Dedication
This book is dedicated to the loving memory of my mother.
1
2 Chinese Languages: Past, Present, and Future
3 Naming and Proper Name Planning in China
4 Language Planning, Policy, and Attitudes in China
5 Language Use, Policy, and Attitudes in Hong Kong and Macao
6 Language Policy, Use, and Attitudes in Taiwan and Singapore 7 Gender and Identity in Chinese Language 8 Language and Rural/Urban Identity
9 Identity and Language Maintenance Among the Chinese Diaspora
Acknowledgements
The completion of this book has been a long time coming.
My initial interest in sociolinguistics dates back to the two sociolinguistic courses that I took with Professor Don Winford at The Ohio State University in 2005–2006. Later, I took various courses with Professor Marjorie K. M. Chan, such as Chinese writing system, Asian American Experiences, and many Chinese linguistic courses. Although my interest in sociolinguistics did not lead me to complete a dissertation in sociolinguistics, teaching sociolinguistics has always been a goal in my work.
Back in 2010–2011, I was a visiting instructor of Chinese at Whitman College. Meanwhile, I was looking for more permanent jobs in Chinese languages and literatures in US colleges and universities. One requirement for many applications is a proposal for a course that I would like to offer. For this, I prepared a course proposal and a syllabus for Chinese Sociolinguistics. With the suggestion of my department head, Professor Jack Iverson, I changed the title of the proposed course to LanguageandIdentityin Greater China. When designing the course topics and readings, I drew on all the courses that I have taken previously and readings during my graduate school years and added many more Chinesespecific topics, especially those from The Language of China (Ramsey, 1987), ModernChinese:HistoryandSociolinguistics(Chen, 1999), and The Historical Evolution of ChinesLanguage and Scripts (Zhou, 2003). I also added many recent publications to each topic in the course.
In August 2013, I joined the University of Connecticut and started to build the Chinese program with colleagues. I did not get the chance to teach the course of Chinese Sociolinguistics until Spring 2019. Since then, Chinese Sociolinguistics has become one of my regular course offerings. After teaching the course twice, I realized
that there are just too many readings for each class in the course. Although many students enjoy the topics covered in the course, they complained about the large amount of readings. Then the idea of writing a textbook on this topic occurred to me. After the second offering of the course in Spring 2020 (at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic), I started to write the book and completed the first five chapters in Summer 2020. In December 2021, I contacted Andrea Hartill, the senior publisher of Routledge Language Learning, about my book project. Andrea really liked the topic of the book and invited me to submit a proposal for the book. Then, as expected in the book publishing process, I prepared the book proposal, which was sent for external review. The reviewers’ review report came back very positive, and the publishing contract was signed in May 2022.
Having taught the same course four times and updating the course every time, I have accumulated a lot of materials and lecture notes. Originally, I thought the writing process would be relatively easy. However, it turned out that I had to reread many journal articles, book chapters, as well as online sources in the process of writing the book. As a result, Summer 2022 became the busiest summer of my teaching career since 2000.
I am very happy that the book project has concluded, and would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to my editor, Andrea Hartill, and her assistant, Iola Ashby, for their hard work and dedication in bringing my book to publication. Your guidance and expertise throughout the editing and publishing process have been instrumental in making this project a success.
I would also like to acknowledge the guidance and teaching of many professors when I was at graduate school at The Ohio State University. I would also like to extend thanks to colleagues who encouraged me or provided constructive feedback and/or suggestions in this long process, such as Professor Yunjuan He from University of North Georgia, Professor Wenhao Diao from the
University of Arizona, Professor Hang Zhang from George Washington University, Professor Yan Liu from Duke University, and my family for their unfailing love and support.
References
Chen, P. (1999). Modern Chinese: History and sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Ramsey, S. R. (1987). ThelanguageofChina. Princeton University Press.
Zhou, Y. (2003). The historical evolution of Chines language and scripts. National East Asian Languages Resources Center, The Ohio State University.
