北高地區大學生對國語和臺語之語言態度調查

全文

(1)國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩. 士. 論. 文. Master Thesis Department of English National Taiwan Normal University. 北高地區大學生對國語和臺語之語言態度調查. Language Attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese in Taipei and Kaohsiung Metropolitan Areas. 指導教授：蘇席瑤博士 Advisor: Dr. Hsi-Yao Su 研究生：蔡仲茵 Student: Chung-Yin Tsai. 中華民國一O三年二月 February, 2014.

(2) 摘要. 本研究旨在探討台北及高雄都會區的大學生對國語和臺語之語言態度。過去文獻中關於語言態度的研究已有一般性的討論（e.g. Lin 1987；Baran 2004），本文則將過去鮮少探討的區域因素納入分析中，目的在討論北、高兩大都會區如何評價國語及臺語。本研究以施作問卷方式蒐集數據。參與調查者為臺北及高雄都會區的大學生， 155 份有效問卷中，84 份來自臺北、71 份來自高雄。參與本研究的受試者須自評語言能力及臺語使用頻率，回答語言態度相關問題，並表達對國語及臺語的印象。問卷結果發現，高雄受試者的臺語程度明顯優於臺北受試者。在與不同對象、處於不同地點及討論不同話題時的語言使用上，臺北受試者使用臺語的頻率低於高雄受試者。統計數據並指出，臺北受試者使用臺語的原因在於親疏關係，高雄受試者使用臺語的原因則取決於語境。大體而言，全體受試者的臺語使用程度相當低，顯示在生活各方面，國語的使用已逐漸取代臺語。語言態度相關問題主要探討受試者對於臺語的評價。概括而言，全體受試者說臺語之因源自於整合性動機（integrative motivation）及工具性動機（instrumental motivation）。而研究結果發現，受試者在態度或信念的表達上，與實際行為表現有所差距。此現象或可歸因於個人語言使用習慣及對臺語的觀感。在統計結果中，高雄受試者對臺語的評價比臺北受試者持有更多的正面態度。有關對國語及臺語的印象，受試者普遍認為國語比臺語有價值、有活力及較不複雜。其中，高雄受試者對於臺語持有較正面的觀感。統計數據顯現，此現象與北高地區受試者的社會語言背景及文化概念有所關連。本問卷調查結果顯示，語言使用、語言態度及語言觀感三者互有關連。語言使用和語言態度不一定相符，此現象可能跟社會變遷有關。此外，地區因素確實. i.

(3) 造成不同的語言評價。在臺北和高雄受試者對國語和臺語的不同評價中，反映出兩區在歷史發展及社會語言背景的不同。語言的概念深植於社會經驗中，因此刻版印象和語言就產生特定連結。這些現象可在本研究調查中發現。本文將語言使用、語言觀感及區域因素納入國語和臺語的語言態度調查中，期能深入討論並對於語言態度議題有所助益。. 關鍵字：語言態度、語言使用、區域因素、意識形態. ii.

(4) Abstract. This study investigates language attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese in Taipei and Kaohsiung metropolitan areas through questionnaires. Earlier studies have provided general accounts on language attitudes (Lin, 1987, Baran, 2004), but the present study incorporates regional factors—a commonly noted factor that is rarely analyzed systematically—into the analysis. The thesis is aimed at looking into how Mandarin and Taiwanese are evaluated in the two target areas. The study has collected data by means of questionnaires. Subjects participated in the survey were composed of college students from universities of Taipei and Kaohsiung. 155 valid questionnaires were acquired, with 81 Taipei subjects and 74 Kaohsiung respondents. The participants were asked to provide self-reported answers on language use, judge language attitude-related statements, and express their impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese on bipolar attributes. The subjects’ reported language use show that Kaohsiung respondents’ Taiwanese proficiency is significantly higher than their northern counter parts. With regard to the frequency of speaking Taiwanese with different interlocutors, in different locations and about different topics, Taipei subjects’ use of Taiwanese is lower than that of their peers. Besides, it is found that Taipei students’ use of Taiwanese varies in the dimension of intimacy, while Kaohsiung students speak Taiwanese based on contexts. On the whole, all the subjects showed quite a low use of Taiwanese, which suggests that it is being replaced by Mandarin in all aspects of people’s life. The language attitude-related statements were mainly designed to explore subjects’ evaluation of Taiwanese. Generally speaking, the sample population was integratively and instrumentally motived to speak Taiwanese. However, there is a iii.

(5) contrast between their attitudes/beliefs and reported behaviors. Possible reasons may be due to people’s language use and social images of Taiwanese. When regional differences are taken into consideration, it is observed that Kaohsiung subjects held more positive attitudes toward Taiwanese. As for the stereotypical impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese, Mandarin was evaluated to be more valuable, more potent, and less complex than Taiwanese. The comparison of the ratings derived from the two target areas suggests that Kaohsiung respondents expressed more positive images of Taiwanese. This may be associated with the sociolinguistic background and cultural concepts of the North and the South. The questionnaire reveals that language use, language attitudes, and social images of the two languages interact with each other. It is found that language use does not coincide with language attitudes, and this may be linked with social change. Besides, regional differences do have an impact on people’s evaluations. Taipei and Kaohsiung are distinct in their historical development and sociolinguistic background, and the contrast seems to be parallel with the social images of Mandarin and Taiwanese. People’s conceptualization of language is rooted in social experience, with stereotypical linkage with certain features and a linguistic variety. This is observed in how they evaluated Mandarin and Taiwanese in the survey. The study has attempted to investigate language attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese by incorporating language use, social images of languages, as well as regional factors. It is hoped that this thesis could provide an in-depth discussion and shed some lights on the issues of language attitudes.. Key words: language attitudes, language use, regional factor, language ideology. iv.

(6) Acknowledgements. I cannot believe that I have reached the stage to write the passage of acknowledgements where I can express my gratitude to numerous people who have offered their kind help, encouragement and support to this study. First, I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my supervisor, Prof. Hsi-Yao Su. It is my pleasure to have her as my advisor of the thesis. Whenever we meet, she always provided me with insightful comments to my study. I am not a smart student, but she always showed her faith in me. Her sincere encouragements and the faith in me have helped me to overcome the difficulties I was confronted with during the production of this thesis. On the next day after my oral defense, she told me: “be proud of yourself.” I realized that yes, I have made it and I should be proud of myself. Without her guidance and dedication, I could have never finished the thesis. A passage is not enough to express how grateful I am to Prof. Su. I am deeply obliged to the other two members of my thesis committee, Prof. Miao-Hsia Chang and Hui-Chen Chan. Prof. Chang was my class supervisor for two years at graduate program and she always treated us as her children. It is my pleasure to work as an assistant for her NSC project. Because of her, I had the chance to know how to do transcription in Taiwanese. Besides, I realized that it requires a numerous of time and efforts to establish a database and I cherish the moments of being involved in academic research in Taiwanese. I would also like to express my heartfelt thanks to her insightful and constructive comments on my thesis. I am appreciative to Prof. Hui-Chen Chan for her great inspiration and encouragement. The design of the survey was based on Prof. Chan’s dissertation, and she has provided me with lots of constructive suggestions and positive feedbacks when I was doing the modification of. v.

