Mediatized Taiwanese Mandarin: Popular Culture, Masculinity, and Social Perceptions (Sinophone and Taiwan Studies, 2) 981154221X, 9789811542213

Table of contents :
Preface
Acknowledgements
Contents
1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang
1.1 Gangtaiqiang: A Mediatized Mandarin Variety
1.2 Language Attitudes and Televised Media
1.3 Style, Mediation, and Change
1.4 Popular Culture and New Masculinities
1.5 Content and Structure of the Book
References
2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview
2.1 Socio-historical Background
2.2 Substrate Influence: Linguistic Features of Taiwanese Mandarin
2.3 The Oscillating of Co-verb gěi in Spoken Mandarin Varieties
2.3.1 Syntactic Properties of gěi
2.3.2 Sociolinguistic Hypotheses
2.4 Data and Methods
2.4.1 Informants
2.4.2 Procedure
2.5 Results
2.5.1 Elicitation Task
2.5.2 Acceptability Judgment Task
2.6 Discussion
2.7 Conclusion
References
3 Media Effects on Language Perceptions
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Matched-Guise Technique
3.3 Linguistic Variables: Postverbal gei and Aspectual you
3.4 Methodology
3.5 Data Analysis
3.6 Results
3.7 Discussion
3.7.1 Attitudes Toward TM
3.7.2 Media Effects on Acceptability
3.7.3 The Interaction Effects of Media and Attitudes
3.7.4 Regional Associations of Aspectual You
3.8 Conclusion
References
4 Performed Cuteness: The Mediatization of Taiwanese Mandarin
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Taiwanese Mandarin and Its Mediatization
4.3 Data and Methodology
4.4 Results
4.5 Discussion
4.5.1 Gendered Perceptions of TM
4.5.2 Perceived Divergence of TM from PTH
4.5.3 Gangtaiqiang: Declining Social Prestige on the Mainland
4.6 Conclusion
Appendix
References
5 New Masculinities in Online Discourse: A Text-Mining Approach
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Media Representations of Gender Ideologies in East Asia
5.3 New Models of Masculinity: A Transcultural Wave
5.4 Gendered Representation of Gangtaiqiang
5.5 Chinese Masculinity
5.6 Methodology
5.7 Results and Discussion
5.8 Conclusion
References
6 Changing Attitudes and Waning Prestige
6.1 Summary of Findings
6.2 Sociolinguistic Implications
6.3 Contributions and Future Directions
6.3.1 Language and Media
6.3.2 Chinese Linguistics
References
Index

Citation preview

Sinophone and Taiwan Studies 2

Chun-Yi Peng

Mediatized Taiwanese Mandarin Popular Culture, Masculinity, and Social Perceptions

Sinophone and Taiwan Studies Volume 2

Series Editors Shu-mei Shih, National Taiwan Normal University, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Henning Kloeter, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Jenn-Yeu Chen, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan Nikky Lin, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

This book series aims to stimulate and showcase the best of humanistic and social science research related to Sinophone communities and their cultures in Taiwan and around the globe. By combining Sinophone and Taiwan Studies in one book series, we hope to overcome the limitations of previous methodologies to explore the many aspects of Sinophone communities and Taiwan from expansive perspectives that are comparative, transnational, and relational. The foci of the book series include, but are not limited to, the complex relationship between locality and globality, the interrelations among various categories of identity (national, cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, linguistic, religious, and sexual), the states of multiculturalism versus creolization, the politics and economics of culture, diasporic and anti-diasporic practices and expressions, various forms and processes of colonialism (settler colonialism, formal colonialism, postcolonialism, neo-colonialism), as well as indigeneity. Series Editors: Shu-mei Shih (University of California, Los Angeles) Henning Kloeter (Humboldt University of Berlin) Jenn-Yeu Chen (National Taiwan Normal University) Nikky Lin (National Taiwan Normal University) Editorial Board: Yao-ting Sung (National Taiwan Normal University) Christopher Lupke (University of Alberta) Sung-Sheng (Yvonne) Chang (University of Texas at Austin) Ann Heylen (National Taiwan Normal University) Edward Anthony Vickers (Kyushu University) Kuei-fen Chiu (National Chung Hsing University) Ping-hui Liao (University of California, San Diego) Shuo-Bin Su (National Taiwan University) Chu Ren Huang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University) Margaret Hillenbrand (University of Oxford) Cheun Hoe Yow (Nanyang Technological University) Jia-Fei Hong (National Taiwan Normal University)

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/16251

Chun-Yi Peng

Mediatized Taiwanese Mandarin Popular Culture, Masculinity, and Social Perceptions

Chun-Yi Peng Modern Languages Department Borough of Manhattan Community College City University of New York New York, NY, USA

