國際語言的在地想像：論英文在台灣社會語境的意識形態化

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學文學院英語學系博士論文 Department of English, College of Liberal Arts. National Taiwan Normal University Doctoral Dissertation. 國際語言的在地想像：論英文在台灣社會語境的意識形態化 Global Language and Local Imagination: On the Ideologizing Process of English in the Taiwanese Context 李婉歆 Lee, Wan-Hsin 指導教授 Advisor: 蘇席瑤博士. 中華民國 109 年 8 月 August 2020.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The acknowledgements never come close to expressing how grateful I am. Although people always say that the journey to Ph.D. is lonely, I‘m incredibly lucky to have been blessed with so much love, faith and support. Foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Prof. Hsi-Yao Su. For all these years she has never stopped showing me the faith she has in me. I know I don‘t stand out from my fellow students. She has this magic and patience to assure me that I can do better. I want to thank her for teaching me to challenge myself, showing me higher academic goals, and standing by me when I work my way to the goals. She is always there for me when I feel confused and lost. Without her, I wouldn‘t be writing the acknowledgements today. I am indebted to the Professors on my dissertation committee. I‘m grateful to have received comments from Prof. Su-Chiao Chen and Prof. Jennifer M. Wei. They lent me so much support and encouragement before and at the defense. It is a privilege to have Prof. Chun-Yin Doris Chen and Prof. Miao-Hsia Chang on the committee. Their expertise makes me see how I can tackle wider social issues with my knowledge in sociolinguistics. I would like to thank professors in the Department of English, NTNU. They have played an important part of my life since my undergraduate years. They witnessed my growth, accepted my shortcomings, and taught me to become a better person than the day before. They are my ideal definition of educators and scholars. If I can be half as great as they are in the future, I would say I‘m not doing a bad job. I met some amazing friends on this journey. I have the best ‗school sisters‘ I could ask for. I want to thank Anne Yu, Irene Lu, and Betty Hsu. They are like big sisters who put up with my little temper, comfort me, and make sure that I take care of myself. I met a good friend, Alan Wan, who impresses me with his knowledge in and passion for sociolinguistics. I i.

(3) learned to be more ambitious and adventurous from him. I‘m sure he will get his degree soon. I cherish the friendship of 10 years I have with Wei-Cherng Sam Jheng. Though we always tease each other for our disparate interests in linguistics, deep down I‘m truly grateful to have him around. I thank him for putting things into perspective for me when I get upset over my study and my work. I have the best BBF a girl could have. Betty shows me how to live a life. She tells me to stay focused when doubts cloud my judgment and determination. I cherish every moment of our trips. I‘ll start saving for our next destination and hopefully many more to come. I am lucky to have many friends who encourage me with a hug and a smile and who comfort me with a shoulder to cry on. I did it. I would like to thank my family. For the past 7 years they have shown me their understanding and support for what I have been working on. They gave me the luxury of time and space that I know I should never take for granted. I know they are happy and proud that I‘m ready to start another stage of my life. While working on my degree, I made some difficult decisions. I truly hope that the people I love and I never have to undergo such a gloomy period as I did before. I was lucky to have my advisor, the professors, my friends and all the family around. Writing a dissertation is like a healing process for me. Piece by piece, I collect myself together by getting to know a different me every day, by identifying my strengths and weaknesses, and by pushing myself to accomplish great goals. I learned to love myself more and to focus on things and people that truly matter to me. Wrapping up the dissertation is not a chance for me to feel good about myself. Instead, this is a chance for me to express how grateful I am to have these great persons in my life. I dedicate this dissertation to them all.. ii.

(4) CHINESE ABSTRACT 透過分析英語相關的言談是如何由說話者視為既有的語言觀念和對其現有觀念的評價堆疊而成，本研究旨在描繪英語在臺灣社會語境中被意識形態化的過程。約定俗成的語言使用讓說話者過度概括語言複雜的意義構建過程。本文討論如何由言談分析窺知錯縱的意識形態過程和互動。檢視英文在三種公眾言談情境中所被賦予的角色和意義，本文探究下列五個問題。 1. 英文在臺灣語境中如何被評論？ 2. 由媒體言談中的幽默英語表演，投射臺灣社會如何定義英文與英文能力？ 3. 在當前的語言政策辯論中，英語和臺灣的語言如何在意識形態上互動？ 4. 在喧騰一時的注音及羅馬拼音爭議中，說話者對於英語的語言認知和價值如何形塑與詮釋非英語的語言使用？ 5. 鑑於三種公種言談情境中所勾勒出的意識形態化過程，本文所提出的「語言意識形態網絡」（the ideologization web）如何呈現出意識形態化的動態？本研究提出了「語言意識形態網絡」以呈現意識型態在言談中持續推進的動態過程。在理論層面上，本研究嘗試將其動態過程與言談元素連結，以識別意識形態化的分層。在語境層面上，本文探討臺灣的英語的意識形態動態。進一步發現這些意識形態上的分層與立場常被視為二元且相互駁斥的。而這些看似對立的語言意識形態立場常源於相同的﹑共有的既有語言觀念。在臺灣社會語境中占主導地位的語言意識形態為「英語代表全球競爭力」和「臺灣人英語講不好」。說話者在言談中透露出仰賴這兩個語言意識形態作為建構語言意義的基礎。然而，隨著情境更動的眾多語言意識形態立場透露出英語的意識形態化過程遠比我們認知的更為生動。本研究執行時適逢臺灣正在規劃官方雙語制。因此，本文希冀在描述英語在台灣社會情境下的意義建構過程與動態之餘，也能提供一個市場及資本導向以外的觀點討論，以呈現英文在台灣的社會的多維面向。關鍵字：語言意識形態﹑語言態度﹑後設言談﹑多語性﹑英文（語）. iii.