(7) the questionnaire. It is my honor to have Prof. Chan as one of my committee members. Her encouraging and warm comments have made me being confident on my thesis. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to many teachers who allowed me to conduct my survey in their classes. Thanks to Prof. Chun-Yin Chen, Prof. Hui-Shan Lin, Prof. Jen-I Li, and Ting-Hui Lu, without their kind help, the collection of my data would not have been possible. I am grateful to graduate program classmates during my years at NTNU. Special thanks go to Matt Ku, who I consider him as the angel of my thesis. Whenever I have questions in statistics, Matt Ku always offered his prompt help to solve my problems. I am also deeply indebted to Debbie Hsu, Julia Wu, and Irene Liao. It is my pleasure to have them as my roommates. We cooked together, we whined together, and we faced frustration together. I am glad to know Becky Hsieh, Jeccie Tang, Joy Hsieh, Carol Liao, Alison Chan, Felix Tu and to name but a few. Without their mental support, my life at NTNU could have never been so joyful and colorful. My deepest appreciation belongs to Prof. Yu-Chang Liu, Prof. Johan Gijsen and Caroline Hu. I have known them for more than ten years, and we have continuously kept in touch with each other without being interrupted by the distance. They always offered their unconditional help and inspiring words whenever I have doubt on myself and my life. I am grateful to Caroline Hu for her moral support when I decided to pursue my master degree after having worked for five years. Prof. Yu-Chang Liu and Prof. Johan Gijsen are my mentors in linguistics during my years in college, and they have constantly inspired me spiritually. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Prof. Yu-Chang Liu, who has accompanied me when I felt lonely in an unfamiliar environment. Very special thanks are extended to Prof. Johan Gijsen, who kindly offered his help to proofread my thesis.. vi.

(8) Last but not least, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family. I would like to thank Ching-Chen Wu for supporting me in every decision I made, for accompanying me through the difficulties and frustration I have met, and for loving me without any hesitation. Many thanks go to my two brothers and my sister in law for taking care of my parents and offering me suggestions whenever I have problems in my life. The thesis is dedicated to my parents who have unconditionally supported me in my life. I could have never made this thesis possible without their encouragement and I find no words to appropriately express my deepest gratitude to them.. vii.

(9) Table of Contents 摘要................................................................................................................................. i Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... viii List of Tables ................................................................................................................xii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xiv Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Motivation ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Research Questions .......................................................................................... 4 1.4 Significance of the Thesis ................................................................................ 5 1.5 Organization of the Thesis ............................................................................... 6 Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................ 8 Literature Review........................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Overview of Attitudes ...................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 Definition of Attitudes .......................................................................... 8 2.1.2 Language Attitudes ............................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Dimensions for Assessing Language Attitudes and Language Preference Patterns....................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Approaches of Language Attitudes ..................................................... 17 2.1.5 Language Attitudes in Taiwan ............................................................ 20 2.1.6 Stereotyped Attitudes: A Case Study of English Dialects ................... 22 2.2 Language Use, Identity, and Symbolic Power ............................................... 24 2.2.1 Symbolic Power .................................................................................. 24 2.2.2 Language Use and Identity ................................................................. 28 2.2.3 Taiwanese Identity .............................................................................. 31 2.2.4 Attitudes and Perceptions of Identity: A Study in Brittany ................. 33 2.3 Language in Taiwan ....................................................................................... 36 2.3.1 The National Language Policy and Language Ideology ..................... 36 2.3.2 Mother Tongue Language Policy ........................................................ 38 2.3.3 Language Practice and Language Ideologies in Taiwan ..................... 40 Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................................... 43 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 43 3.1 Sociolinguistic Background of Taipei and Kaohsiung ................................... 43 3.2 Data Collection: Participants ......................................................................... 44 3.3 Questionnaire Design ..................................................................................... 46 viii.

(10) 3.3.1 Personal Background .......................................................................... 47 3.3.2 Language Use...................................................................................... 47 3.3.3 Language Attitude-Related Statements ............................................... 48 3.3.3.1 Motivations of Speaking Mandarin and Taiwanese ................. 48 3.3.3.2 Opinions about Taiwanese ....................................................... 49 3.3.3.3 Attitudes toward Language Education and Policy ................... 52 3.3.4 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese ...................... 54 3.4 Methods of Data Analysis .............................................................................. 55 3.4.1 Language Use: Language Proficiency and Use of Taiwanese ............ 55 3.4.2 Language Motivations of Speaking Mandarin and Taiwanese ........... 55 3.4.3 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Opinions about Taiwanese ........ 57 3.4.4 Regional Differences Regarding Attitudes toward Taiwanese............ 63 3.4.5 Attitudes toward Language Education and Policy .............................. 63 3.4.6 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese ...................... 64 Chapter 4 ...................................................................................................................... 66 Results and Analyses I: Language Use ........................................................................ 66 4.1 Language Proficiency in Mandarin and Taiwanese ....................................... 66 4.2 Taiwanese-Frequency: Interlocutors .............................................................. 67 4.3 Taiwanese-Frequency: Locations ................................................................... 69 4.4 Taiwanese-Frequency: Topics ........................................................................ 72 Chapter 5 ...................................................................................................................... 75 Results and Analyses II: Language Attitudes and Stereotypical Impressions ............. 75 5.1 Motivations of Using Mandarin and Taiwanese ............................................ 75 5.1.1 Overall Observation ............................................................................ 77 5.1.2 Comparison of Motivations ................................................................ 78 5.1.3 Comparison of Languages .................................................................. 79 5.1.4 Comparison between the Current Study and Chan’s (1994) Study .... 80 5.2 Overall Performance ...................................................................................... 82 5.2.1 Integrative ........................................................................................... 82 5.2.1.1 Transmission ............................................................................ 82 5.2.1.2 Symbol of Identity ................................................................... 84 5.2.1.3 Self-Expressiveness ................................................................. 86 5.2.1.4 Marker of Solidarity................................................................. 87 5.2.1.5 Summary .................................................................................. 89 5.2.2 Instrumental ........................................................................................ 89 5.2.2.1 Marker of Social Status............................................................ 90 5.2.2.2 Tool of Communication ........................................................... 90 5.2.2.3 Tool of Upward Mobility ......................................................... 92 ix.