ISSN 2524-8863 ISSN 2524-8871 (electronic) Sinophone and Taiwan Studies ISBN 978-981-15-4221-3 ISBN 978-981-15-4222-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4222-0 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

Growing up speaking Mandarin on an island roughly the size of Maryland, I had no idea how diverse Mandarin could be until my senior year in college. That year I encountered speakers of other Mandarin varieties for the first time while studying abroad in Australia. The contrast between my own speech and theirs allowed me to perceive these features as variables. I was also told by a few students from China that I sounded like ‘the guy on TV’ or had a so-called ‘gangtai qiang’ (literally, Hong Kong-Taiwanese accent). Such reactions really baffled me as Hong Kong is predominately Cantonese-speaking, and the people there do not share similar speech patterns to Taiwanese when speaking Mandarin. Although I did not fully understand what it meant to be ‘the guy on TV’ at the time, I later came to realize that what is ‘standard’ to me may carry different social meanings for people in another social context. What is more interesting is that even those Chinese people who had little or no prior face-to-face interaction with Taiwanese people seemed to have a clear expectation of how a Taiwanese person should speak. My initial fascination with this linguistic phenomenon did not fade away with time but instead later evolved into my doctoral research project and this book. The studies in this book adopt both qualitative and quantitative methods—including text mining techniques—to investigate Chinese attitudes toward gangtai qiang, which has been overrepresented in the media culture available to mainlanders. This book assumes little to no prior knowledge about Taiwan or Mandarin. Its aim is to illuminate how televised media shapes language attitude and ideologies by unpacking the changing perceptions of Taiwanese Mandarin. New York, USA

Chun-Yi Peng

v

Acknowledgements

This book is a compilation of all the studies I have done on the mediatization of Taiwanese Mandarin over the last 10 years of my academic journey. The overarching project developed over a long stretch of time, leaving me with many people to thank. First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my M.A. and Ph.D. advisors, Dr. Suzanne Evans Wagner and Dr. Cecelia Cutler. I appreciate all their contributions of time, ideas, and patience. Their excellent guidance helped me throughout the research process when I was a graduate student and, most importantly, led me into the world of sociolinguistics. I am also greatly indebted to Dr. Chengshi Shiu for his constant and patient help with statistical analyses. The lexical network project presented in Chap. 5 was made possible by my colleague Nicholas Garcia at New York University. His valuable feedback and productive discussions have brought innovative approaches to the study of Taiwanese Mandarin. Special thanks go to my friend Scott Osdras who edited many earlier drafts of this book. All errors are solely my own. This work is supported by various funding sources, including the CUNY Doctoral Student Research Grants, PSC-CUNY Research Awards, and National Taiwan Normal University’s Chinese Language and Technology Center. Finally, I would also like to thank my home institution, Borough of Manhattan Community College, for the reassigned time I was given for this book project.

vii

Contents

1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Gangtaiqiang: A Mediatized Mandarin Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Language Attitudes and Televised Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Style, Mediation, and Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Popular Culture and New Masculinities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Content and Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1 3 6 8 9 10

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Socio-historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Substrate Influence: Linguistic Features of Taiwanese Mandarin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 The Oscillating of Co-verb gˇei in Spoken Mandarin Varieties . . . . . 2.3.1 Syntactic Properties of gˇei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Sociolinguistic Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Data and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Informants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Elicitation Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Acceptability Judgment Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 13 16 17 18 22 25 25 26 27 27 28 30 31 32

3 Media Effects on Language Perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Matched-Guise Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Linguistic Variables: Postverbal gei and Aspectual you . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 37 38 41 44 45 52 ix

x

Contents

3.7.1 Attitudes Toward TM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.2 Media Effects on Acceptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.3 The Interaction Effects of Media and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7.4 Regional Associations of Aspectual You . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Performed Cuteness: The Mediatization of Taiwanese Mandarin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Taiwanese Mandarin and Its Mediatization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.1 Gendered Perceptions of TM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.2 Perceived Divergence of TM from PTH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5.3 Gangtaiqiang: Declining Social Prestige on the Mainland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 53 54 56 57 58 61 61 63 65 66 67 67 70 73 74 75 78

5 New Masculinities in Online Discourse: A Text-Mining Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Media Representations of Gender Ideologies in East Asia . . . . . . . . 5.3 New Models of Masculinity: A Transcultural Wave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Gendered Representation of Gangtaiqiang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 Chinese Masculinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 81 83 85 86 87 89 91 95 96

6 Changing Attitudes and Waning Prestige . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Sociolinguistic Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Contributions and Future Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Language and Media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Chinese Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101 101 103 104 104 105 106

