2013-12-19 1 由歷史語言學透視北京話的古往今來 The Peking Dialect: Past, Present and Future A Historical Linguistic Perspective 李文肇 Chris Wen-chao Li San Francisco State University Outline • PAST: – Phonology 音韻學 • 入派三聲(入聲演變) • PRESENT – Historical linguistics 歷史語言學 • Ongoing change 音變 • Spread through 普通話 •CASE STUDY: dialect enclave 方言孤島 • FUTURE – Sociolinguistics 社會語言學 • diglossia 雙語並存/雙語分工 • language death 語言滅絕 Methodology • SCOPE: – focus on specific features – not a comprehensive survey of phonology, lexicon and syntax • ORIENTATION – theoretically-oriented – armchair scholarship (rather than field work) Background 1. What is historical linguistics? (歷史語言學): 2. What is Peking Mandarin [vs Modern Standard Chinese] (北京話、北京官話、國語、普通話) 3. Myths about Peking Mandarin Historical linguistics 歷史語言學 • Misconceptions RE history • Historical linguistics = study of language change Historical linguistics 歷史語言學 • Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913): father of modern linguistics – diachronic vs synchronic linguistics – 共時語言學 共時語言學 共時語言學 共時語言學 vs 歷時語言學 歷時語言學 歷時語言學 歷時語言學
21
Embed
beijing18.ppt - online.sfsu.eduonline.sfsu.edu/wenchao/presentations/2012_peking_dialect.pdf · (Thomas, 1991, pp. 76-81) • Hybrid vitality (c.f., biology; English language) 1.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
2013-12-19
1
由歷史語言學透視北京話的古往今來
The Peking Dialect: Past, Present and Future
A Historical Linguistic Perspective
李文肇
Chris Wen-chao LiSan Francisco State University
Outline• PAST:
– Phonology 音韻學
• 入派三聲(入聲演變)
• PRESENT
– Historical linguistics 歷史語言學
• Ongoing change 音變
• Spread through 普通話
• CASE STUDY: dialect enclave 方言孤島
• FUTURE
– Sociolinguistics 社會語言學
• diglossia 雙語並存/雙語分工
• language death 語言滅絕
Methodology• SCOPE:
– focus on specific features
– not a comprehensive survey of phonology, lexicon and syntax
• ORIENTATION– theoretically-oriented
– armchair scholarship (rather than field work)
Background
1. What is historical linguistics? (歷史語言學):
2. What is Peking Mandarin [vs Modern Standard Chinese]
(北京話、北京官話、國語、普通話)
3. Myths about Peking Mandarin
Historical linguistics 歷史語言學
• Misconceptions RE history
• Historical linguistics = study of language change
Historical linguistics 歷史語言學
• Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913): father of modern linguistics
– diachronic vs synchronic linguistics
– 共時語言學共時語言學共時語言學共時語言學 vs 歷時語言學歷時語言學歷時語言學歷時語言學
2013-12-19
2
Historical linguistics 歷史語言學
• Foundation of historical linguistics
– 新語法學派 Neogrammarian hypothesis (19th C.):
• „ Ausnahmslosigkeit der Lautgesetze“; (Sound laws know no exceptions)
• “…every sound change, inasmuch as it occurs mechanically, takes place according to laws that admit no exception. That is, the direction of the sound shift is always the same for all the members of a linguistic community except where a split into dialects occurs; and all words in which the sound subjected to the change appears in the same relationship are affected by the change without exception.” (Osthoff & Brugmann 1878)
