1.1　Research background

To work on the present research，it is necessary first and foremost to clarify the author's motives based on the following seven considerations，viz.the political importance of Chinese ethnic minorities in the whole national family，the current educational situation of ethnic minority groups，the complexities of ethnic languages，the paradox of current educational reform，the trendism of current academic researches，the current situation of English teaching in ethnic regions，and the deficiency of the established academic researches.

As a large unified multi-national state，China is composed of 56 ethnic groups.Among them the Han Chinese account for 91.13% of the overall Chinese population according to the Sixth National Population Census of 2000(cf.Appendix V).Though the combined population of the other 55 ethnic groups is far smaller than that of the Han，they cover more than 67% of the total area of China.Even if we take this fact alone into consideration，there is no reason for us language teachers not to be concerned with them.To secure the equality and unity of ethnic groups，give regional autonomy to ethnic minorities and promote respect for the faith and customs of ethnic groups，China practices a regional ethnic autonomy system.Today，in addition to the five autonomous regions(Inner Mongolia，Xinjiang Uyghur，Guangxi Zhuang，Ningxia Hui and Tibet autonomous regions)，China has 30 autonomous prefectures and 120 autonomous counties(known，in some cases，as“banners”)，as well as over 1，100 ethnic townships.

It cannot be denied that the Central Government has been playing a great role in promoting the prosperity of ethnic minority regions.But political consideration is basically the prerequisite for and enactment of civic and civil freedom and equality.It does not necessarily guarantee the balanced development of education.Turning back to ethnic minority education，we can see that，for historical or geographical reasons，ethnic minorities usually reside in the thinly populated and isolated rural regions or areas.Investment in education and teachers are in earnest need.The overall level of education is thus far from satisfactory，much lower both at the compulsory educational level and the higher educational level.Just take English language education[1]as an example.Few of the Chinese ethnic minority English learners or multilinguals can be said to be successful.Although they have learned English for several years as college English majors，most of them are still unable to communicate accurately，fluently，appropriately and effectively in English.To the author's knowledge，the results of the two national English tests for college English majors TEM-4 and TEM-8 (with a passing rate below 56% and 35%，respectively)among all the six ethnic universities under the leadership of The State Eth-nic Affairs Commission of People's Republic of China are rather embarrassing.Therefore，there is no reason for us language teachers，not to think seriously about the matter.

And with reference to The Chinese Ethnic Minority Groups，29 out of the 55 ethnic minority groups speak Chinese except the Hui and the Manchu，who adopt the Chinese writing system due to the profound influence of Chinese culture.But 53 ethnic minority groups have their own languages，which range from the Sino-Tibetan family，the South Asiatic，the South Island，the Altai，to the Indo-European(cf.Appendix IV)，etc.，and 29 ones have their own writing systems，which range from the logographic writing，the syllabic，to the alphabetic.Some even have two or four writing systems(e.g.the Mongols and the Dai，respectively，cf.Appendix V).Does such typologically distant evidence have influence (both facilitative and inhibitive)upon the learning of English as a foreign language in the Chinese context？Are the non-ethnic universities and teachers in non-ethnic universities confronted with the same situation and share the same confusion in teaching with their counterparts in ethnic universities？Furthermore，different from other universities in big cities such as Beijing，Shanghai，Guangzhou，and Xi'an，students in ethnic universities are in general characteristic of their own peculiar ethnic cultures.And such cultures are made up of subcultures，shaped mainly by geographic location，by ethnicity，by religion，by lifestyle and/or by mime (i.e.non-verbal behavior).The ethnic and regional differences pose no small problem to the target language learning(TLL)，and ultimately to communication.Due to geographical barriers，poor living conditions，transportation limitations，awkward economic situations，and loyalty to religious identities，cultures displayed by the learners in question are ethnographically and cognitively stereotyped or fossilized in the process of their mother tongue acquisition.Does such stereotype or fossilization facilitate or inhibit the acquisition of both Chinese，the national language or the second language(SL/L2)，and English，the foreign language(FL)or the third language(TL or L3)，or ultimately the interlanguagepragmatic competence development？This is an issue that merits seri-ous research.

