Post-lingual Pedagogical Practice—Hanzi Methods

  • Jinghe Han
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Teaching and Learning Chinese book series (PSTLC)


This chapter proposes Post-lingual PedagogyHanzi Methods based on the existent analyses of zili (字理), the reasoning in Hanzi formation. Post-lingual pedagogy is above/beyond language. It provides tools for learners to look into meaning-making through the following connections. The connection between Hanzi symbols and what they represent in the real world; through the connection between learners’ shared universalism of minds on logic, and the nature and attributes of the world built in Hanzi, and through an analysis of perceptions, conceptions and abstractions of thoughts that are contained in Hanzi. The theoretical framework provided in this chapter aims to examine and to be examined by the data collected from the teacher-researchers’ evidence of their Hanzi teaching.


Post-lingual pedagogy Hanzi methods Hanzi formation Zili (字理) 


  1. Bloom, P. (2013). Natural language and natural selection. In S. Pinker (Ed.), Language, cognition, and human nature: Selected articles (pp. 110–159). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Huo, L. (2012). The impact of visual pedagogy on students’ learning of Hanyu—A case study of a western Sydney public school (Master of education [Honours]). Sydney: Western Sydney University.Google Scholar
  3. Jullien, F. (2014). On the universal: The uniform, the common and dialogue between cultures (M. Richardson & K. Fijalkowski, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ke, C. (1996). An empirical study on the relationship between Chinese character recognition and production. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kerényi, K. (1976). Dionysos: Archetypal image of indestructible life (R. Manheim, trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Li, X. (2006). A critical review of ‘new shuowenjiezi in teaching Chinese characters to foreigners’. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 31–34.Google Scholar
  7. Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as local practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Singh, M., & Han, J. (2017). Pedagogies for internationalising research education. Intellectual equality, theoretical-linguistic diversity and knowledge Chuangxin. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Sun, K. (2012). Brief discussion on the teaching of literacy (Master of Philosophy in Education). Tianjin: Tianjin Teachers’ University.Google Scholar
  10. Tinsley, T., & Board, K. (2013). Languages for the future: Which languages the UK needs most and why. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  11. Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Wu, J. (1969). Chinese language and Chinese thought. Philosophy East and West, 19(4), 423–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Xu, S. (1985). Shuowenjiezi. Retrieved from
  14. Yildiz, Y. (2012). Beyond the mother tongue. The postmonolingual condition. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Zhao, D. (2002). A short history of western philosophy. Taipei: Wunan Book Publisher.Google Scholar
  16. Zhao, D. (2008, June 5). Western philosophy in Chinese eye, theory. Theory channel/column Southern daily. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Sydney UniversityPenrithAustralia

Personalised recommendations