Language Functions on a Integrative-Instrumental Continuum

The seven sets of statements have been combined into Table 5.15 based on Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination continuum, with one end of intrinsic orientation and the other extrinsic orientation. According to Ryan and Deci (2000: 72-73), autonomous motivation composite includes identified and integrated regulations, and intrinsic orientation; controlled motivation composite contains introjected and external regulations. The study adopts Gardner and Lamber’s idea on motivation distinction. Thus the autonomous composite is termed as integrative motivation and

94

controlled composite as instrumental motivation. Noteworthy here is that the two types of motivations are located on a continuum that solves the difficulty of drawing a clear cut on language motivations.

Table 5.15 illustrates the average scores of each statement given by the subjects.

An opposite pattern is seen between the scores of solidarity and social status. This performance seems to correspond to the second type of language preference patterns proposed by Ryan et al. (1982). The pattern, majority status/ingroup solidarity, refers to situations where minority groups tend to use the prestigious language due to social status, whereas they prefer their own linguistic variety because of solidarity. In other words, although Taiwanese is favored with respect to the solidarity dimension, it is not preferred in terms of status.

Table 5.15. Seven Sets of Statements on the Integrative-Instrumental Continuum

Integrative motivation Intrinsic Orientation

Marker of Social Status 1 2.25

2.28 Marker of Social Status 2 2.30

Communication 1 3.95

Regulation Upward Mobility 2 3.62

95

Table 5.15 reveals that the subjects were both intrinsically- and extrinsically-motivated when speaking Taiwanese. In terms of integrative motivations, the subjects showed awareness of language transmission and identity due to inherent satisfaction; they spoke Taiwanese because the language represents the self; they believed in the value of Taiwanese as it helps to improve interpersonal relationships.

On the other hand, the data of the instrumental dimension, which includes introjected and external regulations, show that the informants tended to profess that they were instrumentally motivated to speak Taiwanese due to the practical needs of

“communication” and values of “upward mobility”. In other words, the extrinsically motivated behaviors are performed to satisfy an external demand, to reward contingency, or to demonstrate ability/avoid failure in order to maintain feelings of worth. Nevertheless, the weaker ratings of statements in the set of “marker of social status” suggest subjects’ disagreement on showing one’s social status and education level by using Taiwanese.

5.3 Regional Differences Regarding Attitudes toward Taiwanese

Table 5.16 below shows subjects’ average ratings for each statement. Except for question 1 (transmission 1) and questions 14-15 (standard language ideology), the ratings from the Kaohsiung areas are higher than that of Taipei areas. As for the responses given by the two groups, except for the subcategory of “standard language ideology”, the average scores generally are higher than the middle point 3 on the 5-point Likert scale. This seems to reveal respondents’ positive attitudes toward those statements. This section presents results by categories, and the discussion of statements 16 and 17 are not the focus of this section, because the features of the two statements are more related to language practice and regional comparison. A detailed

96

analysis regarding the two statements can be found in section 5.4.

Table 5.16. Average Ratings of Each Statement Motivation Value of Statement Question

Number

Standard language ideology 1 14 3.01 2.68

Standard language ideology 2 15 3.14 2.51 *.000

mean 3.07 2.59 *.000

Note. Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by ‘*’.

5.3.1 Transmission

In transmission 1, subjects were asked “I think Taiwanese is a language for older people”; the rating of Kaohsiung subjects (3.24), though insignificant, is lower than that of Taipei subjects (3.40). Overall, subjects from both regions tended to agree with the statement that Taiwanese is a language belonging to the older generation, with Kaohsiung subjects showing a somewhat weaker agreement. As for transmission 2

97

and 3, the differences between Taipei and Kaohsiung are statistically significant. In statement 2, both subjects from Taipei (4.41) and Kaohsiung (4.62) agreed that Taiwanese should be preserved appropriately. It seems that college students in the current study were consciously aware of the issue regarding the maintenance of Taiwanese. Considering the transmission of Taiwanese (statement 3), Kaohsiung subjects (4.42) showed their strong willingness to teach Taiwanese to the next generation. Taipei respondents (3.84) reflected relatively weak attitudes toward the issue about transmission. The results given by Taipei and Kaohsiung college students seems to suggest that respondents from the Kaohsiung areas are positive concerning the issue of preservation (statement 2) and transmission (statement 3). Taipei residents, though positive in the aspect of preserving Taiwanese (4.41), showed a weaker attitude (3.84) toward the transmission of Taiwanese. Overall, in the category of transmission, the results seem to imply that Kaohsiung residents (4.09) had a stronger intention to protect Taiwanese than their Taipei counterparts (3.88).