(5) ENGLISH ABSTRACT The study aims to sketch the dynamics of the ideologizing process of English by analyzing how discourse about English is layered with what speakers take for granted and how speakers responds to what is taken for granted. The taken-for-grantedness leads us to overgeneralize the complicated meaning-making process of language. The study suggests that the complicated ideologizing process is embodied in discourse elements. Through examining how English is presented in 3 public discourses, the present study answers five questions. (1) How do speakers talk about English in Taiwan? (2) What norms about English are observed in conversational joking about English in media discourse? (3) How does English interact with local languages at ideological level in the current language planning debate? (4) In the debate of phonetic systems for Taiwan Mandarin, what role does speakers‘ knowledge about English play in the meaning-making of both English and non-English linguistic practice? (5) In light of the ideologization process of English in the three public discourses in the Taiwanese context, how does the layered ideologizing process connect to discourse structure, summarized in the ideologization web? The study proposes ‗the ideologization web‘ to depict the complex ideologizing process in linguistic practice. When speakers respond to others‘ discourse, the speakers‘ discourse reveals their values and beliefs concerning not others‘ prior discourse, but the ideological understanding of such discourse. The study terms the outperformed evaluations ‗ideological stances.‘ The study terms the backgrounded and implicit social experiences about languages ‗established language ideologies‘ because they are pieces of available knowledge with which speakers make sense of others‘ discourse. Theoretically the study contributes to identifying the ideologizing process by linking it with discursive elements. Empirically, the study recognizes the ideological dynamics in English in the Taiwanese context. These ideological distinctions are further found to be discursively constructed as binary and conflicting. However, they background a limited number of shared established language ideologies. The dominant language ideologies ―English represents global competitiveness‖ and ―Taiwanese speak bad English‖ are the decontextualized norms that speakers take for granted in discursive practice related to English. The various ideological stances reveal the ideologizing process of English as dynamic and ongoing. This study is completed during the time when Taiwan is in the process of planning official bilingualism. The dissertation thus has the humble goal to contextualize English in Taiwan. The study hopes to advocate the necessity to acknowledge multi-dimensional aspects of English in addition to a capitalized, marked-oriented perspective. Keywords: language ideology, language attitudes, metadiscourse, multilingualism, English iv.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................. i CHINESE ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii ENGLISH ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1. 1.1 Overview and Research Questions ............................................................................................... 1 1.2 Context .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2.1 Sociolinguistic situation of Taiwan........................................................................................ 7 1.2.2 English in Taiwan ................................................................................................................ 12 1.3 Outline of the Dissertation .......................................................................................................... 15. CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS & LITERATURE ................................................. 17. 2.1 Language Ideology and Language Evaluation ............................................................................ 17 2.2 Indexicality ................................................................................................................................. 25 2.3 Globalist Discourse of Language, English, and Commodification ............................................. 28 2.4 Studies about the Three Public Discourses ................................................................................. 39 2.4.1 Conversational joking and epistemics .................................................................................. 40 2.4.2 Discursive approaches to language policy and planning ..................................................... 46 2.4.3 Intertextuality ....................................................................................................................... 50. CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 56. 3.1 Crosslinguistic Conversational Joking in Media......................................................................... 61 3.1.1 TV programs about ‗infotainment‘ ...................................................................................... 61 3.1.2 Conversational joking in ‗infotainment‘ discourse .............................................................. 65 3.2 English in Language Planning: Directly Elicited Metadiscourse on English ............................. 68. v.

(7) 3.2.1 Survey comments: Collection and analysis.......................................................................... 70 3.2.2 The Blueprint: Collection and analysis ................................................................................ 74 3.2.3 YouTubers‘ vlog discourse: A perspective of self-media .................................................... 74 3.2.4 Vlog comments: Divergent, non-dichotomous perspectives................................................ 76 3.3 Bopomofo vs. Romanization: Indirectly Elicited Metadiscourse about English ........................ 78 3.3.1 Yeh‘s proposal speech at the hustings: Data collection & analysis ..................................... 82 3.3.2 The survey comments .......................................................................................................... 82 3.3.3 YouTube news comments .................................................................................................... 85. CHAPTER 4. ENGLISH IN CONVERSATIONAL JOKING IN INFOTAINMENT .............................. 92. 4.1 Types of Crosslinguistic Humor ................................................................................................. 94 4.1.1 Overdone lexical insertion: ‗We-ness‘ or ‗otherness‘ .......................................................... 95 4.1.2 Crosslinguistic puns ........................................................................................................... 105 4.1.3 Incorrect/inappropriate language use of English................................................................ 110 4.1.4 Metalinguistic comments on (lack of) English................................................................... 119 4.2 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 126 4.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 132. CHAPTER 5. METADISCOURSE OF ENGLISH IN LANGUAGE PLANNING .............................. 134. 5.1 Survey Comments: Lay beliefs ................................................................................................. 135 5.1.1. The evaluated and the evaluating ...................................................................................... 136 5.1.2 The ideologizing process in interaction ............................................................................. 151 5.2 The Blueprint: An Analysis of a ‗Top-down‘ Perspective of English ...................................... 160 5.2.1 An overview of the Blueprint............................................................................................. 161 5.2.2 Language rationalization behind bilingualization .............................................................. 168 5.3 Discourse of YouTubers‘ Vlogs: Discourse of Self-media....................................................... 174 5.3.1 ‗Profiling‘ English.............................................................................................................. 176 5.3.2 ‗Profiling‘ English in Taiwan ............................................................................................ 185 5.4 YouTube Comments: Contestation within and across Comments ............................................ 194 vi.

(8) 5.4.1 English represents global competitiveness: Why English? Why go global? ..................... 195 5.4.2 Self-deprecation: Why do we have to speak good English? .............................................. 201 5.4.3 A minimum of official languages: Why English? Why bilingual? .................................... 210 5.4.4 An official language as everyone‘s language: Must we? ................................................... 215 5.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 221 5.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 227. CHAPTER 6. BOPOMOFO VS. ROMANIZATION .................................................................... 230. 6.1 A Discursive Analysis on Yeh‘s Speech about Scrapping Bopomofo at the Hustings ............. 237 6.2 Survey Comments: Links between Romanized Phonetic Systems and English ....................... 243 6.2.1 Proponents‘ ideological stances and missing links ............................................................ 243 6.2.2. Opponents‘ ideological stances and found links ............................................................... 247 6.3 YouTube Comments: the Ideologizing Process of English ...................................................... 254 6.3.1 Ideological stances on ―English represents competitiveness.‖........................................... 255 6.3.2 Ideological stances on ―Romanized phonetic schemes are related to English.‖ ................ 259 6.3.3 Ideological stances of ―English competence is desired.‖ ................................................... 266 6.4 Guojijiegui and Linguistic Practice........................................................................................... 272 6.4.1 Guojijiegui and Romanized Phonetic Schemes ................................................................. 273 6.4.2 Guojijiegui and English ..................................................................................................... 277 6.4.3 Guojijiegui and Taiwan Mandarin ..................................................................................... 280 6.4.4 Guojijiegui and Bopomofo................................................................................................. 281 6.4.5 Guojijiegui and Taiwanese................................................................................................. 283 6.5 Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 287 6.6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 296. CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 299. 7.1 Summaries................................................................................................................................. 300 7.2 From Ideologization Webs to a Sociolinguistic Profile of English in Taiwan.......................... 305 7.3 Social Implications and Future Directions ................................................................................ 310 vii.

(9) REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 315. viii.