• vs lay thinking
– story-telling 穿鑿附會
– non-falsifyable (萬用解釋; theory that explains everything)– teleology 目的論
Historical linguistics 歷史語言學
• Areas of historical linguistics
• Sound change
• Lexical change
• Syntactic change
北京話 vs 北京官話• 北京話北京話北京話北京話 (Peking dialect):
– 北京市區及近郊的固有口語類型 (小範圍
、階層限制、場合限制)
– a.k.a. 老北京話;京片子
– 北京官話的「京師片」
• 北京官話北京官話北京官話北京官話 (Beijing Mandarin)
– 方言學術語:方言片,範圍比北京話大
– 北京官話分布圖(林焘 1987: 167)
– (北京話是北京官話的一種)
北京話 vs 國語
• 北京話北京話北京話北京話 (Peking dialect):
– 北京市區及近郊的固有口語類型 (小範圍、階層限制、場合限制)
– a.k.a. 老北京話;京片子
– 北京官話的「京師片」
• 國語國語國語國語(新國音)
– Against「老國音」(1913)
– 1920 南京高等師範學校英文科主任張士《國語統一問題》:
– 「以至少受到中等教育中等教育中等教育中等教育的北京本地人北京本地人北京本地人北京本地人的話為國語的標准」(specific locale and social class)
– Codified in 1932《國音常用字彙》
– Used in Taiwan to this day
北京話 vs 普通話
• 北京話北京話北京話北京話 (Peking dialect):
– 北京市區及近郊的固有口語類型 (小範圍、階層限制、場合限制)
– a.k.a. 老北京話;京片子
– 北京官話的「京師片」
• 普通話普通話普通話普通話 (1955年「全國文字改革會議」和「現代漢語規範問題學術會議」通過)
– 語音 Phonology:「以北京語音為標準音」
• C.f. 國語──no class or register restriction
– 詞彙 Lexicon: 「以北方話為基礎方言」
• C.f. 國語──extends beyond 北京話 and 北京官話
– 語法 Syntax: 「以典範的現代白話文著作為語法規範」
• C.f. 國語── based on literature rather than spoken language
– Korean textbooks / manuals (transcriptions in Hangul [since 1443])
•《洪武正韻譯訓》(1455, 申叔舟)──正音、俗音
•《四聲通考》 (1517, 崔世珍)──正音、俗音、今俗音
•《翻譯老乞大》 (1517, 崔世珍)
•《翻譯朴通事》 (1517, 崔世珍)
•《老乞大諺解》 (1670)
•《朴通事韻解》 (1677)
Peking dialect: Common misconceptions
• 第二語言習得者觀察:
– European missionaries
• Francisco Varo (1627-1687): “one must understand the way in which such words are pronounced by the Chinese. Not just any
Chinese, but only those who have the natural gift of speaking
the Mandarin language well, such as those natives of the Province of Nân kīng.” (Coblin, 2000, p. 540)
• Robert Morrison (1782-1834): “[Beijing pronunciation] is now
gradually gaining ground, and if the [Qing] dynasty continues
long, will finally prevail” (Coblin, 2000, p. 540).
• Joseph Edkins (1823-1905): “the Nanking Mandarin is more widely understood than that of Peking ... the Peking dialect
must be studied by those who would speak the language of the
imperial court” (Coblin, 2000, p. 541).
Peking dialect: Common misconceptions
• Against language purism
– Archaising purism: attempt to resuscitate the linguistic
material of a past golden age, an exaggerated respect
for past literary models, an excessive conservatism
towards innovations or a recognition of the
importance of literary tradition. (Thomas, 1991, pp. 76-81)
• Hybrid vitality (c.f., biology; English language)
1. 北京話的過往
• 由「入派三聲」檢驗北京話的 DNA
1. 北京話的過往:由「入派三聲」檢驗北京話的DNA
• Biological analogy
2013-12-19
4
1. 北京話的過往:由「入派三聲」檢驗北京話的DNA
• Biological analogy
1. 北京話的過往
• What is 入聲 (terminology)
–By syllable type (音節結構):
•陰聲
•陽聲
•入聲
–By tone (聲調):
•舒聲(平、上、去)•入聲
1. 北京話的過往
• What is 入聲 (terminology)
–By syllable type (音節結構):
•陰聲 (vocalic ending 母音結尾)
–比[pi]、來[lɑi]、毛[mɑu]
•陽聲 (nasal ending 鼻音結尾: m, n, ŋ)
–三[sɑm]、單[tɑn]、東[tuŋ]
•入聲 (stop ending 塞音結尾, p, t, k)—in Middle Chinese, Cantonese, Min etc.