(11) 5.2.2.4 Summary .................................................................................. 93 5.2.3 Language Functions on a Integrative-Instrumental Continuum ......... 93 5.3 Regional Differences Regarding Attitudes toward Taiwanese....................... 95 5.3.1 Transmission ....................................................................................... 96 5.3.2 Symbol of Identity .............................................................................. 97 5.3.3 Self-Expressiveness ............................................................................ 98 5.3.4 Marker of Solidarity ............................................................................ 98 5.3.5 Tool of Communication ...................................................................... 99 5.3.6 Tool of Upward Mobility .................................................................... 99 5.3.7 Standard Language Ideology ............................................................ 100 5.3.8 Summary ........................................................................................... 101 5.4 Issues about Language Education ................................................................ 101 5.4.1 Language Comparison: Taiwanese and Mandarin ............................ 101 5.4.2 Issues Related to Taiwanese Education: the North vs. the South ..... 104 5.4.3 Comparison in Regions: Chi-square Test.......................................... 105 5.5 Correlation of Language Use and language Attitudes ................................. 107 5.6 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese ............................... 109 5.6.1 Dimension of “Value” ....................................................................... 112 5.6.2 Dimension of “Potency” ................................................................... 115 5.6.3 Dimension of “Activity” ................................................................... 116 5.6.4 Dimension of “Complexity” ............................................................. 118 5.6.5 Summary ........................................................................................... 120 Chapter 6 .................................................................................................................... 123 General Discussion .................................................................................................... 123 6.1 Language Use............................................................................................... 123 6.2 Language Attitudes ...................................................................................... 125 6.3 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese ............................... 128 6.3.1 Dimension of “Value” ....................................................................... 128 6.3.2 Dimension of “Potency” ................................................................... 130 6.3.3 Dimension of “Activity” ................................................................... 131 6.3.4 Dimension of “Complexity” ............................................................. 132 6.3.5 Implications of the Findings ............................................................. 133 Chapter 7 .................................................................................................................... 134 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 134 7.1 Summary of the Major Findings .................................................................. 134 7.2 Summarized Answers to Research Questions .............................................. 139 7.3 Directions for Future Research .................................................................... 140 References .................................................................................................................. 142 x.

(12) Appendix 1. Questionnaire ........................................................................................ 147 Appendix 2. Subjects’ Responses in Three Types of Comments ............................... 152. xi.

(13) List of Tables Table 3.1. Categorization of Opinions about Taiwanese.............................................. 52 Table 3.2. Classification of Language Attitude-Related Statements along the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Orientation ..................................................................................... 60 Table 3.3. Scoring Mapping of the 12 Attributes ......................................................... 65 Table 4.1. Self-Reported Language Proficiency in Mandarin and Taiwanese ............. 66 Table 4.2. Subjects’ Ratings of Use of Taiwanese with Fourteen Subcategories of Interlocutors ................................................................................................................. 68 Table 4.3. Subjects’ Ratings of Use of Taiwanese with Six Categories of Interlocutors ...................................................................................................................................... 68 Table 4.4. Subjects’ Ratings of Their Use of Taiwanese in 7 Different Locations ...... 70 Table 4.5. Subjects’ Ratings of Their Taiwanese-Frequency on Different Topics ....... 73 Table 5.1. Item-to-Item Ratings in Two Types of Motivations .................................... 78 Table 5.2. Average Scores in Taipei Metropolitan Areas ............................................. 79 Table 5.3. Average Scores in Kaohsiung Metropolitan Areas...................................... 79 Table 5.4. Subjects’ Ratings of the Two Motivations for Speaking Mandarin ............ 79 Table 5.5. Subjects’ Ratings of the Two Motivations for Speaking Taiwanese ........... 79 Table 5.6. Results of Statements Related to Transmission .......................................... 82 Table 5.7. Results of Statements Related to Identity ................................................... 84 Table 5.8. Results of Statements Related to Self-Expressiveness ............................... 86 Table 5.9. Results of Statements Related to Solidarity ................................................ 87 Table 5.10. Subjects’ Responses to Statements of “Solidarity” Set ............................. 88 Table 5.11. Results of Statements Related to Social Status ......................................... 90 Table 5.12. Results of Statements Related to Communication .................................... 90 Table 5.13 Subjects’ Responses to Statements of “Communication” Set .................... 91 Table 5.14. Results of Statements Related to Upward Mobility .................................. 92 Table 5.15. Seven Sets of Statements on the Integrative-Instrumental Continuum..... 94 Table 5.16. Average Ratings of Each Statement .......................................................... 96 Table 5.17. Responses to Taiwanese, Mandarin, and English in Three Types of Comments .................................................................................................................. 102 Table 5.18. Responses to Region-Related Statements in Three Types of Comments 104 Table 5.19. Subjects’ Responses to Issues Related to Language Education and Politics .................................................................................................................................... 106 Table 5.20. Correlation of Taiwanese proficiency and Taiwanese Attitudes ............. 108 Table 5.21. Correlation of Taiwanese proficiency and Taiwanese Attitudes in Taipei Metropolitan Areas..................................................................................................... 109 Table 5.22. Correlation of Taiwanese proficiency and Taiwanese Attitudes in Kaohsiung Metropolitan Areas .................................................................................. 109 xii.

(14) Table 5.23. Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese .......................... 111 Table 5.24. Two Regional Groups’ Ratings of Their Stereotypical Impressions on Four Judgmental Dimensions ............................................................................................. 121. xiii.

(15) List of Figures Figure 2.1 Seven-Point Semantic Differential Scale ................................................... 19 Figure 5.1. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Value” Dimension ....................... 113 Figure 5.2. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Potency” Dimension ................... 116 Figure 5.3. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Activity” Dimension ................... 117 Figure 5.4. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Complexity” Dimension ............. 119 Figure 5.5. Overall Ratings on Four Dimensions ...................................................... 121. xiv.

(16) Chapter 1 Introduction. 1.1 Motivation Taiwan is a multilingual society where several languages such as Mandarin, Taiwanese1, Hakka, and Aboriginal Languages, are used. During the KMT regime, Mandarin was promoted as the national language, with the Taiwanese ethnic languages being seriously suppressed. In 1987, the lifting of the Martial Law marked the first step of the liberation of local Taiwanese languages and, consequently, the awareness of Taiwanese identity was aroused (Tse, 2000; Chen, 2010).. In the late. 1980s, the Mother Tongue Language Policy was formulated in order to repair the damage done to Taiwan’s ethnic languages. Since 1996, local languages and cultural education have been incorporated into educational settings, which helped grant official status to those languages. Nevertheless, the promotion of local Taiwanese languages has not effectively transformed the language profile in Taiwan. Although Taiwanese, which once was the major language used by Taiwanese people, has gained prestige, it is still considered to be less prestigious than Mandarin. The latter serves almost all aspects of people’s life and is employed in most public and formal contexts. Although Taiwanese used to be the mother tongue of Southern Min people, it is being gradually replaced by Mandarin. Chan (1994: 271-274) indicates that the younger one’s age, the more Mandarin and the less Taiwanese are used. That is, people rely less and less on Taiwanese, and have switched to Mandarin which serves full-fledged functions. Moreover, Mandarin has invaded Taiwanese from outer domains (such as public administration and mass. 1. Several terms are often used to refer to Taiwanese, like Southern Min or Tai-yü, and Taiwanese is used in this study for consistency. 1.