5.3.2 Symbol of Identity

Second, in the category of identity, Kaohsiung subjects (4.15) held quite a positive attitude to the first statement “I am proud of speaking Taiwanese” with their Taipei counterparts (3.77) showing a lower degree of agreement. It seems that Kaohsiung subjects expressed a more positive attitude in appreciating the beauty of Taiwanese. The scores of the second statement “only when one speaks Taiwanese can s/he understand Taiwanese culture” are lower than the first one. Probably, the way to understand Taiwanese culture and to show Taiwanese identity is not limited to Taiwanese speaking ability. In other words, people may recognize the language but it does not necessary indicate that a full understanding of Taiwanese culture depends on the capability of speaking Taiwanese.

98

5.3.3 Self-Expressiveness

The next topic is about self-expressiveness. There is a significant difference between the overall performance of Taipei (3.68) and Kaohsiung (4.07). Besides, the average scores of the first statement “speaking Taiwanese makes a vivid conversation”

(4.01 and 4.27 respectively) are higher than the second one “speaking Taiwanese can express my feelings appropriately” (3.35 and 3.88 respectively). One possible reason for this might be the effects Taiwanese causes in conversation Sometimes certain Taiwanese terms helps to pinpoint one’s exact feelings and thus there is more variability in conversation. This may be associated with the stereotypical impressions of language (especially in the attribute of energetic-inert scale) people draw regarding Mandarin and Taiwanese. Further discussion regarding the stereotypical impressions of both languages will be addressed later in section 5.6.

5.3.4 Marker of Solidarity

In the category of marker of solidarity, the average scores of the first statement

“speaking Taiwanese with other Taiwanese-speaking people can shorten social distance” (4.19; 4.36) are higher than the second one “I like speaking Taiwanese with other Taiwanese-speaking people” (3.31; 4.05). In other words, while the Taipei and Kaohsiung groups expressed their beliefs on the function of speaking Taiwanese in shortening social distance, the lower scores in the second statement seem to reflect the discrepancy between respondents’ beliefs and behaviors. In addition, Kaohsiung respondents’ mean score (4.05) of the second statement is significantly different (p<0.05) from their Taipei counterparts (3.31). It seems that Kaohsiung participants held more positive attitudes in speaking Taiwanese, whereas Taipei participants tended to stay more neutral position concerning this issue. In general, the category

99

score of Kaohsiung (4.21) is higher than that of Taipei (3.75): Kaohsiung subjects speak Taiwanese in order to show a sense of solidarity, a phenomenon that might be attributed to Kaohsiung subjects’ higher frequency in speaking Taiwanese with other people in different locations.

5.3.5 Tool of Communication

Regarding the issue of communication, results of the Independent-Samples t-Test indicate a significant difference (p<0.05) between Kaohsiung (3.92) and Taipei scores (3.52). In comparing the scores of the first and second statement, both groups tended to agree on the statement “I speak Taiwanese in order to communicate with older people who do not understand Mandarin.” In the second statement “speaking Taiwanese is important for me in daily communication,” the strength of agreement weakened. Results of the Pair Test indicate a significant difference (p<0.05) between the scores of the two statements obtained from Taipei areas. Hence, for the Taipei participants, a Taiwanese speaking capability is not thought to be an important issue in daily communication, since they only use the language for communication with the elderly who do not understand Mandarin. Comparatively, for Kaohsiung subjects, it seems that speaking Taiwanese not only plays a role in cross-generational communication (4.01) but that is also influential in other aspects of daily life (3.82).

5.3.6 Tool of Upward Mobility

As for the category of upward mobility, significant differences are found between the Kaohsiung group’s average score (3.61) and the Taipei subjects (3.38).

Generally speaking, the two groups of subjects agreed on the two statements in this category. Especially in statement 2, the subjects from the two areas (Taipei 3.58 and Kaohsiung 3.66) agreed that Taiwanese-speaking ability is an advantage in looking

100

for a job. According to Ryan and Deci (2000: 72), behaviors which are performed to satisfy an external demand or reward contingency are referred to as externally-regulated. The results suggest that the informants were extrinsically motivated to speak Taiwanese.