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Chapter 1

Introduction: Gangtaiqiang

Abstract This opening chapter introduces the concept of gangtaiqiang—literally Hong Kong-Taiwanese accent—a term used by many Chinese mainlanders to collectively refer to Hong Kong and Taiwanese Mandarin, even though the dominant language in Hong Kong is Cantonese. I argue that what many Chinese people perceive as ‘Taiwanese Mandarin’ is, in fact, a mediatized variety of Taiwanese Mandarin rather than the actual speech pattern of Taiwanese people. The book unfolds from here to discuss and debunk the popular misconceptions many Chinese have about Taiwanese Mandarin. Keywords Stereotypes · Televised media · Style · Mandarin varieties

1.1 Gangtaiqiang: A Mediatized Mandarin Variety On June 27, 2016, a newspaper in Guangzhou, China posted an article titled “How to Act Like a Rich Person.” The article says: 講普通話的, 最好帶一點輕微的台灣腔, 不要過, 過則討厭。講粵語的, 要用輕柔曖昧的 香港粵語, 女孩子記住每一句話末尾都要加一個嗲嗲的港式 “啦”, 好像銅鑼灣就是自 己的老家。 When you speak Mandarin, affect a bit of a Taiwanese accent, but don’t overdo it. It becomes annoying if you overdo it. When you speak Cantonese, use the gentle and soft Hong Kong Cantonese. If you’re a woman, make sure you end all your sentences with the babyish particle ‘la,’ making you sound like you are from Causeway Bay.

The quoted news article provides a glimpse of the perception of Taiwanese Mandarin (TM) and Hong Kong Cantonese on the mainland. Featuring the attractiveness of infantilized female speech, both varieties are deemed desirable by some Chinese mainlanders (Zhang 2017). Thus, despite the fact that they are two distinct varieties, they are collectively referred to as gangtai qiang ‘Hong Kong-Taiwanese accent.’ This is perhaps because many Hong Kong TV series and movies—originally produced in Cantonese—were dubbed by TM speakers for many years when Parts of this chapter have appeared in Peng, Chun-Yi. 2018. Mediatized Taiwan Mandarin: Social perceptions and language ideologies. Chinese Language and Discourse 9(2), 162–183. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-Y. Peng, Mediatized Taiwanese Mandarin, Sinophone and Taiwan Studies 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4222-0_1

1

2

1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang

China launched its economic reform in the 1970s, reconnecting with Hong Kong and Taiwan since 1949, at the end of the Chinese Civil War (Chong and Tan 2013). At the time, cultural products (e.g. pop music, film, and TV dramas) from overseas Chinese communities such as Hong Kong and Taiwan flooded the fledgling pop culture market due to their linguistic and cultural proximity (Zhang 2005; Zhu 2008; Gold 1993). To many young Chinese mainlanders, these cultural products represented a prosperous modern cosmopolitan lifestyle and a new urban identity (Zhang 2005: 437). TM has since been valorized with positive social connotations. Some mainland TV show hosts even participate in both styling and stylization by employing linguistic features associated with Mandarin varieties spoken in Hong Kong and Taiwan (Zhu 2008). However, the so-called gangtai qiang was not representative of the actual speech patterns of Taiwanese people at the time. As diverse as Taiwan was, the idea of gangtai qiang represented only the ‘standard’ speech pattern promoted—or perhaps even imposed—in the televised media by the Taiwanese government since the 1950s. The concept of gangtai qiang, in fact, manifests the influence of televised media in shaping language ideology. As TM is increasingly recognized as a distinct variety of Mandarin, gangtaiqiang has gradually been replaced by taiwanqiang ‘Taiwan accent.’ For Chinese mainlanders, gangtaiqiang is often associated with the style used by Taiwanese talk show hosts and drama actors. The so-called gangtaiqiang, as a mediatized variety of Mandarin, has become a socially recognizable form or stereotype for many Chinese mainlanders who have little or no face-to-face interaction with TM speakers. Gangtaiqiang should, therefore, be conceptualized as a mediatized variety of Mandarin rather than as the actual speech of people in Hong Kong or Taiwan. This discussion of gangtaiqiang opens up theoretical conversations within the frameworks of variationist sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology. Many variationist sociolinguists discounted the homogenizing effect of televised mass media for what seemed like two obvious reasons: (1) continuing diversification of nonstandard English dialects (Labov 2001: 228; Chambers 1998) and (2) lack of live social interaction between the television and its audience. The popular prediction that broadcast media would instigate widespread standardization was refuted by the rigorous maintenance of local dialect diversity found in many sociolinguistic studies (Labov 2001: 228; Chambers 1998). The traditional view is that exposure to standard language does not seem to cause people to give up their own dialects. However, this view is being increasingly questioned as sociolinguists begin to look at media and language change in an increasingly mediatized world characterized by the rapid rise of digital forms of communication. Androutsopoulos (2014) introduced the notions of sociolinguistic change and mediatization to broaden the theoretical scope for the study of media and language variation. Variationist sociolinguists have traditionally examined the influences of social factors on systematic language change. More recently, many scholars (e.g. Jaffe 2009, 2011; Agha 2011) in linguistic anthropology have conceptualized mass media and language variation as parts of a “mutually constitutive process” (Coupland 2014) and have proposed the notion of mediatization to grapple with the changing relationship between language and society. According to Agha (2007), mass media

