3.3 General Summary and Discussion
This chapter analyzes and discusses the Englishized structures in Taiwan Mandarin from diachronic and synchronic perspectives. The diachronic study is the comparison between the writing in 1988 and in 2010. The synchronic research is the analysis of the oral data in 2010.
Table 18 is the summary of the number and frequency of Englishized constructions in our three databanks.
As shown in Table 18, the general tendency of Englishization in 1988 and 2010 writing is similar. That is, the popularity of each Englishized structure in the two years of written data displays similar pattern.
104
Table 18. Comparison of the number and normalized frequency (per 1000 morphemes) of each Englishized pattern in all the data
1.Pronouns Increasing use of subject 103(1.95) 45(1.10) 1541(25.05)
Increasing use of object and possessive 59(1.12) 23(0.44) 335(5.45) Inanimate third person pronouns 45(0.85) 7(0.17) 184(2.99)
2. Long pre-modifiers 416(7.89) 284(6.95) 74(1.20)
3.Insertion of yi and classifiers 25(0.61) 52(0.99) 159(2.58)
4.Passive structure bei 66(1.25) 25(0.61) 14(0.23)
5.Lexical verbal nominalization 192(3.64) 170(4.16) 31 (0.50)
6.Concessive clauses in the final position 0 0 0
7. Other
Total of morphemes 52,704 40,848 61,517
This result implies that these Englishized uses have already been widely adopted at least as early as in 1988, so it is difficult to observe significant differences of Englishization between 1988‘s writing and the present writing. That also explains why almost all Englishized categories have similar tendency in the two written data. This proposal is supported by Hsu (1994), which studied different writing materials ranging from 1989 to 1994. Hsu (1994) found that many Englishized structures are widely adopted at that time, and even some of them are so prevalent that no one knows its foreign origins. In short, the Englishized structures examined in the present study have been localized in Taiwan Mandarin at least since twenty years ago.
The extension of Englishization can be supported by the results of the oral data in our study as well. Although it is argued that Englishized syntactic patterns are mainly confined to the written mode (Wang, 1947; Hsu, 1994), the Englishized patterns adopted in the oral speech are generally higher in number than in the written
mode. The results of comparison of each structure in the oral data and the written data are summarized and discussed in the following.
For the use of Englishized pronouns, it is significantly higher in the oral data for the benefit of the hearers; that is, the repetition of pronouns can avoid the possible confusion of the referents. Moreover, the distribution of pronouns is different in two language modes. First person and second person pronouns are significantly more frequent in speaking to involve the addressee and attract their attention. As for the written data, third person singular outnumbers other pronouns due to the objective and narrative features of magazines.
In terms of the use of long pre-modifiers, its frequency is significantly higher in the written data because of the limit of short-term memory. Regarding the position of long pre-modifiers, the frequency of long pre-modifiers in the object position is higher than the subject position in both writing and speaking for ease of information processing (cf. information principle and the principle of end-weight).
Regarding the uses of insertion of yi and classifiers, they are more frequent in the oral data, as they are omittable words which can be deleted in writing. It is found that in the oral data the tendency of generalization is more significant than the written data.
On the other hand, the frequency of Englishized bei structre is significantly higher in the written data than in the oral data. Since it is regarded as a detachment device, and even in English the passives occur more frequent in writing.
The frequency of lexical verbal nominalization is also significantly higher in the written data; as long-premodifier it is one of the lengthening devices. Besides, nominalization is associated with the detachment feature and thus it is commonly used in the more detached style of writing. Noticeably, in the speaking, the freqeuncy of
106
due to the fact that such a use is a rather colloquial expression.
There are no examples of concessive clauses in the final position, so no claim can be made here.
The last category is patterns translated from English, such as other prepositions (i.e. 有 關 youguan, 對 於 duiyu), the use of zhiyi ‗one of‘ and the pattern qianzhe…houzhe ‗the former…the latter‘. Except for the lack of examples of the last pattern in 2010 data, all the other expressions are all more frequent in the written data than in the oral data. It may be mainly due to the fact that the English counterparts of these patterns are more commonly used in the formal registers, and thus it is predictable that their frequency is low in our oral database.
In short, the structures with higher frequency in the written data can be regarded as lengthening devices (Chafe and Danielwicz, 1987). Chafe and Danielwicz (1987) explicated that the length of a sentence is longer in writing than speaking, and those lengthening devices occur more in writing as well. The results of the present study correspond to Chafe and Danielwicz‘s findings and discussion.
