Integrative

Integrative dimension covers the subcategories of transmission, symbol of identity, self-expressiveness, and marker of solidarity. The following four sections present the results and analyses of the four subcategories.

5.2.1.1 Transmission

Table 5.6. Results of Statements Related to Transmission

Mean STD N

Transmission 1 我覺得台語是老一輩的人所講的語言。 3.32 1.173 155

Transmission 2 我覺得台語應該要好好保存下來。 4.51 .678 155

Transmission 3 我會教我的下一代台語。 4.12 .852 155

Table 5.6 displays informants’ attitudes toward the transmission of Taiwanese. In statement 1, “I think Taiwanese is a language for old people”, the rating (3.32) is lower than the other two. The informants seemed to be indeterminate when they were

83

asked to judge if Taiwanese is a language for the older generation. The agreement/disagreement percentage (Appendix 2) reveals something more interesting.

When the 5-point Likert scale is put into three categories: agree, no comments, and disagree, 57.4% of the sample population agreed on the statement, with still one-third (31.6%) expressing the opposite opinion.

According to the results of correlation analysis between the first statement and the other two, the relations are in a slightly opposite pattern. On the other hand, the results of Pearson correlation coefficient (r=.684, p<0.01) indicate a positive correlation between the second and the third statement. This reveals that the respondents advocated the preservation of Taiwanese, and that they were willing to transfer the language to the next generation. To look closer into the nature of these three statements, the former two are more related to attitudes and beliefs, while the latter is related to behavior. Whereas respondents’ beliefs concerning preserving Taiwanese (statement 2) corresponds to their behaviors in transmission (statement 3), the reported attitudes/beliefs (statement 1) seem to be inconsistent with behaviors.

Edwards (1985: 139) has pointed out that it is often the case that assessed attitudes do not go along with actions presumably related to them. Thus, in order to investigate attitudes, one needs to probe into respondents’ feelings of reported attitudes. Further details regarding respondents’ perceptions of languages will be discussed in the following sections.

84

5.2.1.2 Symbol of Identity

Table 5.7. Results of Statements Related to Identity

Mean STD N

Identity 1 我以說台語為榮。 3.95 .945 155

Identity 2 會說台語才能充分了解台灣文化。 3.77 1.018 155

Identity 3 台灣人應該都要會說台語。 3.30 1.174 155

The average scores for each statement under the subcategory of symbol of identity are demonstrated in Table 5.7. According to the results of the Pearson correlation coefficient, the three statements have positive correlations with each other (p<0.01). The first and second statement shows the strongest correlation (r=.500).

This result reveals a tendency that, concerning the issues of speaking Taiwanese (statement 1) and Taiwanese culture (statement 2), both Taipei and Kaohsiung respondents reflected positive attitudes toward Taiwanese identity. Comparatively, the score of the third statement 3 “every resident in Taiwan should be able to speak Taiwanese” is lower than the other two. Hoare (2000: 334) in his study has pointed out that the relationship between language use and identity is not a straightforward manner. In his study, Hoare investigates how informants perceived their identity. It is found that the informants tended to use language to characterize different degrees of identity. While some informants considered language as a purely symbolic component of identity at one end of the scale, others viewed it as a communicative function, reflecting another kind of identity since they do not have any competence in the language.

The three statements of this category seem to represent different degrees of Taiwanese identity, with the third statement representing a symbolic component of Taiwanese identity at one end of the scale and the first statement reflecting communicative function as a feature of Taiwanese identity at the other end. Hence, the

85

data reveal that language use is associated with different degrees of identity.

While there might be a power difference associated with the language representing a certain group (Bucholtz and Hall, 2004), in answering the first statement, “I am proud of speaking Taiwanese”, the participants might merely express a sense of confidence in the beauty of Taiwanese rather than an ideological association with identity and a powerful group. With respect to statement 2, “only when one speaks Taiwanese can s/he understand Taiwanese culture”, the informants might give their responses based on the situation in reality. Taiwanese culture is closely associated with Taiwanese, and in many cases speaking Taiwanese can authentically express the essence of the Taiwanese spirit. Statement 3 represents an extreme case about identity recognition. Among the sample population (Appendix 2), while 48.4% agreed on statement 3, which associates symbolic function of language with Taiwanese identity, 51.6% (both 25.8% “no comments” and “disagree”) of respondents still did not express their support for this issue.

As has been claimed by Tse (2000: 161), the emotional attachment triggered by language use nowadays has decreased compared to that in the 80’s. Moreover, because the informants who participated in the current study were recruited from universities, the university students seemed to form a new sense of identity, unlike the older generation who might associate bitter experience with the language use during the period under Martial Law. This provides a possible explanation to the small difference between the first two statements and the third one.

Moreover, subjects who participated in this study may have different interpretations in answering statement 3. During earlier years after the repeal of Martial Law in 1987, Taiwanese people who have experienced suppression of their mother tongues (Taiwanese, Hakka, and Aboriginal languages) started to claim certain rights regarding their mother tongues and urged the government to take action to

86

preserve their native languages. This linguistic awareness initiated a trend toward increasing the use of mother tongues as an expression of democratization, as a sign of localism, and as an assertion of ethnolinguistic identity. During the time of localization, language seemed to be viewed as a barrier that causes social and psychological distance among distinct ethnic group (Tse, 2000: 161). The third statement in Table 5.7 indicating that every resident in Taiwan should be able speak Taiwanese may represent the essential concept and a radical case of the Taiwanese spirit. The awareness achieved its climax during the general election of the governor of Taiwan and the mayors of Taipei and Kaohsiung, while a turning point occurred when Taiwan was threatened by military exercises held by Mainland China during the presidential election in 1996. After years of living on the same island, establishing a relationship in the same society, as well as intermarriage with other ethnic groups, people have formed a new awareness that the residents in Taiwan are bound together.