–八[pat]、塞[sǝk]、臘[lɑp]
1. 北京話的過往
• What is 入聲 (terminology)
–By tone (聲調):
•舒聲(非短促聲調,i.e. 平、上、去 [at the time])
–平 (level pitch): 高、三、天
–上 (rising pitch): 死、手、走
–去 (falling pitch): 正、愛、菜
•入聲(短促聲調; with stop ending 塞音結尾, p, t, k )
–八[pat]、塞[sǝk]、臘[lɑp]
– Survives mostly in southern dialects --
Cantonese, Min etc.
1. 北京話的過往• 入聲: Geographical distribution (《漢語方言地圖集》 2008)
– ● 保留
– ● 部分保留
– ● 其他
1. 北京話的過往
• 入聲: Degrees of preservation
STRATEGY 塔 蠟 骨 殺 落 脈
Middle Chinese 中古漢語
tʰɒp lɒp kuәt ʂat lɒk mac
Cantonese 粵方言
(preservation) ta:p la:p kuɐt sa:t lɔk mak
Taiwanese (Southern Min)閩南方言
(preservation) taʔ laʔ kuәt sat lak mek
Sino-Japanese 日本漢字
compensatory lengthening or vowel insertion to: ro: kotsu satsu raku myaku
Sino-Korean 韓國漢字
weakening; gliding tap nap gol sal nak mak
Mandarin (literary reading)北京文讀
consonant deletion tʰa: la: ku: ʂa: lwɔ: mɔ:
Mandarin (colloquial reading) 北京白讀
weakening; gliding tʰa: la: ku: ʂa: lau mau
2013-12-19
5
1. 北京話的過往
• Dating the loss of 入聲
–遼、金、元(907-1368)(Shen 2011)
• BEFORE: linguistic records (e.g., rhyme
dictionaries; rhyme charts) consistent with existence of 入聲入聲入聲入聲 category
• AFTER: some northern dialects start to drop 入聲 category or confuse 入聲 and non-入聲 entries
1. 北京話的過往
• Explaining the loss of 入聲 – Why?
–Markedness considerations
–Language contact in northern China (simplification)
1. 北京話的過往
• Explaining the loss of 入聲 – Why?
–Markedness considerations
• Unmarked (無標/普遍): CV
–巴[pa]、母[mu]、沙[ʂa]
• Marked (有標/不普遍): CVC
–八[pat]、木[muk]、殺[ʂat]
– NOTE:
• C=consonant 子音(輔音)
• V=vowel 母音(元音)
1. 北京話的過往• Explaining the loss of 入聲 – Why?
– Language contact in northern China (Charles Li 1995; Norman
1982; Hashmoto 1986, 1970)
• Language simplification──c.f. history of English
• Altaicization :
– “the way they developed this type of ‘pidgin Chinese’ must be that these original Altaic residents accommodated into their mother tongue(s) the Chinese lexicon and morphology in their entirety, maintaining however their own syntax and perhaps most of their phonetics. We also suspect that this is how ‘genuine Pekinese’ was created by the variety of ethnic groups who came under the political control of the Manchus.” (Hashimoto 1986)
– Evidence from Khitan Lesser Script (契丹小字), Jurchen Script (女真文) and hP’ags-pa Script (蒙古字韻) (Shen 2011)
1. 北京話的過往
• Loss of 入聲 – Experiment
1. 北京話的過往
• Loss of 入聲 – Process
– Syllable structure change
– Tonal merger
2013-12-19
6
1. 北京話的過往• Loss of 入聲 – Process
– Syllable structure change
• 刪除刪除刪除刪除 Deletion (of final consonant) -- (CVC to CV)
–八: [pat] > [pa]
–木: [muk] > [mu]
–殺: [ʂat] > [ʂa]
• 弱化弱化弱化弱化 Weakening (of final consonant)-- (CVC to CVG)
–拍: [pʰac] > [pʰai]
–麥: [mac] > [mai]
–北: [pǝk] > [pǝi]
1. 北京話的過往• Loss of 入聲 – Literary vs colloquial contrast
• Immunity to changes in homeland / preservation of
features lost in homeland
– C.f. American English preservation of syllable-final /r/ vs non-rhotic British received pronunciation
– C.f. Iceland (enclave) vs Norway (homeland): Norwegian tradition of skaldic verse preserved only in Iceland, such that 10th C. Norwegian rulers employed mostly Icelandic poets.
