Instrumental

Instrumental dimension covers the subcategories of marker of social status, tool of communication, and tool of upward mobility. The following sections display the results and analyses of the three subcategories.

90

5.2.2.1 Marker of Social Status

Table 5.11. Results of Statements Related to Social Status

Mean STD N

Social Status 1 會說台語比較像是受過教育的人。 2.25 .872 155

Social Status 2 台語是社會地位的象徵之一。 2.30 .893 155

Table 5.11 presents respondents’ attitudes toward Taiwanese regarding the dimension of social status. The results of the Pearson correlation coefficient (r=.618, p<0.01) indicates a positive correlation between the two statements. Overall, both Taipei and Kaohsiung respondents tended to show disagreement regarding the two statements: “speaking Taiwanese makes me seem to be more educated” and

“Taiwanese is a symbol of social status.” Ryan and his associates (1982: 8) have suggested that the relative degree of standardization of varieties leads to differential associations with their speakers. The average scores of the two statements obtained from the participants are both below 3. Since Mandarin is the standard language enjoying more institutional support, Taiwanese, which is generally considered as a nonstandard variety, is not associated with better education and higher social status.

That is to say, Taiwanese is the language that is acquired through family transmission rather than official education. Thus, Taiwanese proficiency does not serve as an index of education.

5.2.2.2 Tool of Communication

Table 5.12. Results of Statements Related to Communication

Mean STD N

Communication 1 我講台語的原因是想跟聽不懂國語的長輩溝通。 3.95 .952 155

Communication 2 會說台語對我的日常生活溝通很重要。 3.47 1.040 155

91

Participants’ responses to the category of communication are presented in Table 5.12. A slight difference is revealed in the average scores of the two statements (3.95 and 3.47 respectively). Although both scores are over 3, different interpretations are produced. First, the rating of the statement “I speak Taiwanese to communicate with older generation who do not understand Mandarin” is higher than 3.5, and it is closer to the scale of “agree.” Next, in the second question, “speaking Taiwanese is important in my daily communication”, the average score is lower than 3.5, which reveals a neutral stance. A possible explanation would be that, for college students nowadays, Taiwanese serves as a tool of communication when talking to Taiwanese -speaking people. Nonetheless, the language proficiency in Taiwanese does not seem to be an important issue in daily communication.

Moreover, when the regional factor is put into consideration, the agreement percentages derived from the two areas clarify the reason of the low mean score. As indicated in Table 5.13, when responding to statement 2, only 38.3% of Taipei subjects agreed that Taiwanese is important in their daily communication. On the other hand, 68.9% of their counterparts still held positive attitudes toward this statement. The contrast between the two regions seems to be associated with the use of Taiwanese: Kaohsiung subjects’ ratings of using Taiwanese in three domains (interlocutors, places, and topics) are significantly higher than Taipei subjects.

Table 5.13 Subjects’ Responses to Statements of “Communication” Set Category No. Regions Agree No comments Disagree Communication 1

Taipei 72.8% (59) 18.5% (15) 8.6% (7) Kaohsiung 77.0% (57) 14.9% (11) 8.1% (6) Total 74.8% (116) 16.8% (26) 8.4% (13) Communication 2

Taipei 38.3% (31) 33.3% (27) 28.4% (23) Kaohsiung 68.9% (51) 18.9% (14) 12.2% (9) Total 52.9% (82) 26.5% (41) 20.6% (32)

92

5.2.2.3 Tool of Upward Mobility

Table 5.14. Results of Statements Related to Upward Mobility

Mean STD N Upward Mobility 1 台語是學習知識的工具。 3.35 1.018 155 Upward Mobility 2 會說台語對找工作有幫助。 3.62 .935 155

Feifei (1994: 58) argues that association with official and institutionalized use endows a language with prestige. For example, upward social or occupational mobility necessitates the learning of a particular language with the intention of finding a job or entering public domains. Table 5.14 exhibits informants’ attitudes toward Taiwanese about the issue of acquiring knowledge or seeking employment. In answering the statements related to “upward mobility”, the respondents seemed to hold a neutral attitude since the average scores are below 4. The two statements aim to establish whether Taiwanese is viewed as a tool to pursue knowledge and also whether a Taiwanese-speaking ability creates benefits for one’s occupation. Although language classes involving Taiwanese, Hakka, and Aboriginal languages are compulsory in elementary school (one period per week), they are not the language employed to learn knowledge within regular educational system. Consequently, linguistic varieties may be given by different degree of prestige due to their functions served in daily life. The perceptions formed in school education may extend when people are looking for an employment. Although Taiwanese is not the major language used in educational programs, this does not seem to create work-related problems later on. According to Fishman (1971b, quoted in Ryan et al, 1982: 4), “the status of a language variety rises and falls according to the range and importance of the symbolic functions it serves”. Thus, this upward social and occupational mobility manipulates

93

the learning of Mandarin (or English) in formal domains. Results of the Pearson correlation coefficient (r=.375, p<0.01) indicate a weak correlation between the two statements, which seems to confirm that nowadays Taiwanese is not regarded as a language beneficial for personal knowledge enrichment and instrumental functions.

Moreover, though the respondents of this study were recruited from universities and might not have had employment experience, the perceptions that symbolically link the language variety with its relative prestige have revealed its vitality in instrumental dimension: Taiwanese is not as important as Mandarin (or English) regarding knowledge pursuing and employment.

5.2.2.4 Summary

In the instrumental dimension, the results in the three sets of statements imply that Taiwanese is not a language acquired in official institutions, and instrumentally it is not important in daily life communication. Besides, Taiwanese does not serve as a tool of knowledge enrichment or employment. To some extent, participants in this dimension reveal that the importance of Taiwanese is relatively low and that it is not a competitive language regarding the issue of upward mobility and social status.