1 Laying the Foundation
DOI: 10.4324/9781003344162-1
1.1 Introduction
Identity is a concept integral to various disciplines, such as literature, sociolinguistics, sociology, anthropology, and political science. The Latin stem for the word “identity” is idem, meaning sameness (Edwards, 2009, p. 19), which in this case implies an unchanging human nature, namely the stable features that supersede age, biological sex at birth, and ethnicity. As one matures, identity comes to signify the continuity and connectedness of the “selves” at various stages of the life trajectory (Edwards, 2009, p. 19). It is the “dynamic and situated accomplishments enacted through talk, and changing from one occasion to the next” (Tracy, 2002, pp. 17–18), which we constantly build and negotiate “throughout our lives through our interaction with others” (Thornborrow, 2004). In this sense, identity is not stable and static; rather, it is dynamic, situated, and varies depending on the context and situation. The dynamic side is equally, if not more, important in that it is socially and situationally constructed. After all, humans are social beings.
During social interactions, people may be connected or disconnected by identity, meaning that those who share similar aspects of identity are attracted to each other, while those who don’t may feel indifferent about each other (of course, some people may be attracted to differences as well). In this sense, identity may also predict relationships between people and groups (Edwards, 2009, p. 20). Compared to identity at the personal or individual level, social or group identity is much more relevant to perceptions and attitudes
about language. However, as Edwards (2009, p. 20) argues, the former is both a component and a reflection of particular social (or cultural) identities. Therefore, analysis of individual identity will also provide a window into understanding social identity.
An eternal tension exists between “who I am” and “who others think I am” based on one’s multiple identifications with others on the basis of social, cultural, and biological characteristics as well as shared values, personal histories, and interests (Buckingham, 2008, p. 1). Thus, identity is multifaceted, fluid, and complex. While “who I am” may seem relatively stable, this is not necessarily so in many cases, especially when we try to identify with different groups of people. As a Chinese individual, I can easily identify with other Chinese people when I am there. However, I can also identify with people of other ethnicities on different levels. In the summer of 2016, I led a study abroad program in China for University of Connecticut students. While visiting South Gong and Drum Lane, a popular tourist destination in Beijing, I was holding a small UConn flag which attracted the attention of two American students who were fellow Huskies. This spark of recognition in a foreign place inspired them to come up and chat with us. At that moment, our shared identity brought all of us closer. So my Chinese identity and UConn professor identity came together in this instance.
1.2 Why Is Identity Important?
We do not live in isolation. Thus, during social interactions, who we are, with whom we identify, and how we would like others to perceive us are all are intertwined with identity construction and negotiation. We tend to be more connected with people who share many similarities with us, as illustrated in the Chinese proverb
“When one townee meets another, both shed tears.” Why would they cry tears of joy when meeting in a faraway town? One simple answer is that they share so many similarities, such as the same dialect, traditions, food, local culture, and many other things. Finding such commonalities can be comforting in a new place.
We must realize that similarity does not account for all that is related to identity as we may also wish to interact and identify with people who are different from us. This may happen more often in a multicultural society, such as the US, where ethnic minorities may strive to integrate even though they do not share the same cultural, historical, or racial background with the majority. In this case, ethnic minorities may have competing identities. For example, they might wish or are compelled by parents/grandparents to maintain their ethnic identity while at the same time wanting to embrace another totally different identity when interacting with others outside their family/community. In the best-case scenario, the two can coexist in harmony. However, more often than not, they may conflict with each other, even to the extent that one identity (i.e., usually the one associated with the mainstream society) becomes dominant, and the other gradually fades as time goes on, which usually begins with the attrition or loss of the heritage language, unfortunately.
1.3 Language and Dialects
1.3.1WhatIs
Language?
Saussure (1916, p. 649) defines language as “a product of the collective mind of linguistic groups”. It can also be seen as a social tool by which we communicate ideas to others in our own culture
and with people from other cultures. Furthermore, written language enables us to pass down artistic, cultural, and literary heritage. Language is arbitrary in the sense that the meaning of a linguistic sign is not predictable from its word form, nor is its word form dictated by its meaning and function. For example, the phonological form [kæt] in English is conventionally paired with the meaning “a small animal with fur, four legs, a tail, and claws, usually kept as a pet or for catching mice”, namely a cat in English (from Cambridge Dictionary), whereby the phonological form itself does not resemble what it refers to. However, language, as a system, does have regularity and rules in the form of grammar. Although these rules vary from one language to another, it must be noted that within a speech community, these rules are agreed upon, which guarantees comprehension and virtually infinite creativity (Morris, 1946, cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 53). In this sense, Morris (1946, as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 53) considers a language to be “a communication system composed of arbitrary elements which possess an agreedupon significance within a community”.