(17) media) to inner domains (such as home communication and religious usage) (Chan, 1994). These signs reveal that Taiwan is experiencing a language shift from Taiwanese to Mandarin. It is under the complex social and historical context mentioned above that this study investigates current language attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese. Specifically, this study puts regional factors into consideration and further examines how regional differences cause an impact on language use and language attitudes. The goal of the present study is to investigate how Mandarin and Taiwanese are conceptualized and what images are associated with using the two languages.. 1.2 Background The political establishment of Taiwan from the KMT government to the modern society has a tremendous impact on language use in Taiwan. Under KMT control, Mandarin was heavily promoted in the public education system. In 1946, the Taiwan Provincial Committee for the Propagation and Promotion of the National Language (CPPNL) established Mandarin as the sole language of instruction. Non-Mandarin languages were prohibited in public domains (Brubaker, 2003: 25; Chen, 2010: 85-86). The consequence of the National Language Policy is that Mandarin is considered to be a tool of social upward mobility in Taiwan (Chan, 1994: 263). For example, fluency in Mandarin is required in government positions. Besides, Mandarin is the legitimate language for meetings, official business, public speeches, and conversations that occur in public. The extreme measures that prohibited all languages (other than Mandarin) in the public domain has gradually caused popular objection. With the emergence of the Mother Tongue Language Movement in the 1980s, people became aware of the revival of the local languages as well as a Taiwanese identity (Hsiau, 1997: 302). The Mother Tongue Language Policy was established to repair 2.

(18) Taiwanese ethnic languages. In fact, the current language development in Taiwan suggests how language ideology is rooted in people’s social experience. Previously, the National Language Movement emphasized Chinese political identity while the Mother Tongue Language Movement encourages Taiwan-centered recognition (Brubaker, 2003; Chen, 2010). Besides, people from different regions of Taiwan may be different in their conceptualizations of languages. For example, the ethnic makeup of the population, the sociolinguistic background, and residents’ political inclination of different regions are all influential in the development of language use and language attitudes. Therefore, regional factors are the main dimensions that are incorporated into this study. In this section, the constitution of the ethnic groups, the political orientation of the residents, and the cultural concepts attached to the North and the South will be briefly introduced, which will serve as the base for the further discussion about their impacts on language use and language attitudes. Regional differences are aspects revealing the sociolinguistic background of the North and the South in Taiwan. They contain an important association with people’s language attitudes and ideology. According to previous studies (Chan, 1994: 7-10; Huang, 1995: 26; Wang, 2002: 32-35), most Mainlanders reside in the northern regions of Taiwan, especially in Taipei- the capital city. On the other hand, the Taiwanese people, the major population of Taiwan, first landed at the North and the South and then spread to other parts of the west coast of Taiwan. In Taiwan, language use is highly associated with region. Since most Mainlanders reside in the North and Southern Min people in the South, the population distribution of ethnic groups suggests their language use: more Mandarin in the North and more Taiwanese in the South. The ethnic makeup of the population in the North and South also reveals 3.

(19) people’s political inclination. The political distinction in Taiwan mainly goes to two groups: the ‘greenish’ parties represented by the DPP and the ‘blue-ish’ parties represented the KMT. The former is largely made up of Southern Min people while the latter is mostly composed of Mainlanders (Su, 2005: 37). People generally perceive the North to be more blue-oriented while the South green-oriented based on the overall political tendency of the two regions. Such an association between political orientation and regional tendency remained roughly the same in the presidential elections of 2004, 2008, and 2012: the blue-ish parties dominated in the northern parts of Taiwan while the greenish parties dominated in the southern regions of Taiwan. In order to establish whether regional factors causes differences in language evaluation, this study intends to investigate people’s attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese in the Taipei and Kaohsiung metropolitan areas. The target areas in this study were chosen because they are the two largest administration regions in Taiwan, and they are considered as the representatives of the northern and southern parts of the island respectively. In spite of the precise administration division regarding land development, the North and the South also represent cultural concepts that are linked to the geographical locations. The North is often regarded as cosmopolitan and urbanized, whereas the South is associated with authenticity and locality. Further discussion of language use and attitudes and their interactions will be made based on the North/South cultural geography.. 1.3 Research Questions The study of attitudes towards language is one way to investigate the complex sociolinguistic phenomena. Language attitudes can be interpreted as any cognitive, affective, or conative reactions toward linguistic varieties or their speakers. Cooper 4.

(20) and Fishman (1974: 5) indicate that a language attitude emerges as a catalyst for a sound change (Labov, 1963), a defining characteristic of a speech community (Labov, 1966), a reflection of interethnic attitudes, and a determinant of interlingual intelligibility. According to Feifel (1994: 55), “social forces will create different language attitudes towards language varieties which are spoken by those who are part of the power structure and those who are not.” Many studies of language attitudes thus focus on the explanation on the association between a particular linguistic variety and the social meaning occurring in a given environment. This study investigates people’s attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese in the Taipei and Kaohsiung metropolitan areas by means of a questionnaire collection. People participating in the survey were asked to give their judgments to statements related to Mandarin and Taiwanese, and to express their evaluation of the two languages. The central issues the current study addresses include language use, language attitudes, stereotypical impressions of languages, and effects of regional differences on language evaluation. To investigate these issues, the research questions of this thesis are listed as follows: 1. Do college students from Taipei and Kaohsiung show differences in their use of Mandarin and Taiwanese? 2. Do college students from Taipei and Kaohsiung show differences in their attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese? 3. How do language use and language attitudes interact? 4. How are regional differences in language use and language attitudes, if any, related to the larger societal context?. 1.4 Significance of the Thesis The thesis aims to investigate how Mandarin and Taiwanese are conceptualized 5.

(21) Taiwan’s modern society. Previous studies have provided general accounts on language attitudes, but the current study has incorporated regional factors into analysis. In addition, I not only observe language attitudes but also examine language use and social images of languages. Moreover, by integrating the results of language attitudes, language use, and stereotypical impressions of languages, association can be drawn for further discussion. Hence, questionnaires not only help researchers conduct quantitative studies by integrating numbers into meaningful data but also facilitate investigators engage in qualitative discussions on the interaction of social attributes and linguistic varieties. Although language attitudes toward Taiwanese have already been researched, the current study provides a contemporary viewpoint from college students in Taiwan. In the early days when the National Language Policy was implemented, people might not have had a strong awareness regarding Taiwanese identity, yet they (at least Southern Min people) recognized their mother tongue. Forty years later when the Martial Law was lifted in 1987, the public’s awareness of Taiwanese identity was increasingly aroused and the use of ethnic languages was promoted. People speak Taiwanese in order to show their recognition of being a Taiwanese. Today, twenty-six years after the lift of the Martial Law, college students recognize the value of Taiwanese, but their behaviors may not correspond to actual attitudes. The change in society has an effect on language development, which has been discussed in previous literature, with the current study taking the angle from the contemporary Taiwan. It is hoped that the current study could provide an in-depth study from different viewpoints and shed new light on the issues of language attitudes.. 1.5 Organization of the Thesis This thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 briefly introduces the present 6.