– Dialect levelling: Mandarin used by Chinese yuppies in corporate settings in Beijing selectively incorporates features of Mandarin spoken in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore(Zhang 2005: 444-458)
– Use of “Cosmopolitan Mandarin” rather than “Beijing Mandarin” not for the purpose of communication, but for signal distinction in social status (Zhang 2005: 454-455)
– Speakers switch between regional Mandarin and “Cosmopolitan Mandarin” according to domain of language use – new type of Mandarin-based diglossia
Acquisition of H vs L H is nobody’s native language, whereas L is everybody’s native language
H is spoken natively by some, and L is spoken natively by some
Source of H language Archaic literary language (no restrictions)
Access to H language Small elite with access to literacy (no restrictions)
Differentiation of function Functions of H and L strictly compartmentalized (minimal overlap)
Some degree overlap between functions of H and L
Stability Typically stable (centuries or millenia) Typically unstable (3 generations)
Dissolution of diglossia Abrupt (revolution; breakdown of social order) Gradual
Direction of change H gives way to L L gives way to H
New prestige language L (with superstrate influence from H) H (with substrate influence from L)
Example H(Classical Chinese) vs L (vernacular Chinese) H(Mandarin)vs L (local dialect)
NARROW DIGLOSSIA: Classical vs vernacular Chinese
• Ferguson (1959) on Chinese
– “Chinese should be cited because it probably represents diglossia on the largest scale of any attested instance”(Ferguson 1959: 337-338)
– “Chinese, however, like modern Greek, seems to be developing away from diglossia toward a standard-with-dialects in that the standard L or a mixed variety is coming to be used in writing for more and more purposes, i.e., it is becoming a true standard.” (Ferguson 1959: 338)
NARROW DIGLOSSIA: Classical vs vernacular Chinese
Classic diglossia Classical Chinese
Dissolution of diglossia
Classic diglossia thrives in “preindustrial civil societies” with restricted literacy, and
“is most often removed at an early stage of
modernization” (Neustupny 1974: 40)
“the processes of modernization,
urbanization, mercantalism, and
industrialization ... create [demands] for a
literate labor force”, accompanied by “the
disestablishment of small ruling groups, the
breakdown of rigid class barriers and
increased fluidity of role relationships, and
the democratization of education, literacy, and knowledge that tend to
accompany these” (Hudson 2002:32)
“As China faced growing encroachment from
western countries and also from Japan in the
late 1800s and early 1900s, reformers
increasingly felt that China needed to
strengthen itself by promoting mass literacy
and education, and that Classical Chinese
was an unsuitable language to use for modern
mass education, partly because of its close
association with a traditional civilization that
did not offer China a way forward into
modernity and national power, and partly
because it was simply too difficult to teach” (Snow 2010: 161)
“decline of a classical variety is often
accompanied by catastrophic political events involving the breakdown of classical society itself” (Hudson 2002: 34)
The H-language “comes in with status and
elitism”, and “goes out under the pressures
of popular movements which we may call
nativist rebellions (Kahane 1986: 498)
The wholesale replacement of literary Chinese
with vernacular writing coincides largely with
the end of imperial rule in China,
culminating in the Vernacular Language
Movement (白話運動) of 1917 – this happening
within two short decades of the introduction of
western education in China, the abolition of
Confucian-style civil service examinations, and
the overthrow of the Qing dynasty. (Barnes 1982: 262)
2013-12-19
13
NARROW DIGLOSSIA: Classical vs vernacular Chinese
Classic diglossia Classical Chinese
Direction of change
“H ... tends to be displaced by L
through a process of structural
convergence resulting in the
emergence of a new standard
more closely related to certain
educated varieties of the
vernacular” (Hudson 2002: 30)
“the new socio-historical structure
creates a new literary
language out of the spoken
language then current” (Pulgram
1950: 461-462)
“Perhaps the most widely
publicized change in written