1.1 Gangtaiqiang: A Mediatized Mandarin Variety

3

draw upon individuals’ semiotic experience to reinforce the recognition of the link between linguistic features and social personae. In other words, mass media play a role in facilitating the formation and dissemination of registers (or the process of enregisterment) that connects communicative signs to other non-linguistic signs (Agha 2007). The dissemination of a register relies on the circulation of messages through either face-to-face interaction between people or other more indirect forms of communication such as televised media or computer-mediated communication. Although it is still unclear how televised media influence a speaker’s choice of variants, it is obvious that media lead to heightened meta-cultural and sociolinguistic reflexivity, including awareness of different ways of speaking (see also Agha 2007; Buchstaller 2014; Staehr 2014). Television viewers who have media exposure to non-local linguistic features may later incorporate these features into their stylistic repertoires in innovative ways (Carvalho 2004; Stuart-Smith et al. 2013; Buchstaller 2014). This can be done by using socially meaningful linguistic variables to construct a particular identity (i.e. styling, see also Coupland 2007; Eckert 2012) or by using outgroup linguistic styles (i.e. crossing, see also Rampton 1999). The effects of broadcast media on subsequent social behaviors can, in fact, be empirically established if more social variables, such as language attitudes, are taken into consideration.

1.2 Language Attitudes and Televised Media The study of language attitudes has received much scholarly attention in sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, and the social psychology of language. Central to this interdisciplinary investigation is social evaluation with respect to linguistic variation. This can be conceptualized as a process of social categorization and stereotyping (see Edwards 1999; Giles and Marlow 2011; Ryan et al. 1982). Experimental work on language attitudes depart from an intergroup perspective (e.g. Ryan et al. 1982; Dragojevic 2016). These studies examine evaluative reactions toward different linguistic styles with two major factors: status and solidarity (e.g. Newman et al. 2008; Dragojevic et al. 2016; Giles and Marlow 2011; Ryan et al. 1982). Status, or more precisely socioeconomic status, reflects intragroup relationships. For instance, the social evaluations elicited by standard versus nonstandard accents can be rather different depending on speakers’ status within the group (e.g. Dragojevic et al. 2016). Solidarity, on the other hand, is concerned with intergroup relationships as people tend to identify more closely with people who share their own accent. More recent work on language attitudes is dedicated to investigating the social meanings of phonological features and thus provide a solid framework for research of this kind. Many recent models of language attitudes focus on the sense-making process during which people retroactively understand their past interactions and relationships with other people. Examples include the interactive model and the interaction-based model (Giles and Marlow 2011; Giles and Raki´c 2014). As Giles and Rakic (2014) point out, language attitudes are not just a mental output but rather also a socially meaningful input that guides one’s behavior. Positive attitudes are more likely to promote

4

1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang

convergence toward speakers perceived to have a relatively higher group vitality in one’s in-group (Giles 2016; Palomares et al. 2016). Media has been found to be an important agent that contributes to the socialization of language-based attitudes (Dragojevic et al. 2016). Most of the arguments against the effect of broadcast media on language variation are based on the evidence that exposure to Standard English through broadcast media has not resulted in leveling (e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985; Chambers 1998; Labov 2001). Many sociolinguists adhere to the idea that social and regional dialects undergo a range of language changes catalyzed by social factors in various local speech communities. However, these studies (e.g. Milroy and Milroy 1985; Chambers 1998; Labov 2001) were conducted in social contexts with a prestigious standard language variety and a stigmatized non-standard variant. The story can be different if a non-standard variety connotes prestige. Naro’s (1981) study of spoken Brazilian Portuguese indicates significant positive correlation between the use of subject/verb agreement and reported exposure to popular dramas. This was motivated by the desire to associate with higher socioeconomic classes. Another study of Brazilian Portuguese by Carvalhos (2004) claims there is no significant correlation between media exposure and the spread of innovative palatalization from Brazilian to Uruguayan Portuguese. This is despite the fact that her informants attributed the spread of this feature to Brazilian television shows. Carvalhos claims that this process was indirectly accelerated by broadcast media exposure. Although in both studies there is not enough evidence to show a causal effect of media exposure on the production of certain linguistic features, media exposure may serve as a secondary factor at the perception level. Stuart-Smith et al. (2013) investigates the rapid proliferation of TH-fronting and L-vocalization in Glaswegian English with respect to exposure to a London-based TV soap drama. Their findings suggest that popular TV dramas can act as additional accelerating factors in linguistic change. Again, due to the absence of live interaction, exactly how media exposure interacts with language use is subject to debate. To date, evidence has shown that, at the perceptual level, media may play a role in raising awareness of innovative forms (e.g. Naro 1981) and/or accelerating linguistic change (Carvalhos 2004; Stuart-Smith et al. 2013). Broadcast media may have, in some way, contributed to the spread of the ‘global linguistic variant’ quotative be like (e.g. ‘she was like, no way!’) among teenagers across English-speaking countries. The rapid diffusion of quotative be like among teenagers across continents in such a short period of time supports the role of broadcast media in linguistic diffusion. Buchstaller (2014) associates the spread of this innovative linguistic form with broadcast media, positing that, as adolescents across continents do not have the opportunity for live interaction with each other, broadcast media is a possible conduit for the global propagation of innovative quotatives. However, the effect of media—especially television—on language use is still controversial. Buchstaller suggests that broadcast media may be viewed as a possible source for the spread of attitudes, stances, and ideologies, given that the effect of media consumption on the non-linguistic social behavior of consumers has been empirically attested (Strasburger 1995: 13; McQuail 2000: 436).