(22) study. Chapter 2 outlines a general discussion on language attitudes, ideology, language use and identity, and language in Taiwan. Chapter 3 presents the methodology and the methods of data analysis. Chapter 4 displays the results and analyses of language use. The findings regarding attitudes and stereotypical impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese are illustrated in Chapter 5. A synthetic discussion of the results is arranged in Chapter 6. Finally, the summary of the major findings and the limitations of this thesis are presented in Chapter 7.. 7.

(23) Chapter 2 Literature Review. 2.1 Overview of Attitudes 2.1.1 Definition of Attitudes Attitudes have long been regarded as a variable and a domain in sociolinguistic and psychological studies (Cooper and Fishman, 1974: 5). Despite the fact that numerous studies have been done concerning the issue, there seems to be no consensus regarding the definition of attitudes. Sarnoff (1970: 279) defines attitudes as “a disposition to react favorably or unfavorably to a class of objects.” In defining attitudes, McGuire (1985: 239) argues that people express their attitudes by locating “objects of thought” on “dimensions of judgment.” Objects of thought can be concrete like a familiar person or a specific experience. On the other hand, objects of thought can also refer to abstract concepts like humanity or evil. According to McGuire (1985: 239), anything a person can differentiate from others in terms of one dimension of judgment is an object of thought. Potter and Wetherell (1987: 43) later interpret attitudes as the ideas one holds with evaluative hierarchy in speaking and acting. In other words, one might have evaluative predisposition to others who have particular speech behaviors. Feifel (1994: 55) provides an integrative definition by claiming that “attitudes are one’s general and enduring positive or negative feelings about an object, a person, a social issue, or even the feelings about the expressed beliefs held about them.” According to previous literature (Cooper and Fishman, 1974: 7; Edwards, 1985: 139; Brubaker, 2003: 49; Ann Lee, 2012: 11), attitudes are claimed to be composed of three components: cognitive (thoughts), affective (feelings), and conative/behavioral (predispositions to act). The cognitive component serves as an individual’s knowledge 8.

(24) and beliefs toward an object in the social world; the affective component is considered to be the feelings or emotions one holds toward an object; the conative/behavioral component is defined as the reactions that one acts. As Edwards (1985: 139) states, there is often an inconsistency between assessed attitudes and actions presumably related to them. The study of attitudes nevertheless helps to provide an explanation of the phenomenon and patterns happening in a given environment and situation. Some may mistakenly equal the concept of belief to attitudes. Strictly speaking, as the above-mentioned three-component-model suggests, belief is one of the components that constitute attitudes and most attitude questionnaires mainly focus on measuring beliefs (Edwards, 1985: 140). The investigation of attitudes thus requires further probes into the object’s feelings of established beliefs (Edwards, 1985: 140). Attitude varies according to the change of context and function, which makes it inappropriate to apply a single attitude globally. Ferguson (1959; in Cooper and Fishman, 1974: 8) claims that most people hold positive attitudes toward their mother tongue, although the features by which they judge might be different from group to group. For example, a language might be suitable rhetorically while another might be appropriate for singing. Thus, it would mislead to assess attitudes without thinking in a contextualized fashion (Cooper and Fishman, 1974: 8).. 2.1.2 Language Attitudes The current study aims to examine people’s attitudes toward language, and this section presents a discussion in terms of language attitudes. There are two kinds of viewpoints regarding studies of attitudes toward language: mentalist and behaviorist view. In the former view, attitudes serve as “an intervening variable between a stimulus affecting a person and that person’s response” (Fasold, 1984: 147). 9.

(25) According to this view, an individual reflects his/her reaction based on the given stimulus. As for the mentalist view, Williams (1974: 21) provides his definition by claiming that “attitude is considered as an internal state aroused by stimulation of some type and which may mediate the organism’s subsequent response.” Williams (1974: 21) shortens the explanation by arguing that attitude is a response predisposition. The mentalist view is taken into consideration by most studies of attitudes toward language (Fasold, 1984: 147). Although most theorists adopt this view, the major problem lies in the difficulty regarding the experimental design in order to understand the internal state. Researchers then need to try to elicit the internal state by means of a self-report of the person being investigated or by inferring attitudes indirectly from behavioral patterns. Nonetheless, the self-reported data is questioned by its validity and the indirect measure might not reflect exactly the person’s actual thought (Fasold, 1984: 147). The behaviorist view is defined as “a set of stimulus-response or antecedent-consequence relationship” (Cooper and Fishman, 1974: 7). By adopting this view, language attitudes can be observed simply by the reactions made by people in a given environment or social situation (Fasold, 1984: 147). Compared to the mentalist view, the behaviorist viewpoint is simpler since it mainly examines and analyzes observable behaviors or responses people make related to social situations. However, the viewpoint is criticized for that attitude is viewed as a dependent variable which is tied to specific external stimuli. Therefore, the behaviorist point of view cannot explain other behaviors (Agheyisi and Fishman, 1970: 138). Due to the drawback of the behaviorist view, fewer researches adopt the approach. According to Edwards (1985: 149), speech can evoke stereotyped reactions that reflect the evaluation of social groups. For example, standard language usually is associated with a higher social status and competence; on the other hand, 10.

(26) non-standard or regional dialects connote speaker integrity and social attractiveness. As Edwards (1985) argues, the sense of attachment or preference to certain linguistic varieties shows speaker solidarity. Moreover, since the social context is not a static entity, once it changes, the attitudes that reveal linking or association of language with speakers change as well (Edwards, 1985: 149). Language attitudes do not necessarily generate language behavior, but they do work as intervening variables which reflect changes in interpersonal relations (Feifel, 1994: 55). As Feifel argues, the association between language attitudes and language use generally is outside the awareness of social actors. In sociolinguistics and the social psychology of language, attitudes have played an important role. By observing respondents’ reactions to linguistic varieties, people’s perceptions of the speakers can be inferred. For example, the study of language attitudes has helped researchers in understanding language users’ evaluation toward others who speak accented speech that is different from the standard variety. Thus, social forces are the reason which leads people to develop language attitudes toward different linguistic varieties (Feifel, 1994: 55). Another factor claimed to influence language attitudes is attributed to perceptual biases. Street and Hopper (1982: 177) suggest that the stereotypes that the listener holds about the speaker may mislead them into perceiving speaker’s behavior wrongly. Besides, sometimes the messages a speaker provides might be misperceived because the listener has established predisposed goals and attitudes. Consequently, Street and Hopper (1982: 178) conclude that perceived features are more influential than actual characteristics when doing a speech evaluation. The use of language varieties may reflect a certain social-class phenomenon. Some ethnic groups may congregate in specific social class boundaries. Their choice of linguistic varieties hence reveals social class. The relationship between ethnicity 11.