language habits from the traditional
period was marked by the decision,
reached in 1917, to write in such as
way as to approximate
contemporary vernacular
speech, discontinuing the centuries-
old practice among literate
individuals of writing in the classical
style, which had centuries earlier
ceased to function as a medium of
communication” (Barnes 1982: 262)
BROAD DIGLOSSIA: Mandarin vs local dialect
Broad diglossia
Acquisition of H vs L H is spoken natively by some, and L is spoken natively by some
Differentiation of function
Possible “leakage in function”, “mixing in form” (Fasold 1984: 54)
“[H and L] compete for realization in the same domains, situations, and role-
relations” (Fishman 1985: 45)
“Without separate though complementary norms and values to establish and
maintain functional separation of the speech varieties, that language or variety
which is fortunate enough to be associated with the predominant drift of social
forces tends to displace the other(s)” (Fishman 1967: 36)
Stability Will not survive beyond a three-generational span if H and L are unable to
carve out non-overlapping functional niches within the communicative ecology of
the community (Hudson 1001: 14)
Dissolution of diglossia “gradual hegemonic advance of the high variety and the displacement of
the low” (Hudson 1991: 7)
Direction of change “the language with stronger rewards sanctions associated with it wins out” (Fishman 1980: 8; 1985: 45)
“the general tendency appears to be for the higher-presige language
eventually to invade the domain of the home, ultimately displacing the language
of lesser prestige as a first language in the community” (Hudson 2002: 30)
New prestige language “over the long term, it is H that typically displaces L, often incorporating
certain substrate influences from L as it does so” (Hudson 1991: 10)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Standard Mandarin vs Vernacular
(including Peking dialect)
• Taiwan
• Shanghai
• Guangzhou (Canton)
• Singapore
• Malaysia
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS:
•Taiwan– microcosm of linguistic developments in China
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Mandarin promotion (1945-1987)
– Success of Mandarin Movement
• Population is 90% Mandarin-speaking (C. Li 2009: 136-137)
• Population has shifted to using Mandarin in most domains (Chen 2010: 86)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition (Too little too late?)
– General decline in language ability
• “The general complaint among most Southern Min and Hakka speakers with regard to language matters in the recent decade has been that their children (who very often can only speak Mandarin) can
no longer talk to their grandparents (who can only speak the
dialects)” (Tse 2000: 156)
• Use of dialect continues to decrease, use of Mandarin continues to increase (Huang 1988; Young 1989)
• “there is a good chance that the local languages will become obsolete as typewriters…Taiwanese has already started its decline towards inevitable extinction...the outlook for Taiwanese is very poor” (Beaser 2006: 16-17)
2013-12-19
14
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition
– General decline in language ability
• E.g., Hakka dialect attrition (Huang and Chen 2002: 57)
Full proficiency(listening+speaking)
No proficiency(listening+speaking)
19 & under 19.2 28.9
20-29 44.1 13.2
30-39 69.7 5.2
40-49 79.2 4.7
50-59 89.4 1.4
60+ 93.5 1.4
(Linear regression: no fully proficient Hakka speakers born after 2006)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition
– Neglect in education
– Failures of minority language media
– Changes in language attitude
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition
– Neglect in education
• Instruction hours (elementary school) (Ma 2011)
–Mandarin (17-24 hrs/wk)
– English (12-16 hr/wk)
– Indigenous languages / dialect (1 hr/wk)
» grades do not count
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition
– Neglect in education
• Parental attitudes
– “Mandarin is the common language of today, and English is the
language that will bring them to a prosperous future” (Beaser 2006: 11)
– Experts believe that dialects need to be taught to children while young,
because as they get older they will realize how useless these
languages are and lose all motivation to learn (Chiang and Ho 2008: 99).