As for the more frequent used Englishized structures in speaking, they are associated with the spontaneous and real-time features of conversation; that is, the utterences cannot be edited afterward. Besides, it is found that the Englishized structures dominant in speaking fall into the functional category (Biber et al., 1999), and thus the deletion of them would not affect the meanings.
To sum up, the results of seven Englishized structures examined in the present study correspond to observations in previous findings; that is, the Englishized structures are frequently used in modern Mandarin and accepted as part of Chinese grammar. The results of the oral data also suggest that the Englishized syntactic structures are not merely limited to writing due to translation or imitation of English writing. Most of them are widely used in daily conversation. Therefore, we may
suggest that Englishization of Mandarin still continues in writing and further develops in speaking.
With regard to the comparison between the written and spoken data, the present study again supports the claim that the written language and spoken language are different in nature. The distribution of these Englishized features shows discrepancy between the two modes. Most importantly, the results of the present study are basically in line with the English counterparts, which also provide indirect support for the assertion of these structures as Englishized ones.
As for the debates of whether the syntactic structures can be borrowed between different language families, the present study may not be able to draw a conclusion here. Since except for the direct translation of certain expressions (i.e.
qianzhe…houzhe), other Englishized syntactic structures may either have existed before but just rarely occurred in traditional Chinese, or there are other similar constructions or uses. Therefore, the possibility of structural borrowing between different language families is not excluded here while it is not confirmed, either.
108
Chapter 4 Conclusion 4.1 General Summary and Implications
The present study attempts to investigate the frequency and distribution of Englishization of Taiwan Mandarin in writing and speaking. The results reveal that the Englishized structures suggested in the literature have already localized as part of Chinese grammar at least early since twenty years ago. Thus, the comparison between the writing in 1988 and the writing in 2010 does not show significant difference.
As for the frequency and distribution of Englishized structures in terms of oral Taiwan Mandarin, it is found that different from the previous researchers‘ prediction (Wang, 1947; Hsu, 1994) nowadays they are popular in speaking, implying that the degree of Englishization is even more widespread than before. Besides, it also reveals that the use of Englishized structures is not limited to translation or writing but extends to the speech as common expressions.
Compared with the written data, there is significant difference of the distribution of Englishized structures between the two language modes. It is found that the Englishized structures occurring more frequent in writing are associated with the lengthening device, such as long pre-modifiers, lexical verbal nominalization, passive bei structure, and other new Englishized patterns. The English counterparts of these structures are also more frequently used in academic writing or news texts, and thus the formality of the modes also influences their frequency.
On the other hand, pronouns and insertion of yi and classifiers are more frequent in speaking due to the real-time and interactive features of spoken language. That is, it is difficult to edit the words beforehand and afterward during the speech, and thus there are more redundant words. Besides, the interactive feature of speaking causes the increase of these structures as well, for example, the involvement of the audience (i.e.
the use of first and second person pronouns).
In short, the results in the oral data and written data reveal that these two modes of languages are indeed with significant different linguistic features. Moreover, the results of examined Englishized structures in the two language modes correspond to the literature in written and spoken English, giving supports to the proposal of these structures as Englishized ones. However, from the above discussion, it can be found that English is not the only influence on the use of Englishized patterns; other pragmatic factors and universal features (i.e. the frequent use of first person and second person in speaking, information principle, etc.) also involve in determining the usage and distribution of these patterns.
The present study supports the proposal that contact induced language through translation is possible, even on the syntactic aspect, However, it may be too fast to draw a conclusion here in terms of the possibility of syntactic borrowing between different language families.
4.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
The present study aims at investigating the Englishization of spoken and written Taiwan Mandarin, while there are several limitations of the present study and also issues remain to be explored. For the limitations of the study, first of all, the lack of oral data from the past prevents us from observing the development of Englishization in speaking.
Besides, the year of the written data selected to compare with the present writing is not early enough, and thus there is no significant difference between the two years of written data. The progress of Englishization may be more evident if we examine the writing from earlier time and then compare it with the present writing. Last, the corpus of the written data and oral data may not be large enough, so some structures are with few or even without examples, and it also makes the topics of selected articles influence
110
In the future, it is suggested that if possible, the diachronic research of Englishization in the speech can be conducted. Also, it will be interesting to study this topic from the social or psychological perspective, such as the age, gender, and education factors. Last but not the least, it is worthwhile to investigate Englishization in different generes/registers of speaking and writing, such as academic writing or daily conversation.
References:
Baik, Martin J. 1992. Language shift and identity in Korea. Journal of Asia Pacific Communication, 3(1): 15-31.