(27) and class can be attributed to cultural values as well as to social-historical reasons. Linguistic features reflect various social stratifications that also reveal people’s subjective attitudes towards certain dialects (Shuy and Williams, 1973). It is also argued that a person’s subjective judgments reveal a multiple dimensional variety of connotative associations. In other words, a person’s attitudes toward a linguistic variety not only reveal the social stratum of the variety but also include various features related to the dialect and attitudes toward the people who speak the linguistic variety. Feifel (1994: 61) claims that ethnic groups enjoying different privileges can be observed by their use of different linguistic varieties. By exploring speech differences, problems of social justice, educational policy, and intergroup attitudes are revealed. For example, varieties with unequal status are usually associated with a different social class of speakers. Some dialect features are perceived as a standard language which is applied in written language, whereas some are regarded as a nonstandard variety making its application to be considered as a language deficit.. 2.1.3 Dimensions for Assessing Language Attitudes and Language Preference Patterns. Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian (1982: 5-6) propose a two-dimensional model which consists of the two socio-structural determinants, standardization and vitality, which are claimed to affect language attitudes. A standard refers to the norms that are acknowledged by dominant groups or the by the power elites of a society. The varieties recognized to be standardized are the norms which are defined to be correct usage, made available in dictionaries or grammars. Besides, a standardized variety is confirmed by formal social institutions like the government, schools, and mass media. Moreover, the variety used in written communication is the standard variety instead of the one used in oral modality. As 12.

(28) argued by Ryan and his colleagues (1982: 3), standardization is the product of social treatment in defining the attributes of a variety rather than the property of the language itself. Vitality usually is expressed by the numbers and importance of functions serving a language (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 4). A similar concept has been provided by Fishman (1971a) who claims that the status of a language is decided by the range and importance of the symbolic functions it serves. For example, the Quebecois view French as more vital than French Americans because the former use the language in their daily life interactions, whereas the latter only do so in limited domains such as the home or with interlocutors like relatives (Ryan, Giles, Sebastian, 1982: 4). In addition, vitality may also be bolstered by sufficient numbers of speakers and community support that is often inherent to nonstandard varieties. Concerning the structure of attitudes toward the comparison of language varieties, Ryan et al. (1982: 8) further propose two evaluative dimensions: social status and group solidarity. The social status of the speakers is revealed by observing the use of a particular language within a speech community. In other words, the use of a standard/nonstandard language reflects the relative social status or the power of social groups within a speech community. The ascriptions of high social status are associated with the high variety speakers who have competence characteristics like intelligence, expertise, ambition and confidence. Thus, the social status dimension is viewed as an instrumental dimension. Feifel (1994: 58) further argues that the social economic status of native speakers speaking particular languages influences the perceptions of their relative prestige. Besides, the official and institutionalized uses endow language with prestige in two ways. The first concerns the structural perspective of prestige: upward social and occupational mobility which necessitate the learning of a particular language to achieve higher social status as well as to obtain a better job. The next is 13.

(29) related to attitudinal aspect of prestige in which the habitual use of a particular language reflects its characteristics of appropriateness, intelligence and authority, which are perceptually acknowledged by the social actors. Yet another evaluation dimension, group solidarity, contains affective or sentimental attitudes instead of the sociolinguistic status of a language, and emphasizes mainly in-group solidarity and language loyalty. Ryan et al. (1982: 8) claim that the factors enforcing the solidarity of a language variety correspond exactly to those that promote linguistic vitality. Attitudes associated with this dimension are personality traits like friendliness and warmth, which are characterized as social distance, and social attractiveness of the language user and language variety. Generally speaking, this dimension is associated with one’s native language or non-standard linguistic variety, which represents family life, intimacy, informal interactions, and which furthermore reflects one’s belongingness and sense of attraction. The features included in this dimension thus represent a symbol of a group’s culture and identity (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 9; Feifel, 1994: 59). The following will address how the two-dimensional status and solidarity model is valued in a social context. Ryan and his associates (1982: 9-10) propose four types of language preferences reflected by majority and minority group speakers: majority (dominant) group preference, majority (dominant) group status/ingroup solidarity, ingroup preference, and majority (dominant) group status/minority (subordinate) group solidarity. The first pattern, majority (dominant) group preference, refers to a situation in which all subgroups acknowledge the prestigious language variety. There are two further subtypes under the category of dominant group preference: subordinate overcompensation and partial subordinate acknowledgement. When the social groups of the inferior language variety acknowledge the prestigious variety in all aspects, this 14.

(30) represents subordinate overcompensation (Feifel, 1994). In other words, it is “a belief structure of ‘self-hate’ among the speakers of the subordinate language variety who accept the global downgrading of representatives of their own group” (Feifel, 1994: 64) (e.g., English Canadian vs. French Canadian). As for partial subordinate acknowledgement, the portion of the preference for the prestige language is smaller than the subordinate overcompensation. The members of the subordinate group might show less preference for the high variety regarding the aspect of solidarity (e.g., English. vs.. Spanish).. Feifel. (1994:. 64). argues. that. partial. subordinate. acknowledgement exists when speakers show stereotypes, social mobility and psychology movements towards the variety of the dominant group. The second pattern, majority (dominant) group status/ingroup solidarity, refers to a situation in which people are bilingual in a diglossic community with some individuals being native speakers of the prestigious linguistic variety. In this type, people acknowledge the status of prestigious variety in terms of instrumental function. On the other hand, people still prefer their own language in terms of solidarity-related characteristics. This pattern can be found in Quechua speakers who preferred Spanish due to its status, but who favored their own language variety because of solidarity attributes like social attractiveness and integrity (Wölck, 1973). Chan’s dissertation (1994) provides a good example of Mandarin being favored because of instrumental motivation as well as social status, with Taiwanese, or Minnanyu in Chan’s term, being preferred due to integrative motivation. Further discussion about Chan’s study will be described in the chapter of results and analysis. The third pattern, ingroup preference, is characterized by a situation where all the subgroups express their preference toward their own language in both instrumental and integrative functions. Thus, despite the fact that other varieties enjoy higher status, the members of the lower prestige variety retain their loyalty toward their own 15.

(31) language variety. In addition, the fierce or resurging language loyalty will yield a preference for subordinate group’s linguistic variety rather than the dominant group’s linguistic variety. A demonstration of this type can be found in political activists like the Black Power Movement, the Chicano Movement, and the Basque Liberation Movement (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 10). The last pattern, majority (dominant) group status/minority (subordinate) group solidarity, is defined when a language variety is acknowledged as a high-status one, but without yielding a sense of attractiveness to its speakers. One case demonstrating such pattern is RP in Britain. Feifel (1994: 65) provides an explanation to this pattern in which a linguistic variety is recognized as superior in terms of social status, while another one is acknowledged as superior because of group solidarity. Ferguson’s diglossia (1959) represents a good example of this type where the inferior variety rarely occurs in formal situations. Yet another instance of this pattern can be found in diglossic societies like Arab countries where the literary or classical language is viewed as the H-variety (Feifel, 1994: 65). In brief, the four language preference types can be put into the aforementioned two-dimensional model, which contains two socio-structural factors (standardization and vitality) affecting language attitudes. The main point responsible for change in the language attitude pattern is determined by the psychological consequence of the increasing or decreasing vitality. For example, the first pattern appears when both high and low-status groups perceive no alternatives to their relative power. The second type emerges from a situation in which low-status group members show cognitive alternatives. Finally, the third pattern indicates the sense of equal status, when both groups are aware of alternatives to the status quo.. 16.