1.2 Language Attitudes and Televised Media

5

Sayers (2014: 203) proposes a ‘mediated innovation model’ (Fig. 1.1) where the conventional roles of personal contact are largely replaced by media engagement. This allows for creative and emotional involvement without face-to-face contact between the disconnected source and adopting communities. Mediation is viewed as the transmission process from the source speech community to the media text where non-standard vernaculars are (re)produced (Coupland 2009; Sayers 2014). In other words, when Taiwanese characters are represented on TV shows, TM is entering media texts through mediation. The linguistic features of TM are then broadcast to the audience which is the potential speech-adopting community in Sayers’s model (see Fig. 1.1). The ovals in the diagram represent language inventory. The dotted background represents social networks through which diffusion occurs. The social network is denser within speech communities than outside of it. The do—ts do not permeate either the media texts or the processes of mediation and broadcast. Again, this model—as well as studies on media influence—does not suggest the idea of “blanket transmission from media source[s] to passive speakers/viewers” (Sayers 2014), nor is it meant to suggest that the homogenizing effect of media will make people’s speech more similar. Instead, Sayer’s model focuses on broadcast media as a new line of enquiry to account for non-local innovations in low-motility speech communities. From an anthropological perspective, Agha (2011) suggests that mediatized experiences are preceded by non-mediatized ones. Mediatized representations of cultural practice presuppose shared understandings of sociological types or memberships. Agha (2005) refers to the process of forming this shared understanding as enregisterment. Such experiences, or semiotic encounters, will subsequently be invoked in real life (Agha 2011). That is to say, the audience will not adopt all the features they hear from televised media. Rather they will adopt only those features useful for projecting some aspect of identity, and in this case these features are often assigned new situated

Fig. 1.1 Sayer’s (2014) hypothetical mediated innovation model

6

1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang

meanings (e.g. sophistication, erudition, urbanity, etc.). Therefore, mass media plays the role of facilitating the formation and dissemination of register (i.e. the process of enregisterment) that connects communicative signs to other non-linguistic signs (Agha 2007). Instead of taking this process as either convergence or divergence, it should be conceptualized as a process of bricolage in which variables from different sources are combined to construct new social meanings (Eckert 2008). In Zhang’s (2005) study, young working professionals in Beijing adopt non-local features to project a new social identity as opposed to wanting to sound like, or “pass,” as someone from elsewhere. The subjects only pick up certain features that can be used as a stylistic resource (Stuart-Smith 2007; Stuart-Smith et al. 2013). These are usually features that have been assigned social meanings with which speakers can project a different persona. Other than adopting a different style to project a new social identity, what is also commonly observed in broadcast media is stylization. A speaker’s style is defined by the use of both linguistic and non-linguistic features to construct their own social identity. Stylization is the development of culturally familiar styles that are not associated with the current speaking context. It uses linguistic features to mimic or put on another’s identity (Coupland 2011). Stylization often takes place in specific communicative contexts and at specific linguistic or semiotic levels where its effects are created and experienced much more locally. It can also be viewed as a process of “deauthentication” that involves performing noncurrent-first-person personas (Coupland 2011). For example, Coupland (2001) looks at data from English-language national radio broadcasts in Wales. In the morning light entertainment show “The Roy Noble Show,” the hosts play with the monophthongal and diphthongal variants of (ou) and (ei), where monophthongal forms are considered non-standard. These two phonological variables serve as a stylistic and semiotic resource for the host to be linked to Welshness. Such linguistic practices have also been adopted by some Chinese TV show hosts on the mainland. They participate in both styling and stylization by using linguistic features associated with Mandarin varieties spoken in Hong Kong and Taiwan (Zhu 2008). This in a way draws attention to the language attitudes that underlie such linguistic practices.