(10) LIST OF TABLES. Table 1. The titles, links and length of the 10 episodes of infotainment programs analyzed in the study. .................................................................................................................... 64 Table 2. The data sources, collection and focuses in directly elicited metadiscourse ............. 78 Table 3. The occurrences of ‗English‘ and ‗guojijiegui‘ and their relevant vocabulary in the online survey comments. ........................................................................................... 84 Table 4. The 16 YouTube news clips and the number of comments on each webpage. .......... 85 Table 5. The established language ideologies and ideological stances in the online survey comments ................................................................................................................. 136 Table 6. Language ideologies concerning English and concerning official languages. ........ 150 Table 7. The three scale-levels and their corresponding spatial identities and norms in Taiwan. ................................................................................................................................. 225 Table 8. The established language ideologies and the ideological stances in YouTube news comments. ................................................................................................................ 255 Table 9. The non-standards/standards axis of differentiation ................................................ 269 Table 10. The occurrences of ideological stances concerning guojijiegui. ............................ 286. ix.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. An ideologization web sketches the connection among input discourse, established language ideologies and ideological stances. .............................................................. 5 Figure 2. An ideologization web sketches the connection among others‘ discourse, established language ideologies and ideological stances. ............................................................ 59 Figure 3. An extended ideologization web. ............................................................................. 60 Figure 4. The ideologization process of English in crosslinguistic humor. ............................. 68 Figure 5. The ideologization web in metadiscourse about officializing English in Taiwan. ... 73 Figure 6. The relationship among the Yeh‘s proposal as the input discourse, the news viewers‘ established language ideologies, and their ideological stances. ................................ 81 Figure 7. The numbers of YouTube news comments that mention English, guojijiegui, and both. ........................................................................................................................... 89 Figure 8. The datasets, their collection and categorization procedures in indirectly elicited metadiscourse about English. .................................................................................... 90 Figure 9. The ideologization web in the debate of phonetic systems. ..................................... 91 Figure 10. The possible combinations of knowledge transmission in infotainment discourse. ................................................................................................................................. 129 Figure 11. The ideologization web of infotainment discourse ............................................... 131 Figure 12. The targets of the Blueprint (Executive Yuan 2018: 4) ........................................ 164 Figure 13. The Blueprint in the ideologization web .............................................................. 168 Figure 14. The ideologization web of the text of the Blueprint and YouTubers‘ discourse ... 193 Figure 15. The ideologization web in the survey comments and YouTube comments. ......... 223 Figure 16. The research focus of the debate on Bopomofo and Romanized phonetic systems ................................................................................................................................. 231 Figure 17. Hanyu Pinyin transliteration service on Chunghwa Post Co., Ltd. ...................... 233 Figure 18. Tong-Yong Pinyin transliteration service on Chunghwa Post Co., Ltd. ............... 233 Figure 19. The webpage of Bureau of Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs .......... 234 Figure 20. The indexicality in Yeh‘s speech. ......................................................................... 242 Figure 21. Language ideologies in proponents‘ and opponents‘ comments .......................... 253 Figure 22. The ideologization web in YouTube news comments ......................................... 271 Figure 23 The prevailing indexicality in the viewers‘ comments. ......................................... 290 Figure 24. The mapping of linguistic practice and guojijiegui. The numbers in the parentheses notes the numbers of comments that overtly mention the respective values. .......... 294 Figure 25. The categorization of the established language ideologies in the three discourses. ................................................................................................................................. 307. x.

(12) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION. 1.1 Overview and Research Questions This study starts from an online advertisement. This advertisement by an English institute caught my attention one day when I browsed through the homepage of Yahoo Taiwan. As a native speaker of Mandarin Chinese, an English user, and a linguistics major, I am impressed by how the advertisement is packed with information about English in the Taiwanese context and yet how there is barely unfamiliar information to me. The advertisement consists of two major texts, situated respectively at the top and the center of the entire advertisement. The two texts can be decoded with different weighing based on a visual semiotic analysis (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996; Scollon & Scollon 2003). The top of the advertisement reads 不想一輩子當英文啞吧！她這樣克服結巴英文 Buxiang yibeizi dang Yingwen yaba! Ta zheyang kefu jieba yingwen ‗She doesn‘t want to be mute in English. This is how she overcame her stammering English.‘ The expression 不想 bu xiang ‗do not want to‘ describes an undesired situation of being a 英文啞巴 yingwen yaba ‗English illiterate.‘ The term 克服 kefu ‗overcome‘ describes necessary efforts required to overcome the obstacle. The top of the advertisement, where ―ideal‖ information is placed (Kress & van Leeuwen 1998), foregrounds English learning as desired and importantly, strenuously manageable. The center of the advertisement reads 英語力大翻身 yingyu li da fanshen 1.

(13) ‗English competence changeover,‘ with the words 大翻身 in boldface. Right below the sentence has the 學習快捷鍵 xuexi kuaijie jian ‗button to fast-forward learning.‘ The changeover could mean both the changeover of one‘s English abilities or a person with English abilities. Put differently, the center where the focus of the information lies (Kress & van Leeuwen 1998) specifies that improving English is beneficial and could be effortless. In semiotics, how languages, together with elements such as logos, colors and fonts, are arranged spatially and visually is accounted for. Various pieces of information available on one sign also play different roles with varying degree of information weight. Upon seeing this advertisement, a speaker can totally ‗buy it‘ with the hope of strengthening their English ability. Conversely, another speaker can potentially sneer at the advertisement with the realization that this will not help to improve English. As a linguistic major and a language teacher, I am busy using all the knowledge I have to judge the language (the advertisement uses) about the language (English). As readers we do not read the discourse like this in this advertisement about English in a textual and denotational way. Instead, we process and interpret it with hard-earned social knowledge about English. Such an advertisement communicates with us not merely about English itself, but also about English in this particular social context. The communication is neither downright straightforward nor linear. However, through repeated social learning, the taken-for-grantedness leads us to overlook the complicated interpreting process and to view the interpretation as the way it is. This 2.

(14) non-linear, dynamic, but perceivably normalized meaning-making process about English is where this study starts. The meaning-making process involves our selection of beliefs about languages. Our social knowledge about language that speakers take for granted are termed language ideologies (Schieffelin, Woolard & Kroskrity 1998; Blommaert 1999; Cameron 2003). The study aims to investigate the meaning-making process of English through examining how English is presented in 3 discourses—in humorous crosslinguistic contexts of infotainment programs, namely, the broadcasts that offer both information and entertainment, in directly elicited online discussion about English in language planning, and in indirectly elicited online discussion surrounding English caused by the proposal of replacing the traditional phonetic system for Mandarin Chinese with Romanized phonetic symbols. The study draws from the three discourses for several noteworthy considerations out of their similarities and distinctions. The three discourses individually contribute to a distinctive dimension of vitality of English in the Taiwanese context. Together they complement and triangulate each other. Similarly, the three public discourses are easily accessible. These discourses operate and reproduce the ideologizing process. They publicize how the ideologization of language is progressive. It is speculated that these public discourses about English both speak to and speak for the audience in a way that comprehension and alignment are sought and maximized. The three types of discourse thus allow a glimpse at how English is generally presented and 3.

(15) profiled outside the language learning context, a niche that is always worth the academic attention. To better account for the dynamics, the study proposes a model called ‗the ideologization web‘ to sketch the complex ideologizing process in linguistic practice. The advertisement in Figure 1 shows that our interpretation is filtered and guided by long-held beliefs about English which are mostly presented as background information. It does not have to be widely accepted by the public. It is considered a convenient, readily available piece of knowledge to understand why language users behave in certain ways. A backgrounded belief can be unspoken, yet shared among speakers. A backgrounded belief is therefore called an ‗established language ideology‘ in the present study. Reflexivity on an established language ideology shows speakers‘ context-specific evaluations shaped by or directed at an established language ideology in this particular context. It is called ‗ideological stance‘ in this study, following Jaffe‘s (2016) terminology. Figure 1 shows how the ideologization web presents the relation among others‘ discourse, speakers‘ established language ideologies and their ideological stances.. 4.