(32) 2.1.4 Approaches of Language Attitudes There are three assessment techniques used in language attitude studies: content analysis of societal treatment, direct measurement and indirect measurement (Garrett, 2010: 37). Content analysis includes autobiographical, observational and case studies. Research not involving explicit requests to respondents for their views or reactions is also classified under this category (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 7). Direct assessment includes questionnaires and interviews, and this is an approach relying on overt elicitation of attitudes. Questions involved in this measurement include language evaluation, language preference, motivation for learning a particular language, judges of social groups who use a certain linguistic variety, self-reports about language use, views regarding language policies, etc. (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 7). Fasold (1984: 152) reports on two further types of questions: open and closed. Open questions provide the respondents maximum freedom to express their opinions toward the questions in research. However, the respondents might also give an answer that is not related to the question, while it also problematic to score the responses to open questions. As for closed questions, a particular format is established for the respondents such as semantic differential scales, yes/no questions, multiple choice, or ranking allocation. Closed questions provide respondents with an easy way to answer, with the drawback that the answers are restricted to the researchers’ terms. The advantage of closed questions is the relatively easy way in scoring. Since both types of questions have their own advantages and weaknesses, Fasold (1984: 152) suggests that a pilot research with open questions is recommended in order to construct a closed-question questionnaire. The indirect approach is best known for the “matched-guise technique.” As the name suggests, instead of asking straight questions about people’s attitudes, indirect approaches adopt a subtle or even deceptive way to elicit respondents’ judgments 17.

(33) (Edwards, 1985; Garrett, 2010). For instance, some studies aim to elicit respondents’ evaluation reactions toward a speech presented and some researchers investigate whether informants make behavioral adjustments, like accommodation in speech style or non-behavioral reaction, such as a change in attitudes (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: 8). This approach looks at the assessment of listeners’ affective responses and their beliefs about the speaker that is presented to them. This approach furthermore deals with other issues like the discrepancies between evaluations of a variety as representative of a particular group, as well as attitudes toward the speech characteristics (e.g., beautiful, inarticulate or improper). Cooper and Fishman (1974:16-17) conducted an investigation by applying the matched-guise technique with the purpose of looking at the effectiveness of languages on persuasion. In their study, respondents were asked to listen to passages recorded by a fluent speaker of Arabic and Hebrew. The two scholars presumed that Arabic was more persuasive in uttering traditional point of view, and that Hebrew was more suitable in expressing a scientific argument. Regarding the contents of the passages, one was concerned with the disadvantage of having tobacco, supported with scientific evidence. The other described the effects of liquor by citing arguments from a traditional point of view. After listening to the passages, the respondents were asked direct questions and indirect questions. The former was mainly designed to explore if the respondents agreed with the position provided in each argument, and whether the latter asked if an increased tax was appropriate to decrease relevant consumption. Cooper and Fishman found that respondents held the same attitudes in answering direct question, whereas dramatic differences were shown when responding to indirect questions. When the passage was delivered in Hebrew with scientific arguments for increasing tax, the number of respondents who agreed with the message was twice as high compared to those delivered in Arabic. On the other hand, when the 18.

(34) respondents heard the message in Arabic from traditional point of view, the numbers of agreements were twice as high as when it was heard in Hebrew. Hence, Cooper and Fishman (1974) concluded that, in indirectly comparing the effectiveness of Hebrew and Arabic, the former was more persuasive in terms of scientific arguments, whereas the latter was a better choice when considering traditional arguments. Another approach often used with the matched-guise technique is semantic differential scales (Fasold, 1984: 150). The scales are designed with two opposite extremes in terms of a trait at either end. A typical example regarding semantic differential scales is shown in figure 2.1: friendly __ __ __ __ __ __ __ unfriendly Figure 2.1 Seven-Point Semantic Differential Scale. The listener who participates in the matched-guise technique is asked to judge if the speaker on tape sounds friendly or unfriendly by placing a mark on one of the blank spaces. The closer the mark is placed to the left-most end on the scale, the friendlier the speaker’s sounds are judged; the reverse way represents more unfriendly sounds. The procedure used in scoring semantic-differential scales is to firstly assign numbers to each of the spaces on the scale. Take figure 2.1 for example, 7 points may be assigned to represent ‘friendliest’, which is followed by 6 on the next space, and 1 point indicates the least friendly. After the responses have been collected, the number of participants who place their evaluation for the speaker on the scale are multiplied by the value of the spaces. Finally, the scores will be divided by the total number of listeners. The final result then represents the mean evaluation for this speaker on the scale. Take figure 2.1 for instance again, the number represents the mean evaluation of the listeners for the speaker on the friendly guise. If the result is 5.10, it is interpreted as friendly since the number locates more than the middle space on the 19.

(35) seven-point scale (Fasold, 1984: 151).. 2.1.5 Language Attitudes in Taiwan Chen (2010: 92) aims to investigate to which extent multilingualism has been practiced in Taiwan in terms of people’s language proficiency, language use, and language attitudes. Her study demonstrates what people perform with language varieties and what values and status people attribute to them. According to Chen (2010), the languages an individual chooses in a multilingual society might involve social or cultural considerations, as well as the instrumental and communicative functions of the particular language. Moreover, the changes or trends in using certain linguistic varieties usually reveal a shared norm that reflects the value and status of languages in a speech community. Regarding language proficiency, Mandarin was reported by Chen (2010) to be the language in which almost everyone (98%) had good command, followed by Taiwanese which had decreased drastically to 68%. The next three languages for which participants reported their competence were English (17%), Hakka (5.61%), and Aboriginal languages (1%). When taking social factors into consideration, Chen indicates that respondents’ proficiency, except for Mandarin, decreased by age. In other words, the older the people were, the better the language command reported by participants reported for Taiwanese and Hakka. In addition, the mother tongue is indicated to be a factor affecting people’s proficiency. A pattern was found by Chen (2010) who claims that, when the respondents’ mother tongue is Taiwanese, Hakka, or an Aboriginal language, their proficiency pertaining to the language is supposedly better. Another social factor, education level, was found to have an influence merely on the English proficiency. Respondents having received a higher education were reported to have better proficiency in English. In terms of the interaction between 20.