1.3 Style, Mediation, and Change Even though face-to-face interaction has been the traditional venue for the investigation of linguistic change, more and more aspects of social life are mediated, and new forms of media have emerged to become where ‘the social’ is experienced. Media have accelerated and intensified the metalinguistic and metapragmatic potential of situated language use. In other words, media increasingly shape how meanings are made and interpreted through linguistic and semiotic performances, and the reflexive processes of meaning making are known to many sociolinguists as style. Style is construed to be a distinctive mode of social action. Social meanings are not inherent in utterances but are made relative to normative patterns of association. Style—as a dimension of sociolinguistic variation—has assumed importance in semiotic theory

1.3 Style, Mediation, and Change

7

(North American context of linguistic anthropology) and discourse analysis (European) (Mortensen et al. 2017). Agha explored Silverstein’s concept of indexical order to theorize how style or registers gain cultural recognition through the process of enregisterment. Eckert (2012) viewed the third wave of sociolinguistic studies as centered on style, which could be understood as a way of persona management. Eckert (2012) views sociolinguistic studies of linguistic variation as rooted in one of three loosely ordered waves. The first wave looks at the relationship between language variation and demographic categories, such as economic and social class, age, and ethnicity (e.g. Labov 1972). The second wave explores the relationship between variation and local, participant-designed categories. Second wave studies often uncover local meanings assigned to these demographic categories. From the perspective of the first and second wave studies, identity is viewed as a stable construct. People and their language use are usually defined by gender, class, ethnicity, geographic origins, and other traits. Building on the results of the first and second wave studies, third wave studies focus on the social meaning of linguistic variables. Style becomes the focus of the so-called ‘Third Wave’ of variation studies, where linguistic variables with social meanings contribute to the construction of a particular style (Eckert 2012). According to Eckert (2000: 1), linguistic style is ‘the locus of an individual’s internalization of broader social distribution of variation.’ In summary, style not only reflects but also constructs a particular social identity and can ultimately motivate language variation (Irvine and Gal 2000; Giles et al. 1991; Coupland 2007). Many third wave studies have explored the social meanings attached to linguistic features (e.g. Podesva 2007; Campbell-Kibler 2007; Zhang 2005). Following these trajectories, this book explores how TM is styled and stylized by both Taiwanese and Chinese celebrities in mass media to project new personae, as well as how these personae are perceived differently over time due to the changing power dynamics between Taiwan and China. I will come back to the identity dimensions of style in Chap. 3. Researchers have drawn upon the concept of ‘sociolinguistic change’ to capture the changing relationships between language and society (Androutsopoulos 2014; Mortensen et al. 2017). The concept of sociolinguistic change provides the essential backdrop against which speech style is interpreted, as stylistic innovation is oftentimes consequential to sociolinguistic change. Therefore, how meanings are made has become pivotal to the discussion of style. Much scholarly attention has been given to what language-related changes are consequential to sociolinguistic change, for who and under what conditions. The social meanings of a speech style are made relative to the normative association between linguistic and contextual categories. Such normative association is realized in popular culture. Since styling and stylization in popular culture usually presuppose mediation (Mortensen et al. 2017), this book is primarily concerned with ‘the mediatization of social life.’ This includes how the social meanings of style are interpreted in popular culture and how the mediatized representation of such a culture transforms our perceptions of a language and the speakers thereof.