Baik, Martin J. 1994. Syntactic features of Englishization in Korean. World Englishes, 3(2): 155-166.
Banks, David. 2005. On the historical origins of nominalized process in scientific text.
English for Specific Purposes. 24, 347-357.
Bauer, Wolfgang. 1964. Western literature and translation work in Communist China.
Alfred Metzner Verlag. Frankfurt/Main.
Baugh, Albert C.and Cable, Thomas. 2002. A History of the English Language.
Prentice Hall. 5th edition.
Baumgarten, Nicole and Ȍzҫetin, Demet. 2008. Linguistic variation through language contact in translation. In Perter Siemund and Noemi Kintana. (Eds.). Language Contact and Contact Languages. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co, pp. 293-316.
Bennett, TL. 1977. An extended view of verb voice in written and spoken personal narratives. In Keenan, EO. and Bennett, TL. (Eds.) Discourse Across Time and Space. (pp 43-49). California: University of Southern California.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Biber, Douglas; Johansson, Stig; Leech, Geoffery; Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward.
1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5: 97-106.
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.
Biq, Yung-O. 2004. Construction, reanalysis, and stance: ‗V yi ge N‘ and variations in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 36: 1655-1672.
Blass, Thomas and Siegman, Aron W. 1975. A psycholinguistic comparison of speech, dictation and writing. Language and Speech, 18(1): 20-34.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Chafe, Wallace. 1990. Sources of Difficulty in the Processing of Written Language.
Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature. Report Series 4.3.
Chafe, Wallace.1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chafe, Wallace and Danielwicz, Jane. 1987. Properties of Spoken and Written Language. Technical Report No. 5. Center for the study of writing.
Chafe, Wallace and Tannen, Deborah. 1987. The relation between written and spoken
112
language. Annual Reviews Inc., 16: 383-407.
Chang, Jie. 2011. An Investigation of the Origin and Evolvement of the Adverb Zai (在) in Mandarin. Language teaching and research, 1: 76-81.
Chang, Ying-ling. 2011. A Functional Analysis of Personal Pronoun Use in Argumentation. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. National Chengchi University.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1961. What is correct Chinese? Journal of the American Oriental Society, 81(3): 171-177.
Chao, Yuen-Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Chao, Hong and Shao, Chi-Hong. 2002. Reference function of the 3rd person pronouns: An English and Chinese contrastive study. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34 (3):174-179.
DeVito, Joseph A. 1967. Linguistic analysis of spoken and written language. Central States Speech Journal, 18(2): 81-85
Diao, Yen-Bin. 1999. 初期現代漢語語法研究. Taiwan, Taipei: Hong-Yeh Publishing Co.
Dong, Xiu-Fang. 2004. Chinese Lexicon and Morphology. Beijing: Beijing University Publishing Co.
Feng Xue-dong. 2006. Research for zai in Wiping Out Monsters. XiHua Normal University Journal, 5: 7-9.
Fujii, N. 1988. Factors which influence the explicit/implicit of manifestation subjects.
In Lowenberg, P.H. (Ed.), Language Spread and Language Policy Issues, Implication and Case Studies. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, pp.112-137.
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann and Jescheniak, JȌrg.D. 1995. Cataphoric Devices in Spoken Discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 29: 24-58.
Givon, Talmy. 1979. Prolegomena to any sane creology. In Ian Hancock (Ed.), Readings in Creole Studies. Ghent, pp. 3-35.
Gopinathan, S., Pakir, Anne; Kam, Ho Wah and Saravanan, Vanithamani (Eds.). 1998.
Language, society, and education in Singapore: issues and trends. Singapore:
Times Academic Press, 2nd ed.
Haugen, Einer. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language, 26: 210-231.
He, Ye. 2004. The Influence of English upon Chinese Grammar since Opening to the Outside World. Journal of SiChuan International Studies Univresity, 3:129-133.
Hines, E. 2004. High quality and low quality college-level academic writing: Its discursive features. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado.
How, R. 2010. An Overview of Taiwan‘s Book Publishing Industry. Publishing Research Quartely, 26(3):183-186.
Hsu, Jia-Ling. 1994. Language Contact and Convergence: Englishization of Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Huang, Zun-Sheng. 1963. Zhongguo wenzizhi Ouhua wenti [The Europeanized writing of Chinese]. Guomin Yinwu Youxiangongsi. Penang.
Kachru, B. Braj. 1994. Englishization and contact linguitics. World Englishes, 13(2):
135-154.