The use of language gradually functioned more communicatively and pragmatically oriented and less sentimentally attached. In observing the data, it is difficult to establish how the subjects interpreted the issue of identity, such as ethnic identity or a new sense of identity crossing ethnolinguistic boundaries. This study interprets subjects’ responses to the survey rather than discussing a specific type of identity.

5.2.1.3 Self-Expressiveness

Table 5.8. Results of Statements Related to Self-Expressiveness

Mean STD N

Self-Expressiveness 1 我覺得講台語使對話內容更活潑。 4.14 .782 155

Self-Expressiveness 2 我覺得講台語比較能適切表達我的情緒。 3.60 1.036 155

Self-Expressiveness 3 台語較能表達自己的想法和行為。 2.84 1.035 155

Table 5.8 illustrates the mean scores of the three statements in the set of

87

self-expressiveness. The scoring patterns for statements 1 through 3 reveal that in considering the issue of self-expressiveness by means of Taiwanese, the informants did not agree on all aspects of the functions of this language. The results seem to be associated with low language frequency in three domains (interlocutors, locations, and topics).

5.2.1.4 Marker of Solidarity

Table 5.9. Results of Statements Related to Solidarity

Mean STD N

Solidarity 1 我覺得跟會講台語的人用台語交談可以拉近彼此的距離。 4.27 .832 155

Solidarity 2 我喜歡跟會講台語的友人用台語交談。 3.66 1.052 155

Table 5.9 shows the average scores in terms of the issues of solidarity: 4.27 and 3.66 respectively. According to the results of Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r=.520, p<0.01), the scores in this category are moderately correlated. The results indicate that the informants tend to agree that speaking Taiwanese with other Taiwanese-speaking people is a way to shorten the interpersonal distance. Moreover, respondents showed preference for speaking Taiwanese when talking to Taiwanese-speaking people.

Feifel (1994: 59) argues that the solidarity dimension contains sentimental or affective elements that bring group members together and cause loyalty toward their linguistic variety regardless of the social status of their native languages. The high scores for the first statement (4.27) reveal participants’ tendency to speak Taiwanese, which is used for ingroup, informal, and intimate interactions. The dimension of solidarity is closely associated with personal attributes such as friendliness and warmth, which benefit conversationalists in shortening social distance. When one speaks Taiwanese with others who also speak the language, it raises the feelings of

88

attraction and elicits sense of belongingness. The results of statement 2 (3.66) suggests that Taiwanese is favored in intimate friendships or informal interactions and that people tend to speak a language or dialect which represents the social group with which one identifies.

One thing worth mentioning is that though there is a positive correlation between statement 1 and 2, the data shown in Table 5.9 reveal a pattern: solidarity 1 is more about one’s attitudes/beliefs and solidarity 2 is related to one’s behaviors. That is to say, the subjects held positive attitudes (4.27) toward the functions of Taiwanese, whereas the lower rating (3.66) in solidarity 2 shows a gap between attitudes/beliefs and behaviors. A clearer illustration with respect to subjects’ different levels of agreement can be observed in the development of the percentages. Table 5.10, which collapses the five-point responses to 3 categories of percentages, suggests that 85.2%

of the subjects agreed on solidarity 1, while a dramatic decrease to 60% is noted in solidarity 2.

Table 5.10. Subjects’ Responses to Statements of “Solidarity” Set

Category No. Regions Agree No comments Disagree Solidarity 1

Taipei 82.7% (67) 11.1% (9) 6.2% (5) Kaohsiung 87.8% (65) 10.8% (8) 1.4% (1) Total 85.2% (132) 11.0% (17) 3.9% (6) Solidarity 2

Taipei 45.7% (37) 33.3% (27) 21.0% (17) Kaohsiung 75.7% (56) 16.2% (12) 8.1% (6) Total 60.0% (93) 25.2% (39) 14.8% (23)

Moreover, when the regional factor is put into consideration, while 75.7% of the Kaohsiung group expressed their agreement to statement 2, a mere 45.7% of the Taipei group provided positive opinions on the preference for speaking Taiwanese with other Taiwanese-speaking friends. A possible reason might be attributed to

89

language use and language proficiency: Kaohsiung inhabitants’ proficiency and frequency of Taiwanese are higher than their peers.

5.2.1.5 Summary

Overall, except for the weaker value of self-expressiveness 3 (2.84), the participants held positive attitudes toward the four sets of statements in the integrative dimension. For example, the participants expressed their willingness toward the preservation and transmission of Taiwanese. Nevertheless, their reported behaviors might not coincide with expressed attitudes/beliefs. For instance, the rating of solidarity 2 (3.66) “I like to speak Taiwanese with other Taiwanese-speaking people”

which represents one’s attitudes was lower than solidarity 1 (4.27), which is associated with one’s beliefs. Thus, there seems to be a contrast between attitudes/beliefs and behaviors. In addition, some studies indicate that language use does not correspond to identity. For example, the rating of the statement “every resident in Taiwan should be able to speak Taiwanese” is the lowest among the three statements in the subcategory of identity. More observation of people’s actual behaviors is needed to check if attitudes/beliefs coincide with behaviors.