In addition to serving as a tool for communication, language is also associated with “groupness”, due to its strong connections with history, culture and art. When people from the same linguistic background converse, they both talk and listen “between the lines”, such that the shared history, literature, and culture provide enough background for smooth communication. However, for non-native speakers, even if they have developed a high level of linguistic competency, it may be difficult for them to engage in interactions with native speakers on some occasions. This is particularly true when slang is used or when a certain literary character is mentioned, especially those that are not widely known to the outside world but are very familiar to those within the group. For example, the Monkey King is well known to Chinese, including Chinese children, but he may be unknown in other parts of the world. Steiner (1992, p. 243, as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 54) argues that languages enable
groups to preserve the “inherited, singular springs of their identity”. Edwards (2009, p. 54) points out that the “concealment” function of a language, although seemingly contradictory to its communication function, highlights the fact that language is a “within-group” phenomenon, at least to some extent. While second-language learners are able to acquire the functional and communicative aspects of a language, that part which is concealed from the outside world may remain closed to them.
1.3.2Dialects
A dialect is a variety of a language that is specific to a region or group. A given language may have several dialects. For example, Chinese can be classified into the following seven dialect groups (Yuan, 1989): Mandarin (guanhua) is spoken by over 90% of the total population; Wu is mainly spoken in Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang; Yue or Cantonese is prevalent in Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hong Kong and many traditional Chinatowns overseas; Min is mainly spoken in Fujian and Taiwan; Kejia (Hakka) is prevalent in parts of Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, and other parts of China as well as Southeastern Asia; Xiang is spoken in Hunan; and Gan is spoken in Jiangxi. Dialects may have vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (Edwards, 2009, p. 63) that differ from the standard language and may not be mutually intelligible, as is the case in China. Very often, adjacent dialects of one language may be mutually intelligible, whereas those distant from each other may not be. Therefore, dialects of a language may fall on a continuum in terms of intelligibility. Such instances can be found throughout the world, such as varieties of Slovak, Czech, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian (Edwards, 2009, p. 63). However, in some cases, even adjacent dialects may be mutually unintelligible, such as the sub-dialects of
Gan. Although people from various parts of Ji’an City in Jiangxi Province all speak the Gan dialect, its sub-dialects are often very different from each other, due to dialect contact derived from domestic migration over thousands of years, that people have resorted to using accented Mandarin to communicate, rather than their own dialects. 隔山不同音, 隔水不同调 “There may be different accents on either side of a mountain, just as there may be different tunes on either side of a river” is a very vivid but somewhat exaggerated Chinese saying that depicts this linguistic phenomenon; that is to say, geographical barrier may lead to the formation of dialects on either side of the barrier.
1.3.3Language andDialectGoodness
1.3.3.1Language Goodness
Is one language better than another? This may be an odd question to ask in this day and age; however, such questions have indeed been asked throughout history. After the overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty in China in 1911, some foreign-educated Chinese intellectuals advocated for the abolition of the Chinese language as well as Confucianism, because they believed that “the average person’s childish, uncivilized, obstinate way of thinking” (Ramsey, 1987, p. 3) was related to the language they spoke. While such a proposition was not widely accepted, it did lead to language reform, namely the standardization of both spoken and written Chinese. When discussing the role of language in shaping human cognition and behavior, we often refer to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, which was developed by Benjamin Lee
Whorf and Edward Sapir. Sapir claims that (1929, pp. 209–210, as cited in Simpson, 2019, p. 312)
human beings . . . are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of the language . . . the fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent built upon the language habits of the group. . . . We see, hear and otherwise experience the world as we do largely because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
Although many would not agree with Sapir’s statements earlier, many would agree with Whorf’s claim:
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds – and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are party to an agreement to organize it in this way – an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.
(Whorf, 1956, p. 214, as cited in Simpson, 2019, pp. 312–313).
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has a strong and a weak version. The former states that language determines the way we think and that linguistic categories limit and define cognitive categories, while the latter holds that linguistic categories and usage influence the way we think as well as certain kinds of nonlinguistic behavior. While later studies have discredited the strong version, the weak version of the hypothesis has been supported in several experimental studies (Kennison, 2013).