In addition，with the all-round educational reform，teaching hours are largely reduced.As far as we know，English majors in Sichuan University，Shanxi Normal University，and East China Normal University are required to fulfil at least 180 credits in the four-year study.But in some ethnic universities ethnic English majors with diversified language proficiency are required to fulfil only 155 credits，among which basic language skill courses and language knowledge courses amount to less than 60 credits.In contrast to 2，200 teaching hours，the minimum requirement for the English language itself according to The English Teaching Syllabus of Eng-lish Specialty，the total amount in ethnic universities is no more than 2，350 hours.On the one hand，teachers are expected to improve the teaching quality in accordance with the requirements of the national teaching syllabus；on the other hand，they are baffled by the shortage of classroom teaching hours.That also is a very difficult situation for teachers in ethnic universities to cope with.

Furthermore，there is a bizarre phenomenon nowadays both in China and abroad，that is，when a“new”theory emerges，all the preceding theories are labeled as outdated and traditional，and are criticized with a biased mind and even deserted.Communicative approach is a case in point.From the perspective of the practitioners，including the present author himself，faddism and trendism are equally damaging to academically immature fields like language teaching，learning and use.In technology“new”usually means “better”，but when it comes to ideas，neither newness nor oldness necessarily determines soundness.Teaching and learning a foreign language involve complex problems and challenges，so they both call for full use of all that we know，whatever the source.The criteria for evaluating ideas should be whether they contribute to，or detract from，the attainment of excellent results in FL or IL learning.Linguistic theorists，applied linguists and education authorities or policy makers should listen to what those instructors say.Otherwise theory and practice will be isolated from each other，rather than interwound.And theoretical study of language in use will lose its impetus.

English teaching in ethnic regions seems to go to extremes.On the one hand，the only purpose of studying English is to remember a large number of words，grasp enough grammatical knowledge and achieve good scores in examinations.On the other hand，some instructors' inadequate understanding of the essentials of communication and sociolinguistics brings about the awkward application of the communicative approach.First，communication is simply regarded as the exclusive mode of speech.Put it another way，they get confused about the evolutionary precedence of speech over the practice of writing，another major mode of communication，in ILP development.Second，similar to the position of some foreign teachers，Chinese teachers of English in ethnic regions pay little attention to the correction of students' errors and reject the crucial role of grammar in teaching and learning so that adult learners' IL demonstrates some features of non-standard varieties of English，or that of caretaker language of native speakers(NS)，or that of telegraphic language of children acquiring their first language at the two or three years old.

Thus，the issues of how to improve the students' English proficiency have attracted more and more attention.Since the 1970s，it has been gradually recognized that learning is a complicated process in which the crucial roles are not played by teachers but by students，since“to unlearn is much more difficult than to learn”[2].And based on such a notion，a great number of researches into language learning strategies(LLS)and teaching methodologies involving learner factors have been conducted both at home and abroad，with the purpose of finding a good way to enable students to learn more effectively and efficiently.But their contribution comes along with self-evident shortcomings，which are also important for us ethnic language teachers to ponder.

Since the 1990s，researchers have made great contributions to learning strategies，such as metacognitive，cognitive，social，affective，and direct and indirect strategies，that teachers should know，either from the perspective of information processing or from the relationship of linguistic data to strategies(O'Malley & Chamot 1990；Oxford 1990，1996；Oxford & Cohen 1992；Ellis 1999a/ b/c).McDonough & Shaw(1993)explored the issues in materials and methods in ELT.Crabbe(1993)explored the teacher's responsibility for fostering learners' autonomy from within the classroom.Ayaduray & Jacobs(1997)examined the validity and reliability of student strategy instruction in terms of the case of highest order questions and elaborated responses.Cohen(1998)ushered a claim for the strategies in learning and using a second language based on the purpose for use.Meanwhile，some Chinese scholars headed by Wen(2000)also paid no less attention to what is concerned than their Western counterparts.Yet all these researches seem to prove that learning strategies are universal and applicable to all learners regardless of their linguistic or cultural background.But we doubt if they are valid for Chinese learners of English in general and Chinese ethnic bi-or tri-linguals in particular.That is a question for us to think about.