8

1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang

1.4 Popular Culture and New Masculinities Sociolinguistic accounts of style in popular culture focus on how to draw on the association of linguistic and semiotic performance to enact distinctiveness. As the results of the studies presented in this book point to a gendered perception of TM, the discussion of language and masculinity becomes central to my analyses, namely the role of Chinese masculinity in making the semiotic link between the qualities of masculinity and linguistic practices. The complex relationships between language and masculinity have received much scholarly attention in sociolinguistics (e.g. Seidler 2006; Ehrlich and Levesque 2011; Milani 2013, 2015; Baker and Levon 2016). However, the majority of masculinity research focuses on how white, heterosexual, middle-class men use language to maintain their privilege and power (Lawson 2020). There is also increasing interaction with queer (Baker and Balirano 2018) and nonhegemonic masculinities (Milani 2013; Brewer 2018). Much less work has been done in the context of East Asia. This book builds on Baker and Levon’s (2016) work of the racialized and classed ‘new men’ image in UK print media. The socalled ‘new man’ is constructed as “a more sensitive, caring and anti-sexist type of man who worries about his own physical appearance and is happy to do his share of domestic labor” (Baker and Levon 2016, see also Chapman 1988; Rutherford 1988; Gough 2001; Beynon 2002). The ‘new man’ image is well in line with the trend of versatile masculinity in East Asia. In the context of East Asia, similar concepts of metrosexuality have also been constructed through televised media and consumed transculturally (e.g. Iwabuchi 2002; Jung 2010; Yueh 2016). On September 5th, 2018, BBC news posted an article titled ‘flowerboys and the appeal of “soft masculinity” in South Korea.’ The article engages with a soft masculinity image—also known as ‘flower boy’—represented in Korean media. In Korea, images of men wearing make-up are permeating mass media and are widely consumed via the influence of K-pop. But as Jung (2010) argues, it is not feminine and instead should be conceptualized as hybrid or versatile masculinity—soft yet manly at the same time—rather than feminization. Departing from the changing norms of masculinity in Korea (Jung 2010), I will discuss how this new type of soft masculinity is redefining the model of ‘masculinity’ and ‘masculine language’ in the Sinophone world. Moskowitz (2009) noted that Taiwanese Mandopop often portrays a meek male identity—perhaps androgynous by Western standards—posing a stark contrast to the hypermasculine ethos in Beijing rock. In mainland China, this type of soft masculinity has sparked online debates. Some embrace this new type of modern masculinity, while others resist it and call it girly and effeminate. In Taiwan, soft masculinity is much more socially accepted, especially in televised media (see also Moskowitz 2009; Yueh 2016). Many male actors adopt such a style of fashion or speech to appeal to mass female audiences. This gives Taiwanese Mandarin its iconic girly stereotype in the eyes of many Chinese mainlanders.

1.5 Content and Structure of the Book

9

1.5 Content and Structure of the Book This book explores the potential effects of televised media on the grammatical and social perceptions of language. Gangtaiqiang, as a mediatized conception of TM, provides fertile ground for this topic. More specifically, this book delves into how language ideologies have emerged through a combination of indexical and ideological processes in televised media. In addition to this Introduction, this book contains six chapters. In what follows, I outline their central themes and common points of interest. Chapter 2 provides a sociolinguistic overview of TM. I review the development of Mandarin in Taiwan, including some of its salient linguistic features. I then contextualize how TM has acquired changing social meanings both locally and globally. Chapter 3 examines the effects of media exposure on acceptability judgments. This chapter aims to answer the question of whether increased exposure to Taiwanese TV shows boosts the likelihood that non-local linguistic features are rated as grammatically acceptable. The results of the study suggest an intertwined relationship in which the effects of media exposure on acceptability judgments are moderated by language attitudes. Continuing along the line of mediatization, Chap. 4 presents a qualitative study using online surveys to explore how language ideologies have emerged vis-à-vis TM among Chinese mainlanders. This chapter examines how TV celebrities stylize with TM to enact a particular type of youthful cuteness. More generally it reflects how dramatic characters draw upon linguistic repertoires in the construction of new personae and in what ways shifting gender ideologies are embodied in these personae. The study focuses on the millennials growing up in the Beijing and Tianjin areas to highlight the stark perceptual contrast of TM between the local and non-local communities. Chapter 5 adopts text mining techniques to investigate gangtaiqiang in online discourse. This chapter combines rich qualitative analyses with the large sample sizes provided by quantitative analysis. The analyses point to new models of masculinity in line with the transnational flow of ‘soft masculinity’ from South Korea. This chapter speaks to the recent trend of using advanced quantitative methods to analyze larger and more complex online datasets to understand patterns of language use across regions, social groups, and communicative situations. The book concludes with Chap. 6, which draws upon Bourdieu’s notion of linguistic market to account for shifting attitudes toward TM. The chapter suggests that Chinese mainlanders’ attitudes towards TM are beginning to align more with China’s considerable political and economic power. This has led to the emergence of new social meanings for TM in the Chinese linguistic marketplace.