We cannot logically say that one language is superior or inferior to another. However, language does influence thought and behavior in many ways. For example, speakers of a language that abounds in
honorific forms, such as Japanese, tend to be more humble and polite than speakers of a language without such honorifics. However, just as Joachim du Bellay stated in the 16th century, “All languages are of a like value . . . to each man his language can competently communicate every doctrine” (as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 58). So language differences reflect our diverse experiences, environments, and ways of approaching this communicative tool. One classic example of the interaction between language and environment is that the Inuit people (those in the Arctic regions, such as Alaska, part of Canada, and Greenland) have perhaps as many as 400 (as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 60) words for snow. This does not mean that Inuit people are more creative than others; it simply illustrates the relationship between language and environment. Due to its ubiquity in the Arctic region, residents must differentiate between the many types of snow. As Edwards (2009, p. 60) points out, some Inuit dictionaries only show two lexical roots of the hundreds of words for snow, meaning that they are all derived from these root words in one way or another. It is obvious that this abundance of descriptions is due to their environment. On the other hand, people living in tropical areas may have only one word for snow, since it is so rare.
Recent research has revealed something interesting about the relationship between language and human behavior. Keith Chen, a professor of economics at UCLA, studies the effect of language on economic behavior (i.e., saving rates, engaging in healthy behaviors, and managing retirement assets). He focuses on the linguistic feature of how and the extent to which the future tense is marked in different languages. For example, English has strong future-time reference (FTR), which is explicitly expressed by common phrases such as “will”, “shall”, “going to”, while Chinese has weak FTR, in that there is no explicit future-tense marking. For example, in Chinese, 我 去 听 讲 座 “I am going to listen to a talk” literally translates to “I go listen to a talk”. Chen's (2013) linguistic-savings
hypothesis states that being required to speak in this distinct way about future events leads speakers of strong FTR languages to take fewer future-oriented actions. Specifically, the speakers of strong FTR languages, such as English, are more likely to have high rates of obesity, smoking, drinking, debt, and poor pension management, while the speakers of weak FTR languages, such as Chinese, are more likely to have good financial planning for retirement and sensible healthier habits. According to Chen (2013, p. 691), this hypothesis arises naturally if grammatically separating the future and the present leads speakers to disassociate the future from the present. This would make the future feel more distant, and since saving involves current costs for future rewards, it would make saving harder. On the other hand, speakers of some languages that grammatically equate the present and future would be more willing to save for a future which appears closer.
Interestingly, Chen’s findings largely support his hypothesis that languages with strong future-time reference lead their speakers to engage in less future-oriented behaviors. In terms of savings, the evidence is consistent on multiple levels from an individual’s propensity to save, to the long-term effects on retirement wealth, and to national savings rates. Even more interesting, these findings extend to speakers’ propensity to engage in behaviors related to well-being, ranging from smoking to condom use, as well as maintaining long-term health. As for the hypothesis that language may not cause but just reflect deeper differences that drive savings behaviors, Chen (2013) argues that his findings show that while both language and cultural values appear to affect savings behaviors, these two aspects do not appear to interact with each other in any predictable ways if they are both markers of some common causal factor. Meanwhile, Chen (2013) points out that differences in the use of FTR do not seem to correspond to cognitive or developmental differences in the acquisition of language. Therefore, he argues that the effect of language occurs through a
channel that is independent of either cultural or cognitive differences between linguistic groups. He even proposes that his hypothesis can be thought of as an example of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, and his study may be the first to connect language structure and decisionmaking. This study is both inspiring and thought-provoking due to its scale and the strong correlation found between language and human behaviors. More importantly, it seems to show that the powerful influence of language goes beyond communication and cultural aspects and may even extend to our decision-making regarding savings and health. Of course, not everyone agrees with Chen’s hypothesis and arguments, so more studies in the future are warranted to help us better understand the interconnections of language, thought, mind, and human behavior.
It is worth pointing out that whether or not language determines or shapes our behavior as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Chen’s (2013) findings suggest, one cannot claim that one language is better than another, since all languages serve the speakers equally well in terms of both oral and written communication.
1.3.3.2DialectGoodness
Can we say one dialect of a language is better than another? Generally, the term dialect carries an implication of inferiority to the standard version of the language. For example, a speaker of standard Mandarin may be perceived as better educated, more friendly, and even more attractive than one who speakers a dialect, although the opposite may be true. How does a particular dialect become the standard? The lofty position of one dialect over another is usually linked to the prestige and power of its speakers. The reason why Putonghua became the standard language of China is due to its status and long history as well as a compromise reached between its speakers of norther Mandarin and those of other dialect
areas, especially those in Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. Even today, Cantonese and Shanghainese still enjoy very high status due to the economic strength of these two cities.