(16) others‘ discourse. established language ideologies. speakers‘ discourse: ideological stances. Figure 1. An ideologization web sketches the connection among input discourse, established language ideologies and ideological stances.. Others‘ discourse and ideological stances are presented in concrete lines and frames as they are overt in discourse representation. Established language ideologies mediate in-between are presented in dotted frames and lines because they often remain relatively implicit and backgrounded. This model captures language ideologization as ongoing, constantly changing and context-dependent. Woolard (1998) illustrates that a term like ‗language ideology‘ seems to focus more on the ideologization product rather than process, though this is never intended. The ideologization web presents the ideologizing process via analyzing discursive structure. As discourse is recursive, the ideologization could be extended. More elaborated ideologization webs will be presented with data in the following sections. A number of theoretical notions are so critical to the study that they have to be defined 5.

(17) before they are used pervasively in this study. The study uses ‗discourse,‘ ‗contexts,‘ and ‗metadiscourse‘ with caution. The study uses ‗context‘ to refer to the macro-sociological environment where discursive practice is embedded and interpreted. Simply put, contexts in this study refer to the Taiwanese social contexts. The study sees ‗discourse‘ both as a product and an influential element of social experiences (Fairclough 1992a; van Dijk 1996). Moreover, as English does not popularly serve as a daily language in Taiwan, an interesting phenomenon is that speakers talk more about the language than in the language. The present study uses the term ‗metadiscourse‘ to refer to speakers‘ discourse about discourse (Kádár & Haugh 2013; Hyland 2017). The present study is aimed at answering the following questions. 1.. How do speakers talk about English and English use in Taiwan?. 2.. What assumptions and norms about English are observed in conversational joking about English in media discourse?. 3.. How does English interact with local languages at ideological level in the current language planning debate?. 4.. In the debate of phonetic systems, what role does speakers‘ knowledge about English play in the meaning-making of both English and non-English linguistic practice?. 5.. In light of the ideologization process of English in the three public discourses in the Taiwanese context, how does the layered ideologizing process connect to discourse 6.

(18) structure, summarized in the ideologization web? Theoretically, the study aims to specify the ideologization process of English in everyday discourse by relating the processes with discourse elements. Moreover, the study also hopes to argue that mediated communication contributes to studies on language ideologies. According to Page, Barton, Unger and Zappavigna (2014), media communication has long been compared to face-to-face interaction as a less ideal source of data. However, the swiftness and online anonymity teach viewers to quickly evaluate a piece of information and to steer an event toward the public expectation. Kádár and Haugh (2013) call these netizens ‗metaparticipants.‘ The study demonstrates that speakers behind mediatized discourse, including TV show artists, YouTubers and netizens, can actively participate in the ideologizing and indexicalizing process. Empirically, built on known studies on attitudes toward English in Taiwan (C.W.-Y. Chen 2006; S.-y. Huang 2006; H.-Y. Lin 2007; Y.F. Chang 2008; Tsai 2010; J.-L. Hsu 2013; H.-Y. Lin 2014; Price 2014), the present study presents a dynamic sociolinguistic profile of English in the Taiwanese context in addition to a market-oriented perspective of language .. 1.2 Context 1.2.1 Sociolinguistic situation of Taiwan Taiwan is both individually and societally multilingual. Individual multilingualism in 7.

(19) Taiwan refers to the fact that an individual speaks more than one language, mostly Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese (Wei 2006). Societal multilingualism (Sridhar 1996) is observed in the fact that speakers in Taiwan are broadly categorized into four ethnolinguistic communities, including Mandarin Chinese, Taiwanese (also referred to as Tai-gi, Taiyu, Taiwan Southern Min, and less frequently as Southern Min), Hakka and Austronesian languages (Tsao 1999; Chiung 2001; Sandel, Chao & Liang 2006; Wei 2006; Liao 2008; S.-C. Chen 2010; Tsai 2010; M.-H. Wu 2011; Price 2014). The concept of four major ethnic languages/groups in Taiwan is taken to be fundamental in identity issues in Taiwan (Makeham 2005). In recent years, the population of Taiwanese new immigrants is rising. The sociolinguistic landscape of Taiwan is further vivified with a call for a new definition of multilingualism (S.-C. Chen in press 2021). The contemporary sociolinguistic situation of Taiwan mirrors its history Studies on the historical development of language use tend to note the influences brought by South Chinese immigration, the Japanese colonization, the KMT era, the lifting of Martial law and labor mobility and intermarriage. The language development of Taiwan locks intimately with different political powers through time. Though Taiwan remains a multilingual society, the sociolinguistic profile of languages in Taiwan shows legacy of immigration and top-down, long-term monolingual language policies of different eras (S.-C. Chen 2010). Qing dynasty marks the time when South Chinese immigrants outnumbered the aborigines in Taiwan (Simpson 2007). These immigrant 8.

(20) brought Hakka and Southern Min to Taiwan. Southern Min became the dominant language (Tsao 2008) till Taiwan was taken over by Japan in 1895. The Japanese colonization left a lasting mark of language planning in Taiwan. Aimed to assimilate and identify with Japanese language and culture, Japanese became the dominant language in Taiwan while mother tongues were restricted to affective domains (Simpson 2007). Though the assimilation made Japanese prevalent, it however did not lead to monolingualism. After Taiwan was returned to the Chinese government in 1945 and, KMT relocated to Taiwan in 1945, the government initiated re-Sinicizing Taiwan. The Chinese nationalist control was construed through banning Japanese and promoting Mandarin Chinese, which was ―foreign‖ to most Taiwanese at that time. The banning was then extended to Southern Min, accompanied by campaigns which attempted to denigrate local languages (Wachman 1994). Hsiau (2000), P. Chen (2001), and Simpson (2007) suggest that the Chinese national control by KMT exerted pressure for language assimilation and oppression as Japanese did. The National Language Policy, or ‗Mandarin-only policy‘ as some studies may term (Sandel et al. 2006; Scott & Tiun 2007) imposed Mandarin Chinese as the national language and prohibited other languages being used in public domains (S.-C. Chen 2006). To this day, Mandarin Chinese is pervasive across domains, followed by Taiwanese, Hakka and aboriginal languages (S.-C. Chen 2010). Despite a hegemonic background, Mandarin Chinese is currently accepted as ―a default 9.