Of course Chinese teachers of English in ethnic universities have never ceased doing research in this respect.Ma(2002)，Wang (2007a，2007b)，Wu(2007)，Zhang(2007a，2007b)，Li (2007)，and Feng(2007)analyzed the restrictive factors among learners of English from ethnic minority regions，the teaching rationale and learning strategies for English micro-skills classroom instruction，error types triggered by students' mother tongue interference，and the corresponding teaching tactics.Zhang(2007)and Zhang(2007c)investigated the effect of learner factors on the English language learning and that of affective factors on ethnic minority students' autonomous learning.Liu(2007a，2007b)and Wang(2007c)discussed the issues ranging from teacher training，teacher role shift，to cultural teaching in ethnic minority foreign language education in the background of multi-cultural education.Considering that all the researches mentioned above invariably focus on the teaching and learning of English of non-majors from the perspective of SLA，Ma(2007a，2007b，2008a)specifically examined the pragmatic competence of English majors and its de-velopment in ethnic universities from the perspective of ILP.

Besides，going beyond SLA，Cenos，Hufeisen，& Jessner (2001)，inspired by Sharwood-Smith & Kellerman[3](1986)，compiled a 10-chapter volume on crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition(TLA).It is the first thematic volume devoted to this topic，and its aim is to explore the interaction between the TLA and the other languages known by the learner and to discuss the implications of these relationships.The chapters cover crosslinguistic influence at different levels，but more chapters focus on the lexical level.On the whole，this volume provides interesting insights into the processing of three languages and opens up new perspectives for future research in TLA and multilingualism.

Similar researches can also be found in Jordà(2005)and Soler & Jordà(2008).The former is conducted based on the consideration of the fact that most learners of English living in Europe who already possess knowledge of at least two other languages have been partially neglected in second and foreign language acquisition research and that the scarcity of multilingualism studies contrasts with the abundance of existing research in the field of SLA.The latter is to broaden the scope of research on the development of intercultural communicative competence，assuming that English learners are intercultural speakers who share their interest in engaging in real life communication and possessing knowledge of at least two cultures is the case of many learners in bilingual or multilingual communities.The underlying idea is that in the contexts concerned，the objective of language learning should be the development of intercultural competence，which in turn may involve promoting language diversity while encouraging instruction of English as both a means and an end.

All these researches made excellent contributions to applied linguistics，which aims to develop learners' communicative competence，focusing on English learners in various sociolinguistic situa-tions.Even though their interest is anchored to European countries in general and Spain in particular，their influence upon the present research is no less than that of interlanguage pragmatics research (ILP).

Interlanguage pragmatics has provided theoretical perspectives and empirical exploration for the study of learners' pragmatic knowledge(e.g.Kasper & Blum-Kulka，1993).The study of ILP mainly focuses on two aspects of learners' interlanguage：nonnative speakers' comprehension and production of second language pragmatic features，and their acquisition of second language pragmatic features.However，a large number of ILP studies are concerned with second language use，rather than development(Kasper & Schmidt，1996；Bardovi-Harlig，1999a；Kasper & Rose，2002)，especially that of the bi-/multi-lingual learner's pragmatic competence in the Chinese context.That is also a question for us to think about.

As argued by other researchers，the pragmatic aspects of language are rarely addressed in foreign language classes(Barron，2003：2)；pragmatic teaching，especially classroom-based pragmatic instruction，has not been paid due attention to(Chen，2006：D11)；and the development of pragmatic competence has been an issue neglected in traditional foreign language education for a long time(Liu，1997a/b；Chen，2006：D9).That is a question for us to think about.

As illustrated above，various factors jointly motivate the author to work inthe present research on the issues of ethnic English majors' ILP competence development and a model to develop it in terms of specific strategies in the Chinese context.