In the US, some so-called low-status dialects or varieties spoken by the working class may have “covert prestige”, such as the association of masculinity with the African American Vernacular English (AAVE) speakers.
Therefore, no dialect is better than another, although one may be perceived as more prestigious due to the higher socioeconomic status of the people who speak it. Not only do dialects serve as a communication tool for ethnic groups, they also represent the historical and cultural heritage of their speakers. For example, many Cantonese, Zhejiang, and Henan operas are sung in regional dialects which have preserved the local culture and customs for thousands of years. In this sense, the conservation of dialects is as important as that of languages.
1.4 Language and Identity
Since identity and language are both on the personal and social levels, these aspects are mutually shaping, just as interaction between language and the social world. We use language to communicate, to convey meaning or a message, to represent who we are and who we want others to perceive us to be. In this sense, it is a marker of personal identity. Each and every one of us has our own idiolect, meaning that each person has his or her unique vocabulary, speech rate, intonation, and paralinguistic features (i.e., eye contact, body language). However, Edwards (2009, p. 21) argues that even idiolectal usage is a social phenomenon, because most language is communication-oriented.
Language and identity are related at the national and/or regional levels, ethnic, social class, and/or rank as well as the individual level of profession, gender, and age. For example, the language a person speaks may index his or her specific identity. A widely researched example is African American Vernacular English (AAVE) (Labov, 1972), which has often been associated with those of lower economic status due to the history of racism in the United States. However, such identities may change over time. AAVE has also become associated with masculinity or urban culture owing to the great influence of hip-hop. Furthermore, since immigrants from all over the world have settled in the US, heritage language, namely the ancestral language of immigrants, has also been widely researched. How heritage language speakers preserve and maintain their linguistic and cultural traditions reveals so much about the relationship between language and identity. Some immigrants may maintain near-native-speaker proficiency of their heritage language, while others may know only a few words. Steiner (1992, p. 243) argues that the loss of one’s heritage language equates the abandonment of one’s cultural identity and associations. At the gender level, men and women have different ways of speaking, such as pitch level, intonation, and vocabulary. In addition, recent studies have found that gay men and lesbians talk differently (see Kulick, 2000, for a critical review on this topic).
We constantly build and negotiate our identities through everyday interactions, and language use indexes identity construction. A case in point is the linguistic phenomenon of style changing, which Edwards (2009, p. 28) defines as “the speech variations that reflect one’s assessment of the social context and of what is or is not appropriate”. Interestingly, both are more often than not done unconsciously. Imagine how you talk to your parents, professors, your friends, boy/girlfriend, your cousin, or your baby nephew/niece. Very likely the formality, wording, speech rate, and even intonation (in the case of talking to a baby) change when you interact with
different people. Style changing is the constant constructing and reconstructing of language use, which is a defining characteristic of an individual’s many social identities. Put simply, most of the time, we change our speaking styles depending on context.
A prominent sociolinguistic theory, Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT), was proposed by Howard Giles in the 1970s to interpret the ways in which a speaker varies his/her speech according to context. In other words, the social-psychological setting determines linguistic choice, which, in turn, affects interpersonal communication. One underlying motivation for speech accommodation is to create similarity between the speech of the listener and speaker, thus establishing a sense of solidarity, because our experience informs us that similarity often leads to approval. However, as Edwards (2009, p. 158) points out, accommodation usually costs something; thus, the speaker must weigh the pros and cons, and only when a good cost-benefit ratio can be achieved will the speaker modify or disguise his/ her identity to make it more acceptable to the listener. Speech accommodation does not only refer to convergence (becoming similar to the listener’s speech). It also includes divergence, in which the speaker chooses a language or speech style that is different from that of the listener. For example, people from an area associated with a prestigious dialect may intentionally use this variety when talking to people from other dialect areas to create a sense of social and psychological superiority. It should be noted that convergence and divergence may not always lead to approval. Edwards (2009, p. 31) cites an example of unsuccessful convergence from a study by Giles and Powesland (1975). In this example, an English-speaking European addressed an East African official in Swahili, which was interpreted as condescending or that the latter did not sufficiently understand English. Social interaction involves so many spontaneous context-based decisions that there is no guarantee that all communicative attempts will lead to desirable results.