(21) national language‖ of Taiwan (Tsao 2008: 297). The phenomenon proves how successful the language planning is. Tsai (2010) and Dupré (2013) also suggest that Mandarin is the lingua franca in Taiwan. Younger generations are less likely to relate the use of Mandarin to earlier political oppression or to an alignment with Mainland China (Scott & Tiun 2007). The Mandarin Chinese variety spoken in Taiwan is gradually indigenized. The phenomenon turns this variety to be termed and gradually recognized as Taiwan Mandarin (Cheng 1985; Tsao 1999; Her 2009; Tan 2012; Su 2018). As the lingua franca of Taiwan (S.-C. Chen 2010; Dupré 2013), Taiwan Mandarin is also commonly referred to as 國語 Guoyu ‗national language‘ and 中文 Zhongwen ‗Mandarin Chinese.‘ The label Guoyu speaks volume for its role in Taiwan. It has also to be noted that to some, the label carries the ideological implication of downgrading other local languages. Equally ideological of the label Guoyu to refer to Mandarin Chinese, the term 台語 Taiyu, literally Taiwan‘s/Taiwanese‘ language, to refer to Southern Min spoken in Taiwan is ideology-laden. The relation between Mandarin and Taiwanese (referred to as Southern Min in Chen‘s study) is found diaglossic (S.-C. Chen 2010), with the former being the High language and the latter the Low language. Sandel (2003) discusses that the diglossia between Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese (termed ‗Tai-gi‘ in his paper) is a legacy of Mandarin-only policy. Taiwanese started to gain more recognition after the lifting of Martial law in 1987. The prohibition of speaking languages other than Mandarin Chinese was abolished. The 10.

(22) appeal to promote major local languages mark a contesting political ideology of de-Sinicizing Taiwan (S.-C. Chen in press 2021), particularly evident in the increased awareness of speaking Taiwanese. According to Thompson (2007), Taiwanese was used ―in a defiant way as a new weapon‖ (248) to confront the Chinese hegemony. In fact, both Mandarin and Taiwanese are taken as markers of solidarity (S.-C. Chen 2010). Dupré (2013) also states that no individual language alone is considered essential and representative enough to act as the national identity marker of Taiwan. A more recent survey by Liu, Gijsen and Tsai (2016) find that the common language in lower, private domain, such as the language used at home, has shifted from Taiwanese to Mandarin. The labeling is not always embraced, especially by speakers from the other two major ethnic groups, namely, Hakka and aborigines (Thompson 2007). Under the influence of the Mandarin-only National Language Policy, the local languages were severely marginalized until 1987, when Martial Law was lifted. The subsequent democratization also led to indigenization, where people recognizes local language rights. A series of language planning aimed to revitalize local languages emerged. The term Taiwanese, compared to Southern Min, is believed to be more neutral politically. Due to the complex historical and ideological implications behind these terms, all the terms to refer to languages in the data will retain in the discussion.. 11.

(23) 1.2.2 English in Taiwan The situation with English is no less complicated than those with local languages. Just as seen in the advertisement, speakers are exposed to information-packed advertisements about English. Though speakers are entitled to evaluate the advertisement as either appealing or unconvincing, the existence of the advertisement speaks volume for the ideological process of English in Taiwan. The language has been generally treated as fundamentally ‗foreign‘ but important. Chen (2010) notes that as a foreign language English is still used by a comparatively small number of speakers and in restricted domains. The perceived instrumental value which English is thought to possess surpasses its actual use (S.-C. Chen 2010). Its perceived importance is probably best evidenced in parents‘ eagerness for their children to master English. Parents expect their children to start learning the language at a young age (Y.F. Chang 2008). Moreover, undergraduates in Taiwan who are preparing themselves to enter labor market believe English to be the ticket to move up the social ladder and to enter the global community as intellectuals (S.-y. Huang 2006). Exposure to English at the receiving end and for instrumental purposes probably best describes how English is seen in Taiwan. As far as language production is concerned, English lexical insertion in Taiwanese- or Chinese- dominated discourse is frequent. On the study of conventionalized codeswitching in Taiwan, Wasserfall (in press 2021) finds that the common English borrowings in the Chinese contexts have been conventionalized. For example, the word ‗fu‘ 12.

(24) (pronounced as [fju:]) to refer to ‗feeling‘ undergoes tonal change. The verb ‗po‘ for ‗post‘ is adjusted (Wasserfall in press 2021). Nonetheless, codeswitching at daily sectors can potentially invite negative evaluations. A trendy expression, 撂英文 lao yingwen, labels the perceivably insincere, pretentious and inauthentic use of English (Su in press 2021). English learning has come a long way to establish the social recognition it enjoys nowadays. According to S.-C. Chen (in press 2021), English was taught as a required subject since 1968, but English-in-education could date back as early as the Japanese colonization period. Before people could realize, the use of English had already connected to internalization and globalization (S.-C. Chen 2010). Although other foreign languages started to thrive, English still occupies an eminent position for foreign language learning, as S.-C. Chen (in press 2021) states and as my earlier study on interview data (Lee 2012) shows. Tsao (2008) reasons that the government‘s attempt to brand Taiwan as the center of Asian-Pacific business was practiced via building Taiwan as an English-friendly environment for international trade. The yearning to gain global visibility, according to Tsao (2008), is a consequence of Taiwan‘s obscure political state with China. English was originally incorporated only in middle school curriculum until 2001. In 2001, English education started in the fifth year in elementary school. This policy celebrated an earlier-than-ever exposure to English in school education. The belief that early exposure to English is beneficial furthered English-in-education when English education started in the third grade in elementary school 13.

(25) in 2003 (Tsao 2008). The government has kept telling its citizens, through language management, the increasing importance of English by lengthening the class hours of English in school curriculum. English gradually plays a more critical role in the selection and elimination in education and labor market in Taiwan, just as discussed by Song (2011) in the South Korean context. A capitalist view of language and its influence on price-tagging see prevalence of a language as a corollary of competition under free trade. In neoliberal view, languages are openly available for all language consumers to choose from. Nonetheless, Price (2014) states that acquiring English is more of a necessity than a choice in Taiwan and that the presumed choice is never equally available to all. When English is implemented in education, as Price explains, English language education manifests two contesting ideologies. First, when it is taught as a required subject, acquiring English becomes mandatory for all students, an ideology that Price (2014) terms ‗English for all.‘ Second, as English language education in Taiwan has been severely influenced by resources provided by the government and by students‘ own familial background, Price finds that English learning is also socially stratified. ‗English for all,‘ according to Price‘s discussion (2014), is ‗English for a few‘ in essence. The similar situation is also observed in higher education, where the approach of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) is treated as a measure to promote English, to boost international competitiveness and ranking, and to recruit more international students. 14.

(26) Professors could have higher hourly pay and universities could apply for extra funding if EMI is practiced. However, only universities that are competitive enough to have received sufficient funding previously could afford to conduct EMI (S.-C. Chen in press 2021). The view corresponds largely to Park and Wee‘s (2012) claim that English learning reflects and reproduces social inequality. These findings reveal that academic attention to English in the Taiwanese context should critically reflect on what has been taken as ‗nothing wrong,‘ so as to capture the meaning-making as dynamic and ideological and to make social contributions with the findings. English tends to be separated from the discussion on local languages or national language planning as a ‗foreign‘ language, just as this study does in reviewing the sociolinguistic background of Taiwan. However, the study will present that from lay perspectives, the then implementation of Japanese and Chinese and the current implementation of English could show perceived similarities in their ideologizing process.. 1.3 Outline of the Dissertation The dissertation is outlined as followed. Chapter 2 reviews theoretical frameworks and relevant known studies. Theoretical frameworks that the study adopts include language ideology, indexicality, and the sociolinguistics of globalization. Discussion on conversational joking, and language planning is also reviewed. Chapter 3 describes the methodology concerning how data will be collected and analyzed in three discourses. The analysis of 15.