• Lack of unified writing system (romanization)
– “local languages are widely used as a spoken form of communication,
but there has not been any significant move towards standardizing
them and making an official written orthography for Taiwanese
[dialects]” (Beaser 2006: 9)
• Lack of qualified instructors
– Even parents fluent in the dialects have trouble understanding what is
written in the textbooks, and few teachers really know how to teach
the dialects. Is it something that really needs to be taught? (Chiang & Ho 2008: 99)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition
– Failures of minority language media
• No audience
– Dialect media caters to an aging and uneducated audience; young
people rarely ever listen to dialect media (Chen and Lin 2004: 4)
• No advertising revenue
– Advertisers unwilling spend on programming that reaches only a small
audience (Chen and Lin 2004: 10)
• No competent broadcasters
– Hard to find broadcast professionals proficienty in all domains of dialect
use (frequent code-switching)
– Broadcasting often left to amateurs, resulting in low quality
programming (Chen and Lin 2004: 10)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition
– Changes in language attitude (J. Huang 2009: 8-10)
• Correlation with prestige:
– Mandarin as elegant;
– dialect as vulgar
• Correlation with age:
– Mandarin for speaking with young people;
– dialect for speaking with old people
• Correlation with class:
– Mandarin as white-collar;
– dialect as blue-collar
• Correlation with development:
– Mandarin as urban;
– dialect as rural
• Correlation with domain:
– Mandarin for all formal domains;
– dialect for informal domains only
2013-12-19
15
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Taiwan(microcosm of linguistic developments in China)
• Dialect attrition
– Changes in language attitude
• “if a person is judged as speaking Mandarin with a more standard accent, he or she would be more likely to be considered as highly-educated, high-class, smart, having higher income...” (Liao 2008: 402)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS:
•Shanghai– intergenerational dialect decline
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Shanghai(intergenerational dialect decline)
• Sun, Xiaoxian, Jiang, Bingbing, Wang, Yijia, Qiao, Lihua, 2007. Survey on the use of Standard Mandarin and Shanghainese dialect among students in the municipality of Shanghai. Yangtze River Academic 15, 1-10. (孫曉先、蔣冰冰、王頤嘉、喬麗華。2007。〈上海市學生普通話和上海話使用情況調查〉。《長江學術》15:1-10)
• Survey of 8,661 students in Shanghai area
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Shanghai(intergenerational dialect decline)
– Intergenerational rift: “Some Guangzhou parents complain their
children are now reluctant to speak Cantonese, even at home.” (Lai 2010)
– Decline of Cantonese-speaking population: “the Cantonese-
speaking community in the city has dwindled to less than half of the
total population” (Lai 2010)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Guangzhou(Summer 2010 language demonstrations)
• Result – series of demonstrations (Summer 2010)
– July 11: Small scale demonstrations (80+) in Guangzhou
– July 25: Large scale demonstrations (10,000+) in Guangzhou
– August 1: Mid scale demonstrations (1,000+) in Guangzhou and Hong Kong
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Guangzhou(Summer 2010 language demonstrations)
• July 25 demonstration slogan
– The people of Canton speak Cantonese;
– Those who don’t should go back to the boonies!
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Guangzhou(Summer 2010 language demonstrations)
• Implications
– The town that didn’t fight back (Nanning) (X. Chen 2010)
• “From the mid 1990s onwards, in the name of promoting Mandarin,
Cantonese dialect was gradually forced out of various spheres of life: first
Cantonese was banned from broadcast media, then from public
service announcements – for example, recorded announcements on
buses ceased to be bilingual and were given in Mandarin only. Finally,
Cantonese retreated from from the home: nowadays couples speak to
each other and to their children in Mandarin, and use Cantonese
only to speak to elderly relatives.”