Kennison, Shelia M., Fernandez, Elaine C. and Bowers, J Michael. 2009. Processing differences for anapgoric and cataphoric pronouns: Implications for theories of discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 46: 25-45.
Kubler, Cornelius. C. 1985a. A study of Europeanized grammar in Modern Written Chinese. Taipei, Taiwan: Student Book Co.
Kubler, Cornelius. C. 1985b. The Development of Mandarin in Taiwan: A Case Study of Language Contact. Taipei, Taiwan: Student Book Co.
Kuo, Sai-hua. 2009. Multilingualism, multiculturalism, and multiple identities:
Analyzing linguistic hybridization in Taiwanese newspaper headlines. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication (John Benjamins Publishing Co.) 19.2:
239-258.
Lehiste, Ilse. 1988. Lectures on Language Contact. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lian, Shuneng. 1993. Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese. Beijin: High Education Publishing Co.
Liu, Li-Jin. 1997. The contrastive studies of cataphora and anaphora in English and Chinese. Journal of Shanghai Foreign Languages University, 6: 40-44.
Liu, Mao-Tsai. 1964. Deutsch-Chineseche Syntax (German-Chinese Syntax). Walter de Gruyther & Co. Berlin.
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandar A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. The Crane Publishing Co, LTD.
Li, Ying-Che. 2004. Aspects of Historical-Comparative Syntax: Functions of Prepositions in Taiwanese and Mandarin. In Chappell, Hilary (Ed.), Chinese Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (pp. 340-368). Oxford:
114
McCarthy, Michael. 1998. Spoken Language and Applied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
McMahon, April M.S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Myers, G. 1992. ‗In this paper we report…‘: Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(4), 295-313.
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O‘Donnell.R C. 1974. Syntactic differences between speech and writing. American Speech, 49:102-110.
Pennycook, A. 1994. The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48(2), 173-178.
Peyraube, Alain. 1998. On the modal auxiliaries of possibility in Classical Chinese.
Selected Papers from the 5th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics.
Taipei: Crane Publishing Company, 27-52.
Peyraube, Alain. 1999. Historical change in Chinese Grammar. Cahiers de linguistique - Asie orientale, Vol. 28, 177-226.
Peyraube, Alain. 2004. On the Modal Auxiliaries of Volition in Classical Chinese. In Chappell, Hilary (Ed.), Chinese Grammar: Synchronic and Diachronic contact? International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 151: 41-48.
Shi, Dingxu and Zhu, Zhiyu. 2000. English Influence on Hong Kong written Chinese.
Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3: 200-206.
Shi, Dingxu, Zhu, Zhiyuand Wang, Canlong. 2003. Syntactic Shift in Hong Kong Written Chinese. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1: 4-12.
Shih, Y. and Soong, M. 1998. Code-mixing of Taiwanese in Mandarin newspapers headlines: A socio-pragmatic perspective. Selected Papers from ISOLIT-II (505-527). Taipei: Crane.
Shim, Rosa Jin Young. 1994. Englishized Korean: structure, status, and attitudes.
World Englishes, 13(2): 155-166.
Steiner, Erich. 2008. Empricial studies of translations as a mode of language contact.
In Perter Siemund and Noemi Kintana (Eds.), Language Contact and Contact Languages, 317-345. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Stockwell, R. P., P. Schachter, and B. H. Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Tan, Charlene. 2005. English or Singlish? The Syntactic Influences of Chinese and Malay on the Learning of English in Singapore. Journal of Language and Learning, 3, No.1
Thomason, Sarah G. and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. two hundred years. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, (April), 41-54.
Tsien, Tsuen-Hsuin. 1954. Western impact on China through translation. The Far Eastern Quarterly, 13(3): 305-327.
Wang, Ke Fei. 2002. Contemporary translation influences Chinese. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (6), 458-463. Discourse. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 49-88.
Wang, Zong-Yan. 1994. Can English pronouns he / she refer to the following nouns?
Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 4.
Wei, Jian. 1953. Yuwen zatan: Ouhua wenti shi jiang [Ten fatures of Europeanized styles]. Hong Kong: Shanghai Shuju.
Wei, Hong-Hua. 2005. An analysis of Europeanized grammar in contemporary written Chinese. M.A. thesis.
116
Weinreich, Uriel. 1974. Language in contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague:
Mouton.
Yu, Guang Zhong. 2006. Yuwen dashi ru shi shou—zhong he xi [The language masters said that-between western and eastern]. Shanghai: Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Yuan, Wei Hua. 2008. On Personal Pronouns in Xi Xiang Ji. Journal of Ningbo Institute of Education, 10(6), 41-45.