(27) crosslinguistic conversational joking is presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 discusses the currently ongoing implementation of English. A language policy proposal to change the phonetic system of Taiwan Mandarin unexpectedly stirred a debate around English. The debate is presented in Chapter 6. This dissertation ends with summaries and implications in Chapter 7.. 16.

(28) CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS & LITERATURE. The study attempts to address the dynamic ideologizing process of English in the Taiwanese context by drawing from everyday discourse concerning English. Though the three discourses individually invite a large body of literature, together they share the theoretical frameworks of language ideology, indexicality, and the globalization-oriented perspective of sociolinguistics. Past studies on linguistic humor, discursive approaches to language planning and intertextuality will also be reviewed.. 2.1 Language Ideology and Language Evaluation Language ideology is predominantly understood as the bridge between linguistic forms and their meanings in macro social contexts. Language ideology as theoretical frameworks diverse in researchers‘ distinct remarks of what language ideology is, how it can be approached as an inquiry and at what levels of discursive explicitness it is manifested. The variations contribute to an abundance of discussion on its definitions, its relation to power and dominance, and its ‗siting‘ in language use (Woolard 1998). Language ideology does not have a unified definition. Even terminologies vary, depending on dimensions that different academic strands choose to attend to. One of the most frequently-cited definitions by Silverstein (1979) describes language ideology as ―sets of. 17.

(29) beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use‖ (193). Silverstein does not distinguish between ‗ideology about language‘ and ‗linguistic ideologies.‘ He further states that the moment speakers put their social experiences in real world in language, they also ―presuppose (or reflect) and create (or fashion) a good deal of social reality by the very activity of using language‖ (Silverstein 1979: 194). That is, putting social experiences into words both reflects and further accentuates social experiences. The similar concept is termed ‗linguistic ideology‘ by Irvine (1989), who defines linguistic ideology as ―the cultural (or subcultural) system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests‖ (255). Rather than characterizing language ideologies as ‗beliefs‘ (Silverstein 1979), Irvine refers language ideologies to ‗ideas‘ and rejects a causal and predictable relation between linguistic phenomena and social differentiation. Linguistic ideology is taken as the mediating factor between linguistic phenomena and social differentiation (Irvine 1989). Woolard explains that language ideologies are ―[r]epresentations, whether explicit or implicit, that construe the intersection of language and human beings in the social world‖ (1998: 3), and states that ‗linguistic ideology,‘ ‗language ideology,‘ and ‗ideologies of language‘ are used interchangeably by her regardless of differences these terms may denote in their own separate fields. Woolard‘s definition (1998) addresses agentivity. Cameron (2003), who aligns with Irvine (1989) and Woolard (1998), summarizes definitions 18.

(30) in the past literature and defines language ideologies as ―sets of representations through which language is imbued with cultural meaning for a certain community‖ (447). Similarly, Eagleton (2007) states that ideology defines uniqueness but manifests itself as what ―[e]verybody knows that, a kind of anonymous universal truth‖ (20). The definition also suggests that language ideologies reside in social actors of shared cultural practices. Ideologies, in other words, ―are social constructs‖ (Cameron 2003: 448) which reveal ―what people think, or take for granted about, language and communication‖ (Woolard & Schieffelin 1994: 56). These definition all point to a regulating, evaluative function which (language) ideologies serve. Despite the use of different terminologies and the lack of a unified definition, according to Woolard (1998), the majority of scholarly attention of language ideology addresses 4 salient themes. First, with the use of ‗beliefs‘ and ‗ideas‘ to describe language ideology, ideologies are ideational and therefore ―internally contradictory‖ (Woolard 1998: 6). The second strand addresses that ideologies are ―derived from, rooted in, reflective of, or responsive to the experience or interests of a particular social position‖ (Woolard 1998: 6). The third property, which is also the most recognized one, notes the role of language ideology as a medium between linguistic practice and social distinction. Ideologies are power-laden and can be exercised for power sustaining or contestation. Last, ideology is considered to be deviant from objective truth. It portrays our rationalizations of language. According to 19.

(31) Woolard (1998), the third strand that language ideology could be deployed for power sustention is commonly seen as an extension from the second strand but diverges from it. The second property about reflexivity of language ideologies addresses a neutral view on language ideology while the third property about power contestation and social distinction emphasizes a critical view of it (Woolard & Schieffelin 1994). The neutral view sees language ideology as constituted by and constitutive of social experiences (Woolard 1998) while the critical view is ―reserved for only aspects of representation and social cognition, with particular social origins or functional or formal characteristics‖ (Woolard & Schieffelin 1994: 57). John B. Thompson (1990), who defines ideology as ―meaning in the service of power‖ (7), also emphasizes this third property. The study will examine the data with the four properties to pinpoint the ideologizing process. Though ‗language ideology,‘ ‗linguistic ideology,‘ ‗ideologies of language,‘ or simply ‗ideology,‘ are considered interchangeable in works such as Woolard‘s (1998) and Silverstein‘s (1979), the adaptation of definitions themselves are open to further debate. Following Silverstein‘s definition of treating language ideology as sets of ‗beliefs,‘ the noun ‗belief‘ has used as an alternative in defining language ideologies (see the discussion in Cameron (2003)). Cameron (2003) states that some academic commentators are reluctant to view ‗language ideologies‘ as synonymous to ‗beliefs.‘ Verschueren (2012) states that ‗beliefs,‘ ‗ideas‘ and ‗opinions‘ ―are merely ‗contents of thinking,‘ whereas ideology is 20.

(32) associated with underlying patterns of meaning, frames of interpretation, world views, or forms of everyday thinking and explanation‖ (2012: 7). Whereas a belief connotes falsified, individual, mental construct, ideology places greater emphasis on shared, socially-fostered constructs (Cameron 2003). On the other hand, the word ‗representation‘ adopted by Woolard (1998) and later by Cameron (2003) brings forth the property of language ideology being both a product and a process of reshaping linguistic perceptions. Having said so, the use of ‗belief‘ as an explanatory term for ideology still prevails. This study uses the term ‗lay beliefs‘ interchangeably to mean a cluster of language ideologies. It must be noted that the study does not see representations and beliefs as theoretically contradictory. The study adopts a broad definition of language ideology and locks the discussion on ideologization with metalinguistic evaluation. Instead of anchoring the study with a definition whether language ideologies are beliefs, representations, or others to begin with, the study is more eager to start with evaluation and appraisal to see how the act reflects the social knowledge of English in the Taiwanese context. Theoretical orientations to language ideologies also concern the sites where language ideologies are at work and thus observable. The ‗siting‘ (Woolard 1998) of language ideologies is discussion-worthy because language ideologies get by unnoticed most of the time. Eagleton (2007) states that normalcy empowers language ideologies. According to Eagleton, ideology ―is always most effective when invisible‖ (2007: xvii). Woolard (1998) 21.