Coupland (2001) discusses the interesting linguistic practices of passing, crossing, styling, and stylization, each of which can serve as a useful construct for interpreting language use. Each of these practices can be viewed as ways to express alignment with one’s identity and language use. Passing and styling practices are at one end of the spectrum from straightforward, natural expression of the self to crossing and stylization that involve “putting on the voice” in a performative and self-conscious way (Coupland, 2001, as cited in Cutler, 2014, pp. 150–151). Language passing often refers to the ability to be accepted as a member of a social category (ethnic, racial, gender) other than one’s own (Piller, 2002). For example, if an L2 English speaker is very fluent and almost accent-free, he or she can pass for a native speaker. Passing is often a temporary, contextspecific phenomenon rather than a stable, enduring practice (Piller, 2002). However, styling leads to a more straightforward and stable relationship between language use and identity in that speakers adapt their personalities by using variables linked to identity categories to construct social meanings, social categories, and identity (Eckert, 2008, as cited in Cutler, 2014, p. 151). Stylization involves “the knowing deployment of culturally familiar styles and identities that are marked as deviating from those predictably associated with the current speaking context” (Coupland, 2001, p. 345, Cutler, 2014, p. 151). The stylized resources or linguistic variables often have social meanings that may be associated with a particular group (Cutler, 2014, p. 151). For example, stand-up comedians may stylize their speech by shifting into an indexed stereotypical Italian-American mobster accent that the audience will recognize.
Language crossing is closely related to stylization; however, it denotes “a stronger sense of social or ethnic boundary transgression and the variants being used are more likely to be seen as anomalously ‘other’ for the speaker, leading to questions of legitimacy and entitlement” (Rampton, 2009, p. 149, as cited in
Cutler, 2014, p. 151). That is to say, this phenomenon occurs when the speaker uses language which is generally thought not to “belong” to him/her. As mentioned earlier, AAVE is often associated with hip-hop culture. Cutler (1999) reports such a case. Mike lives in a wealthy New York City neighborhood and attends a private school. Even though he and most of his friends are white, at around age 13, he began to identify strongly with the hip-hop culture and style. He wore baggy jeans, a backward baseball cap, and designer sneakers. At around the same time, he began to change the way he spoke, “crossing” into AAVE. His family members said he “sounded like a street kid or hooligan”. Subsequently is an example of his speech:
You ever hear of Frank Frazetta? Dis is some phat shit, yo. Yo, when the dude dies, this book will probably be worth like a thousand dollars. Yo tell me that shit is not phat!
(Cutler, 1999, p. 432)
Unlike speaking styles, one’s dialect or accent is relatively difficult to change, although not impossible. As mentioned earlier, these may be associated with different levels of prestige or social status, such as standard Mandarin and received pronunciation in British English. However, such dialect/accent boundaries can be overcome by training, just as one can learn another language. For example, the 1964 American musical MyFairLadytells the story of how a Cockney flower-selling girl was taught to pass as an upper-class lady by changing her speech and manner.
Another example that showcases the interaction of language and identity is Eckert’s (1989) classic ethnographic study (a research method involving detailed observation) focusing on the linguistic style used by students in a high school in Detroit. This approach enabled her to associate linguistic variables with the speakers’ demographic information (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, and social class). She proposed the concept of community of practice and defined groups in terms of their social practices. Her study revealed
two diametrically opposed groups, the jocks and the burnouts, each made up of individuals from a mix of social classes (parental occupation, housing, etc.). The jocks actively engaged in activities and enjoyed school life and were a school-oriented community of practice embodying middle-class culture, whereas the burnouts were uninvolved in the goings-on of the school and frequently engaged in rebellious behavior and were a locally oriented community of practice embodying working-class culture. Eckert found that people tend to speak more like their friends – those who participate in social practices together – than others who are not in their demographic category, that is, social class. By comparing the values of the jocks and burnouts and how they relate to economics, the job market, and social psychology, Eckert tells a fascinating story of the selfexpression of emerging adults.