(36) occupation and language proficiency, Mandarin emerged as the language on which most Taiwanese respondents, regardless of their occupation, had a good command. In brief, Mandarin enjoys the most stable position among the social factors under investigation, followed by Taiwanese, which counts quite a number of fluent speakers. As for Hakka and Aboriginal languages, they are clearly losing speakers who are competent in the language. By applying Fishman’s domain analysis (1972), Chen (2010: 95) continues to explore people’s language use in five domains: family, religion, friendship, school/government, and work. The languages being analyzed are mainly classified as three groups: Mandarin, Taiwanese languages including Taiwanese, Hakka, and Aboriginal languages, and English. The results show that Mandarin predominantly occupies all domains. The percentage of using Taiwanese languages among five domains has decreased dramatically to less than 50%. The family domain, in which Taiwanese languages are supposed to be used most frequently, is being invaded by the use of Mandarin. Subjects’ frequency in using English decreased below 5%, which reveals that English is not commonly used in people’s daily life, i.e., English is not viewed as a language to meet pragmatic functions. By contrast, Mandarin, gathering more than 70% of language use among the five domains, appeared to be the tool which fulfills all language functions in Taiwanese society. Chen (2010: 96) claims that, although Taiwan is a society where Taiwanese ethnic groups occupy more than 80%, the fact that less than half of the population uses Taiwanese languages depicts a serious imbalance power among languages. One of the reasons is attributed to the lack of intergenerational transmission, which results in the decline of minority languages. The author further argues that despite the fact that English is not popularly used, the low percentage in use among five domains does not exactly reflect people’s positive attitudes towards the language. 21.

(37) Chang (1996) in her study provides three factors related to language use and language attitudes among Taiwanese elementary school students: interlocutor, language proficiency, and attitudinal factor. The first factor concerns people whom the student talks to in school. As Mandarin is the instructional language in school, pupils unsurprisingly use it most frequently with classmates. The second factor, language proficiency, exercises its influence when elementary school students are forming their language behavior. According to Chang’s observation, the informants expressed concerns about their parents or older relatives’ proficiency in Mandarin. If the interlocutors do not have a sufficient proficiency in Mandarin, students turn to using their native tongues, like Taiwanese or Hakka, to communicate with them. Regarding attitudinal factors, Chang observes that students were aware of the importance of maintaining their mother tongues and thus showed support for language heritage. Chang indicates a finding that is contradictory to general beliefs: the respondents agreed that Taiwanese or Hakka ability is a plus in job opportunity. This tendency might be attributed to the language movement which took place in the late 1980s, and to the fact that efforts undertaken to revive ethnic dialects has aroused students’ awareness and consciousness in maintaining their native languages (Liao, 2010: 44).. 2.1.6 Stereotyped Attitudes: A Case Study of English Dialects Shuy and Williams (1973) set out to investigate language evaluations by means of statistical analysis of subjective judgment data. In their study, Shuy and Williams selected twelve semantic differential scales and classified them into four factors: evaluation, complexity, potency, and activity. Evaluation refers to a person’s positive-negative or pleasant-unpleasant reaction to a stimulus; complexity is not presumed as neither particularly good nor bad; potency is defined as the strength of a stimulus; the last dimension, activity, is used to express the dynamic quality of a 22.

(38) stimulus. Under each factor, several scales were selected: Value:. good-bad,. positive-negative,. smart-dumb,. valuable-worthless,. smooth-rough. Complexity: difficult-easy, complex-simple. Potency: strong-weak, sharp-dull, careful-sloppy Activity: fast-slow Respondents had to make judgments on each semantic differential scale with opposite adjectives on either side. Shuy and Williams (1973) argue that the four factors can be used to distinguish respondents’ attitudes toward different types of speech. Moreover, the results of the factors can also serve as a basis to investigate respondents’ judgments. Shuy and Williams conduct their study by comparing five speech types: Detroit, White Southern, British, Negro, and Standard speech. Once the overall statistical results are generalized, the differences and generalizations of the five speech types are described in four factors. Besides, in order to know if the social factors, ethnicity, social status, age, and sex, influence respondents’ judgments, the two scholars explore the possibility on the interaction between speech type and social factors. In their study, Shuy and William (1973: 93-94) intended to examine, first, if respondents’ attitudes vary according to different types of speeches. Secondly, the researchers aimed to establish whether judgments vary due to the respondents’ ethnicity, social status, age, and sex. The four factors that were generalized from twelve semantic differential scales were: value, complexity, potency, and activity. In analyzing the results obtained from respondents’ judgments, it was found that the ratings of Detroit speech and Standard speech were similar. Besides, the average ratings of British speech on all dimensions were judged more positively than that of Negro speech, which was in turn higher than Southern speech. As for the interactions 23.

(39) between social factors with speech attitudes, the results offered reliable contrasts. First, Shuy and Williams assumed that the ethnicity of respondents was one reason which might influence the results of judgments. The results yielded by respondents revealed that black subjects held more positive attitudes toward Negro speech compared to the reactions of white subjects. Besides, in comparing judgments made by higher-class and lower-class respondents, it was found that the former tended to express more positive attitudes toward British speech; contrarily, lower-status respondents rated Detroit and Negro speech more positively than did their higher status counterparts. Concerning the age-factor, older groups were found to provide more positive ratings to standard speech and British speech in the dimension of value and potency than younger groups. Finally, Shuy and Williams claimed that no significant evidence was found concerning the interactions between the gender of respondents and speech attitudes. Shuy and William’s study has proved that people hold different attitudes toward various speech types among the four factors, and that this reflects the psychological reality of respondents’ stereotypical attitudes (Shuy and William, 1973: 95). A linguistic variety, thus, is like the two sides of a coin with one side of objective reality being described as the way people talk, and the other being one in which people reflect stereotypical impressions toward others’ speech.. 2.2 Language Use, Identity, and Symbolic Power 2.2.1 Symbolic Power Bourdieu proposes a term, symbolic power or in some cases, symbolic violence, to refer to an aspect of most forms of power which is routinely developed in social life. The form of symbolic power is usually invisible and transformed to symbolic form, which is endowed with legitimacy in a social group. According to Bourdieu, symbolic 24.

(40) power presupposes a shared belief or cognition. That is to say, the social actors within a society recognize or tacitly acknowledge the legitimacy of power or the hierarchical relations of power (Thompson, 1991: 23). Thompson (1991: 23) points out that the nature of symbolic power rests on a kind of active complicity that is recognized by the dominated individuals who believe in the legitimacy of power. The notion of symbolic violence developed by Bourdieu can be traced back to the gift exchange in Kabyle society. In Bourdieu’s view, the exchange of gifts reveals the mechanism in which power is exercised and disguised. By giving a gift, the giver creates a softer and subtle power to the recipient because of personal indebtedness. Thus, symbolic violence is primarily explained by virtue of exercising power in establishing interpersonal relations (Thompson, 1991: 24). The symbolic mechanism that helps to exercise power in interpersonal relations later has transformed to broader aspects of forms of power. With the development of institutions in which different kinds of power are established, the individuals deploy strategies in order to fit the value developed in different markets and fields. Thus Thompson (1991: 24) claims that violence is built into the institution itself. One key concept closely associated with attitudes is habitus. Bourdieu defines habitus as a system of dispositions in which people react in certain ways. The dispositions constituting habitus generate perceptions, thoughts, actions and attitudes, and they are formed through the process of inculcation (Thompson, 1991: 12). The individuals acquire a set of dispositions through considerable training and learning, which are gradually formed as a second nature of a body. Hence the dispositions produced generally reflect the structure of the social conditions. For example, an individual with a middle-class background develops different dispositions from someone with working-class background. The disposition characterizing the differences and similarities of individuals can thereby be observed in the habitus 25.