LP soon discovered that obtaining empirical support for their models turned out to be extremely difficult. For example, Bachman & Palmer (1982) … ”. Though I noted many studies concerning LP in L2 speakers (Hulstijn, 2011, p. 236-238), it is not the intention of this current study to explore the teaching and testing of LP in L2 speakers. Nevertheless, I was much inspired by the following remark in the Hulstijn’s paper (2012, p. 429): “To my knowledge, there is no linguistic, psycholinguistic or sociolinguistic theory on the basis of which one could define LEVELS of LP … Using scores, one could say that a person with an IQ of 107 is more intelligent than a person with and IQ score of 101, but not that the former person finds himself or herself at a higher level of intelligence than the latter.”

In response to the references mentioned above, it is my intention to assess the participants’ perceptions about their LP in terms of listening, speaking (BLC); reading

and writing (HLC), as well as daily vocabulary (BLC or HLC) and academic vocabulary (BLC or HLC). Based on a number of studies involving international EFL / ESL students studying in US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and UK educational institutions, the most commonly cited language-related problems inside and outside the classroom are: English language proficiency or language standards; academic writing; oral comprehension and communication; lack of knowledge of local contextual references; and inadequate vocabulary (for example, Cownie & Addison, 1996; Daroesman et al., 2005; Hellstén & Prescott, 2004; Lee, 1997; Lin & Yi, 1997; Pantelides, 1999; Robertson et al., 2000; Andrade, 2006; Sawir et al., 2012; Singh, 2005). In this regard, the Chinese university students recruited for this current study were viewed as language learners, and the study was designed to contribute to our understanding of their language learning.