1.5 Attitudes About Various Languages
Language attitudes are the feelings that people have about their own language variety or varieties of others. Since all of us speak in a unique way, it is inevitable that others will have positive or negative opinions about our style. At the group level, people’s attitudes about a dialect or a regional language variety will spill over as a judgment about the group’s personal qualities, career prospects, and socioeconomic status. Of course, such attitudes are very biased and even destructive. For example, the speakers of Northeastern Mandarin in China have fallen victim to such prejudice and are more likely to be viewed as uneducated, vulgar, and having low status, although they are often considered to be more humorous (Yang, 2014). In this sense, Northeastern Mandarin is perceived as a low
variety of Mandarin, whereas PTH is considered and enregistered as the elevated variety.
As mentioned earlier, people’s attitudes regarding languages are not static over time, because they are conditioned by various social and political changes. Mandarin does not enjoy a high level of prestige in Shanghai, an international economically developed metropolis, as its economic status elevates the prestige of Shanghainese and renders it more respected than PTH. In recent years, due to the promotion of PTH all over China, people are changing their attitudes about it, and it is becoming more and more prestigious in Shanghai.
Another aspect of language attitudes that must be considered is overt and covert prestige. The standard variety of a language, such as PTH in China, has overt prestige, whereas the vernacular is covertly revered because it expresses the group’s identity and solidarity. Take Shanghainese for example. While PTH has become more prestigious because it has achieved standard language status, Shanghainese is still perceived as higher status due to the covert prestige among its speakers.
There are usually several paradigms for conducting research on language attitudes. One commonly utilized method is the so-called matched guise approach (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), in which a speaker produces two or more audio-recorded versions of the same text, for example one in PTH and one in the Xiang dialect. Respondents are then asked to use a five- or seven-point Likert scale to rate the personal traits of the speakers, such as pleasant, attractive, self-confident, likable, fluent, reliable, sincere, ambitious, friendly, intelligent, humorous, having leadership skills, welleducated, professional, and so on. In the matched-guise method, the two recordings are well controlled for because they are produced by the same person and only differ in the language/dialect spoken; in this case, if the ratings of the two recordings differ in some social or personal aspects, it is due only to the factor of language. In this
sense, it is clear that the matched guise technique can reveal more private, emotional, and conceptual reactions toward an accent and its speakers. One limitation of this paradigm is that, while a speaker is permitted to read in his or her native language or dialect, the other recording may not be viewed as a legitimate representation of the other language/dialect. Also, there are cases in which listeners may recognize the speakers as the same person. To solve these issues, many researchers have used the verbal guise paradigm, in which different speakers read the same passage. However, this is problematic as well because it is difficult to control for the idiosyncrasies of different speakers, such as speech rate, intonation, and voice quality (Tsalikis et al., 1991). One way to avoid this issue would be to divide the listeners into two groups and have each group listen to only a single guise. In this case, it would also be necessary to include identical filler materials to determine if the two groups rate identical passages similarly (Stefanowitsch, 2005).
The other less often used technique in such research is the direct approach, namely to ask/survey people about their attitudes about a language/dialect. This approach is flawed because participants may not wish to reveal their actual opinions about a language, especially when they are negative or the languages being investigated are spoken by the researchers.
Intriguingly, there is evidence that attitudes about a language can change the way it sounds in the sense that people may choose to imitate the features of a language variety that is associated with higher social status/prestige. Such changes may permeate a speech community and lead to gradual long-term alterations.
1.6 Concluding Remarks
We have briefly discussed identity, language and their interrelatedness, as well as attitudes about language in this chapter. Identity is a multifaceted concept. As language is an essential marker for one one’s identity, these aspects are mutually shaping. Language is the vital tool for handing down culture and civilization. Although the more than 7,000 languages spoken in the world, including dialects, are intrinsically equal, unfortunately, they acquire different statuses or prestige due to social, historical, and economic reasons. People’s perceptions and attitudes about a language may influence social interaction and even lead to language change. Many issues that were introduced in this chapter will be examined in depth throughout the book. With this background, we will begin an exploration of language and identity in Greater China. Prior to embarking on our journey, we will provide an overview of Chinese languages in Chapter 2, including an analysis of the standardization of the Chinese languages and the simplification of Chinese scripts as well as the promotion of PTH, which have had significant ramifications for the linguistic landscape of China today.
Discussion questions
1. Please discuss the following response from Queen Elizabeth I to a French ambassador. “Though the sex to which I belong is considered weak . . . you will nevertheless find me a rock that bends to no wind.”
2. The United States is a country of immgrants from all over the world. How do people from different ethnic backgrounds maintain their heritage (and their heritage languages)? What issues and challenges do they face?
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