(33) summarizes in the introductory chapter of Language Ideology: Practice and Theory that three major focal areas are of importance for investigation on language ideology. Two of the three focal areas directly pertain to everyday communicative practice and therefore they are in direct reference to the present study. One focal area to look into language ideologies is metapragmatics, which refers to either explicit or implicit evaluation-laden discourse of language use (Silverstein 1979; 1985; 1993). The second focal area lies in the perceived contrasts among language varieties. Take Coupland and Bishop‘s (2007) study on British accent as an example. Language ideologies help build up a speaker‘s understanding of language practice in specific socio-cultural contexts. As such, speakers of a standardized language acquire and structure their social experience in a culture where the existence of a standard language and using the standardized language are collectively perceived to be normal and normative (Coupland and Bishop 2007). Milroy (2001) also offers a similar account that language ideologies impact on our perception of what is defined as language and in what way it is considered the standard. The study draws from everyday (meta)discourse of English to investigate how discourse and the ideologizing process of English interacts. Ideology is understood not as truth but as rationalizations manifested in discursive practice (Silverstein 1979; Woolard 1998; Irvine & Gal 2000; Verschueren 2012). Representations of linguistic differences are suggested to involve three semiotic processes (Irvine & Gal 2000). ‗Iconization,‘ which is later termed ‗rhemetization‘ by Gal and Irvine 22.

(34) (2019), describes the conventional and inherent relations between linguistic features and social images. According Gal and Irvine (2019), rhemetization relies on essentialized links between a linguistic feature and an identity for its manifestation. ‗Fractal recursivity‘ addresses linguistic differences which language users detect, pick up and further reproduce for socially emblematic opposition against outgroups. ‗Erasure‘ refers to simplification of recognizing only socially meaningful linguistic distinctions and overlooking those conflicting with ideological norms. Intragroup heterogeneity, and intergroup homogeneity, for example, are not addressed in the process of othering. The three semiotic processes explicate that language ideologies contribute to speakers‘ understanding of objective linguistic facts in a non-objective, socioculturally specific way. A main focus of this study addresses the ideologizing process of English by analyzing how English as a language and English use in localized Taiwanese contexts are talked about, namely, speakers‘ out-performed attitudes and evaluations of English. The study therefore draws upon research on language evaluation. As will be argued throughout, the present study attends to discursive levels of language ideologization. Some rationalizations are treated as simply out there and some take on a more critical view to evaluate rationalizations that are taken for granted. The dimension the present study approaches builds on stance, but develops it further to ideological stance. Theoretical frameworks of stance orient to multi-facet nature of speakers‘ reflexivity on language. Stance, according to Berman (2005), ―reflects a key 23.

(35) facet of human discourse in general: the fact that any state of affairs in the worlds of fact or fantasy can be described in multiple ways‖ (2005: 109). Berman‘s definition of stance identifies the ‗discursive‘ aspect of evaluation. Biber and Finegan (1989) perceive stance to be ―the lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the propositional content of a message‖ (1989: 92). The definition notes the evaluative nature of stance (Englebretson 2007). A well-cited definition by Du Bois (2007) regards stance as ―a public act by a social actor, achieved dialogically through overt communicative means, of simultaneously evaluating objects, positioning subjects, and aligning with other subjects, with respect to any salient dimension of the sociocultural field‖ (Du Bois 2007: 163). In addition to the evaluative nature, the definition by Du Bois (2007) also explicates the public, accessible aspect of stance. The evaluation nature of stance is attended to by Englebretson (2007), who states that the term ‗stance‘ has been defined differently or referred to as other labels such as ‗evaluation‘ (Hunston & Thompson 2000) and ‗subjectivity‘ (Lyons 1981; Athanasiadou, Canakis & Cornillie 2006). These known studies suggest that stance, evaluation, metapragmatics and language ideologies are close-knit. This study investigates the layered ideologizing process of English through analyzing evaluative metapragmatic discourse surrounding linguistic practice of English. When similar evaluations are performed repetitively, the occurrences entrench the relation between certain linguistic practice and evaluative terms. These evaluations can be further evaluated (Du Bois 24.

(36) 2007; Davies 2018), leading to inconsistency and contestation in discourse. Put differently, discourse resides existing, established indexes, which point to both speakers‘ identities and the historical development of a linguistic form, and new newly emergent indexes. Social meanings of linguistic practice tolerate indeterminacy which relies on contextual information for meaning invocation (Ochs 1996). Consequently, indeterminacy, as well as individual interpretations, foster new meanings and gives rise to contesting linguistic indexicalities (Jaffe 2016).. 2.2 Indexicality Speakers make numerous choices in terms of ways of speaking. These choices are never neutral. The situational adjustment of speech, or style differences (Coupland 2007), carry information including speakers‘ backgrounds and evaluations. By the same token, a hearer evaluates a speaker by relating his/her style to known categories based on his/her social experiences. Therefore, stylistic differences indirectly point to differences in social sense. As Eckert (2008) states, ―Every stylistic move is the result of an interpretation of the social world and of the meanings of elements within it, as well as a positioning of the stylizer with respect to that world‖ (456). John Gumperz (1968) categorizes variations into dialectal and superposed. Labov (1971) proposes a trichotomy among markers, indicators and stereotypes. The two frameworks explicate that stylistic differences can go from carrying 25.

(37) information about group identification to indexing social differentiation. They also reveal how discourse simultaneously uncovers and reinforces the link between variables and their social meanings. Nonetheless, stylistic differences can indirectly point to a pool of potential social meanings (Silverstein 1985). Besides, these social meanings which linguistic practice indexes are not static. They shift over time (Eckert 2008). Silverstein (2003) proposes N+1st order of indexicality to account for the dynamics of sense-making in linguistic variations. Silverstein states,. for any indexical phenomenon at order n, an indexical phenomenon at order n+1 is always immanent, lurking in the potential of an ethno-metapragmatically driven native interpretation of the n-th-order paradigmatic contextual variation that it creates or constitutes as a register phenomenon (2003: 212).. Silverstein‘s model emphasizes the function of metapragmatic indexicalization. A first-order index, similar to an ‗indicator‘ (Labov 1971), connects a variant to group identification and involves nearly no metapragmatic judgments. A second-order index, similar to Gumperz‘s ‗superposed variability‘ (1968), involves speakers‘ selection of available variations and relates these linguistic variations to social evaluations, the relations between the two are reinforced through metapragmatic discourse. Different levels of indexicalities are immanent (Silverstein 2003). Different levels of indexicals are ideologically associated with one another (Eckert 2008), as Eckert (2008) points out, ―Ideology is at the center of stylistic practice‖ (456). 26.