• “Statistics show that less than 30% of the population of Nanning still
speak Cantonese dialect, most of which consist of the elderly. Of the
younger generation, those born in the 1970s are proficient still in both
listening and speaking, whereas those born in the 1980s can understand
Cantonese but have trouble speaking the dialect – contributing to the
perception that Mandarin is classy whereas Cantonese is uncouth”
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Singapore(former British colony, English widely promoted)
• Intervening factor -- government policy
– Shift to English
– Rise of Mandarin
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Singapore(former British colony, English widely promoted)
• Intervening factor -- government policy
– Shift to English
• Lee Kuan Yew (1978): “The way our economy has developed has made it necessary for those who want to reach executive or professional grades to master English, spoken and written. The earlier in life this is done the easier and better the
mastery” (Kwan-Terry 2010: 99)
• Economic utility -- English speakers command higher income (Composition of Singaporeans in the highest income group, after Kwan-Terry 2010: 100)
– Parents who didn’t speak English made sure that their children did (Kwan-Terry 2010: 100)
– Household language in the 1980s – Chinese with parents, but English
with siblings (Kwan-Terry 2010: 100-101)
English only 66.1%English and Chinese 20.5%Chinese only 2.0%Malay only 0%Tamil only 0%
2013-12-19
18
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Singapore(former British colony, English widely promoted)
• (If not English), use of Mandarin encouraged in the home to assist in the development of literacy
• Chinese-medium schools teach only Mandarin – dialects seen as “low status” (Kwan-Terry 2000: 102)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Singapore(former British colony, English widely promoted)
• Language most frequently spoken at home for Primary
One Chinese pupils (Kwan-Terry 2000: 98; reference to Business Times survey of
October 4, 1989)
Dialect Mandarin English
1980 64.4% 25.9% 9.3%
1984 26.9% 58.7% 13.9%
1989 7.2% 69.1% 23.3%
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRSMalaysia
• Decline of the Chinese dialects
• Encroachment of Mandarin
• Two holdouts
– Hokkien (a.k.a. Southern Min, Taiwanese)
– Cantonese
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Malaysia
• Decline of the Chinese dialects
– “The Chinese in Malaysia are fighting a losing battle in
trying to keep their colourful dialects alive.” (Ng 2010)
• Unfashionable: “Many among the younger generation view the use of dialects as outdated and unfashionable.” (Ng 2010)
• Generational Attrition: “Most of the younger generationnow could not speak dialects in their pure and uncorrupted form. They tend to use Malay, English or Mandarin words because they do not know the word in dialect for certain terms, especially modern and technological terms.” (Ng 2010)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Malaysia
• Encroachment of Mandarin
– “Listen in to conversations among Chinese in a shopping
mall or a restaurant, and chances are that most of them
would be speaking Mandarin or English or a mix of both
languages.” (Ng 2010)
• Economic utility: “The Chinese are practical. For a language to be relevant and important to them, it must have other values apart from the cultural aspect … Mandarin, unlike the dialects, has economic value, thanks largely to the growth of China as an economic powerhouse.” (Ng 2010)
• Education: “Today, a large number of Chinese children are in Chinese primary schools where Mandarin is the medium of
instruction.” (Ng 2010)
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS: Malaysia
• Two holdouts
– However, two Chinese dialects, Hokkein and
Cantonese, are still widely used in the community and
there are several reasons for this.