(38) Indexical values are not in a linear sequence as the framework N+1st order indexicality might lead people to bear the assumption of linearity. Eckert (2008) clarifies that linearity is never intended in Silverstein‘s model. Rather, these meanings are immanent and ideologically interconnected (Eckert 2008). An indexical field, ―constellation of meanings that are ideologically related meanings, any one of which can be activated in the situated use of the variable‖ (Eckert 2008, 454), graphically presents that meanings are on the one hand immanent and on the other available for reinterpretation. Campbell-Kibler (2007) states that the connection between a variation to meanings in an indexical field relies on a hearer‘s own perception and on both sociocultural and linguistic contents in which the variation occurs. With shared social experiences, stylistic differences are perceived, evaluated, and interpreted differently across social groups. Significantly, Campbell-Kibler (2007) also remarks that the indexing of a variation to its interpreted meanings can go in a reverse direction. A hearer‘s previously obtained information about a speaker acts as a model in helping them decide which variation, among all available variations, they believe to hear. That indexicality works in either direction implicates how essential indexicality is in communication. This study draws from the theoretical framework of indexicalization to account for the observation how language choices and differences in linguistic practice rely heavily on established indexical links and are further interpreted to carry further social meanings. Though indexicality addresses mostly on choices on variables, such as the variation analysis 27.

(39) by Eckert (2000; 2008; 2016) and Q. Zhang (2005), the study adopts the framework to account for language preferences and language choices.. 2.3 Globalist Discourse of Language, English, and Commodification A study on how English is situated in a social context where it is reckoned as foreign draws the attention to interconnection of people from various parts of the world. Mobility is frequently associated to globalization. A ‗global village‘ is a common metaphor for the increasing interconnection among people from different parts of the world thanks to technology advancement. Nonetheless, the enhancing interconnectedness and mobility do not bring forth ‗a village‘ (Blommaert 2010). Rather, they further complicate social practice in nearly every aspect. Globalization also impacts on sociolinguistics as a research inquiry. When speakers move, they bring with them their linguistic repertoire to a different space. Linguistic repertoire is cultivated through, and thus reflexive of, a speaker‘s accumulated social and bodily experiences with other speakers and with the space where these experiences take place (Johnstone 2004). Competence is spatially defined, not objectively measured and mobility can mute speakers. Blommaert, Collins and Slembrouck (2005) use ‗regime‘ to refer to agentivity of space in both situating different language resources and ordering them. Mobility urges the need for a new definition of competence, which is no longer viewed as an objective, full-fledged control of a language. Competence, as Blommaert et al. (2005) put it, 28.

(40) ―is about being positioned‖ (211). This way, competence is more similar to linguistic resources which speakers select when they move across different regimes. This points to another key feature of globalization—a shift from talking about languages to discussing linguistic resources (Blommaert 2010). It is linguistic resources, not languages, that are deterritorialized. Blommaert (2010) suggests the need for new vocabulary in accounting for newly emergent phenomena under globalization. Blommaert (2010) proposes a framework in which linguistic resources move vertically at different levels. ‗Scales,‘ (e.g. Uitermark 2002), originally a concept from the inquiry of geography, is adopted to describe how linguistic resources are anchored in TimeSpace and structured in vertical layers. The notion of TimeSpace is coined to treat time and space of a speech event as a ―single dimension,‖ rather than two separate notions (Wallerstein 1998; Fals Borda 2000). The spatiotemporal notion of TimeSpace specifies that by locking a physical object in TimeSpace, the phenomenon is ―made social‖ (Blommaert 2010: 34). Both scales and space are therefore theoretically closely-knit in the discussion regarding sociolinguistic implications of globalization (Vandenbroucke 2015). With scales, semiotic practice is found to adhere to a variety of norms based on when and where practice occurs. Space is seen as stratified and norm-regulating. Scales can be conceptualized as ‗a continuum‘ (Blommaert 2007) where norms can range from transient and local to static and established. These resources are not evenly distributed 29.

(41) among speakers and thus movement across scales, i.e. ‗scale-jumping‘ (Uitermark 2002), is indexical. ‗Order of indexicality,‘ the second new terminology by Blommaert (2010), describes how these linguistic resources can point to power, authority, and struggle in social contexts. When speakers regulate their speech by making reference to norms and conventions at a particular scale, these norms are recognized as a situated center. A center shifts when semiotic practice occurs in a different TimeSpace. Expectedly, interaction under ever-changing mobility never adheres to monocentric norms. The multiplicity of norms at different scales shows the existence of numerous centers, a character of globalization which Blommaert (2010) terms ‗polycentricity.‘ Scales, orders of indexicality and polycentricity are the new vocabulary Blommaert proposes to emphasize both multiplicity and situatedness of communication in globalization. The spread of English and globalization are commonly found to serve as evidence to justify each other, making it nearly implausible to address one of them without mentioning the other. The global dominance of English is taken by many as a current phenomenon. However, in theoretically accounting for the spread of English as a global language, stances differ and voices diverge in how this phenomenon has come to where it is, and how this phenomenon is understood. The first strand of studies connects the global prominence of English to West domination for monopoly (Spolsky 2004). This perspective assimilates the evolution of the spread of English to power-related terms. This strand suggests that English 30.

(42) dominance poses threat to the survival of minority languages, as the term ‗linguicism‘ (Phillipson 1992) describes. Linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992) views the contemporary spread of a dominant language as legacy of its imperial past. Threats to the vitality of less powerful languages or local languages are addressed from the perspective of linguistic human rights (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas 1995), and linguistic ecology (Mühlhäusler 1996). This strand of studies is criticized for an overall military and political account of language vitality and overlooking the interaction between language and other social indexes, such as economy and culture (Spolsky 2004). As Spolsky (2004) cites Bourdieu‘s (1991) discussion on globalization, language is only one manifestation of power, which can be realized in many more different facets. Distinctive from the imperialist view, the second strand of studies attends to the fact that non-native speakers of English have outnumbered native speakers. The growing English-speaking population calls for a reexamination of correlations between the spread of English and British and American colonization (Spolsky 2004). Spolsky claims that the global spread of English in places intact from colonization implicates that communication purposes also devote to the geographical expansion of English. Kachru (1985) categorizes countries in concentric circles based on the distribution of English use. Inner Circle countries refer to the norm-providing Anglophone countries. Outer Circle countries are those with British colonial history and those using English on a daily basis. English in Expanding Circle 31.

(43) countries is acquired as a foreign language and used in restricted domains only. The three-circle framework is influential in providing a panoramic view in the global distribution of English. House (2003) also challenges the imperialism-oriented view that a global language poses threats to other languages. According to House (2003), a lingua franca like English hardly functions as an identification marker, unlike a speaker‘s first language. The allocation of distinctive functions makes doubtful the claim that English jeopardizes the survival of less powerful languages. Rather, the spread of English urges minority groups to preserve their own languages and cultures (House 2003). Smolicz and Secombe (2003) also suggest that speakers‘ awareness of minority languages is highlightened. The increased awareness leads to revitalization of local language as a result of resistance to English. The term ‗World Englishes‘ (e.g. Kachru 1985) addresses the power behind the increasing number of non-native users of English and its impacts on the native norms. The word ‗Englishes‘ describes the existence of more than one standard of English. The acknowledgement of multiple standards is thought to help to diminish the dichotomous discrimination between native and non-native speakers. Blommaert (2010) also reflects that mobility ―does not preclude locality from being a powerful frame for the organization of meanings‖ (22). In sum, the second strand of research challenges the centralized, inner-circle norms and debunks the myth that a powerful global language put powerless, indigenous languages at risk. The second strand of research also leaves several issues unattended to. English as a 32.