• Cantonese – “thanks to the thousands upon thousands of Cantonese movies and popular TV series being produced [in Hong Kong], not to mention all those catchy Cantonese songs and gorgeous pop stars.” (Ng 2010)
• Hokkien (Taiwanese; Southern Min) – “Hokkein TV series produced in Taiwan are also popular among Chinese in the region, including Malaysia.” (Ng 2010)
– “Entertainment is keeping the two languages popular
among Malaysian Chinese. It is sad as our dialects have
to depend on entertainment and not the cultural value
or as an heritage”. (Ng 2010)
2013-12-19
19
FUTURE PROSPECTS: Dissolution of diglossia
• Direction of change
FUTURE PROSPECTS: Dissolution of diglossia
• Direction of change
FUTURE PROSPECTS: Dissolution of diglossia
• Pertinent factors
– Education (language of instruction)
– Media (broadcast news and entertainment)
– Intergenerational attrition• “as the [younger generation] starts to create their own
households and have children, what will the language of their home be? Base on this model, we would assume it would become Mandarin, the language they are most comfortable speaking” (Beaser 2006: 12-13)
• Turning point: when children who only speak the standard language can no longer communicate with grandparents who only speak dialect
FUTURE PROSPECTS: Dissolution of diglossia
• Role of parents (c.f. 3 generation rule)
– Generation 1: 1960s & earlier (very limited social mobility)
• Parents: native speakers of local L language
– L: local L language (locally available)
–H: Standard Mandarin (extremely limited access; taught second
generation as learned variety in schools)
FUTURE PROSPECTS: Dissolution of diglossia• Reasons for revision
– Generation 2: 1990s (greater social mobility, widespread access to Mandarin)
– Availability (social mobility brings cross-dialect intermarriage; local L unavailable)
» “[Couples] may not understand each other’s dialect, and will end up speaking another language which is most likely to be English or Mandarin” (Ng 2010)
– Prestige + economic utility (Mandarin, English)
» “Even in Guangdong and Fujian, the strongholds of the Cantonese and Min dialects, more and more parents are abandoning their native dialects in favour of Putonghua, believing this will give their children better access to education and jobs.” (Yu 2010)
» "Children have to speak Putonghua at school anyway, so it's better for them to get used to it at home too," said a mother from Guangzhou, who speaks Putonghua to her son. (Yu 2010)
» "Many parents in my hometown feel the southern Min dialect is useless so they opt for Putonghua when speaking to their children," said Chen Weirong, a university student from Quanzhou, Fujian. (Yu 2010)
北京話的未來 (老北京話 vs 普通話)
• Application to Peking dialect
– L—Peking dialect 老北京話• Used in greater frequency by uneducated classes
• Used more often in informal situations
– H—Modern Standard Chinese 普通話• Used in greater frequency by educated classes
• Used more often in formal situations
• 北京话的纯度因受教育水平的提高而降低 (房豔紅 in 北京晚報 2012)
2013-12-19
20
3. 北京話的未來 (老北京話 vs 普通話)
• 老北京話(L) vs 普通話(H):
– Narrow or broad diglossia?
• Existence of 普通話 (H) native speakers in the midst of
老北京話 (L) speakers, enjoying higher social status
• Intrusion of 普通話 (H) into functional spheres
previously occupied by 老北京話 (L) speakers (leakage in
function)
3. 北京話的未來 (老北京話 vs 普通話)
• Decline of 老北京話 vs decline of other dialects:
– Language Attitude (北京晚報 2012.06.09)
• 詢問受訪者喜歡北京話還是普通話喜歡北京話還是普通話喜歡北京話還是普通話喜歡北京話還是普通話:
– 北京話(34%)
– 普通話(46%)
• 詢問受訪者希望孩子說什麼話希望孩子說什麼話希望孩子說什麼話希望孩子說什麼話:
– 北京話(37%)
– 普通話(49%)
•有些說很地道北京話的北京人都覺得北京話「土」。
3. 北京話的未來 (老北京話 vs 普通話)
• Decline of 老北京話 vs decline of other dialects:
– Language Attitude (北京晚報 2012.06.09)
•男女差異– 喜歡北京話(男42%;女24 % )
– 喜歡普通話(男35%;女56 % )
•世代交替– 年輕一代新移民(喜歡北京話6%;喜歡普通話85 % )
3. 北京話的未來 (老北京話 vs 普通話)
• Decline of 老北京話 vs decline of other dialects:
– Similarity between low (L) and high (H) varieties (北京晚報