10

1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang

References Agha, A. (2005). Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 38–59. Agha, A. (2007). Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Agha, A. (2011). Meet mediatization. Language and Communication, 31(3), 163–170. Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Mediatization and sociolinguisic change. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Baker, P., & Balirano, G. (Eds.). (2018). Queering masculinities in language and culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Baker, P., & Levon, E. (2016). ‘That’s what I call a Man’: Representations of racialized and classed masculinities in the UK print media. Gender & Language, 10(1), 106–139. Beynon, J. (2002). Masculinities and culture. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Brewer, M. (2018). Good ol’ country boys playin’ on the farm: Online articulations of rural masculinity by men who have sex with men. Sexuality and Culture, 22, 355–379. Buchstaller, I. (2014). Quotatives: New trends and sociolinguistic implications. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. Campbell-Kibler, K. (2007). Accent, (ING), and the social logic of listener perceptions. American speech, 82(1), 32–64. Carvalho, A. M. (2004). I speak like the guys on TV: Palatalization and the urbanization of Uruguayan Portuguese. Language Variation and Change, 127–151. Chambers, J. K. (1998). TV makes people sound the same. In L. Bauer & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Language myths (pp. 123–131). New York: Penguin. Chapman, R. (1988). The great pretender: Variations on the new man theme. In R. Chapman & J. Rutherford (Eds.), Male order: Unwrapping masculinity (pp. 225–248). London: Lawrence & Wishart. Chong, R. H., & Tan, Y.-Y. (2013). Attitudes toward accents of Mandarin in Singapore. Chinese Language and Discourse, 4(1), 120–140. Coupland, N. (2001). Dialect stylisation in radio talk. Language in Society, 30, 345–375. Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coupland, N. (2009). The mediated performance of vernaculars. Journal of English Linguistics, 284–300. Coupland, N. (2011). The sociolinguistics of style. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 138–156). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coupland, N. (2014). Sociolinguistic change, vernacularization and broadcast British media. In J. Androutsopoulos (Ed.), Mediatization and sociolinguisic change (pp. 67–98). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Dragojevic, M. (2016). Language attitudes as intergroup terrain. In H. Giles & A. Maass (Eds.), Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 51–66). New York: Peter Lang. Dragojevic, M., Mastro, D., Giles, H., & Sink, A. (2016). Silencing nonstandard speakers: A content analysis of accent portrayals on American primetime television. Language in Society, 45, 59–85. Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic variation as social practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476. Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100. Edwards, J. R. (1999). Refining our understanding of language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 101–110. Ehrlich, S., & Levesque, S. (2011). The strategic marginalization of working class masculinity in a batterers’ treatment programme. Gender & Language, 5, 271–301. Giles, H. (2016). The social origins of CAT. In H. Giles (ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal and social identities across contexts (pp. 1–12). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

References

11

Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 7–21). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H., & Marlow, M. (2011). Theorizing language attitudes: Existing frameworks, an integrative model, and new directions. Annals of the International Communication Association, 35, 161–197. Giles, H., & Raki´c, T. (2014). Language attitudes: Social determinants and consequences of language variation. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 11–26). New York, UK: Oxford University Press. Gold, T. B. (1993). Go with your feelings: Hong Kong and Taiwan popular culture in Greater China. The China Quarterly, 907–925. Gough, B. (2001). “Biting Your Tongue”: Negotiating masculinities in contemporary Britain. Journal of Gender Studies, 10, 169–185. Irvine, J. T., & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities and identities (pp. 35–84). Santa Fe: School for American Research Press. Iwabuchi, K. (2002). Reentering globalization: Popular culture and Japanese transnationalism. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Jaffe, A. (2009). Entexualization, mediatization, and authentication: Orthographic choice in media transcript. Text & Tal, 29(5), 571–594. Jaffe, A. (2011). Sociolinguistic diversity in mainstream media: Authenticity, authority and processes of mediation and mediatization. Journal of Language and Politics, 10(4), 562–586. Jung, S. (2010). Korean masculinities and transcultural consumption: Yonsama, Rain, Oldboy, K-Pop Idols. Hong Kong University Press. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell. Lawson, R. (2020). Language and masculinities: History, development, and future. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 409–434. McQuail, D. (2000). McQuail’s mass communication theory (4th ed.). London: Sage. Milani, T. (2013). Are “queers” really “queer”? Language, identity and same-sex desire in a South African online community. Discourse & Society, 24, 615–633. Milani, T. (2015). Theorizing language and masculinities. In T. Milani (Ed.), Language and masculinities: Performances, intersections, dislocations (pp. 8–33). London: Routledge. Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Mortensen, J., Coupland, N., & Thogersen, J. (Eds.). (2017). Style, mediation and change: Sociolinguistic perspectives on talking media. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moskowitz, M. L. (2009). Cries of joy, songs of sorrow: Chinese pop music and its cultural connotations. Honalulu: University of Hawaii Press. Naro, A. J. (1981). The social and structural dimensions of a syntactic change. Language, 57, 63–98. Newman, M., Trenchs-Parera, M., & Ng, S. (2008). Normalizing bilingualism: The effects of the Catalonian linguistic normalization policy one generation after 1. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(3), 306–333. Palomares, N. A., Giles, H., Soliz, J., & Gallois, C. (2016). Intergroup accommodation, social categories, and identities. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 123–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Podesva, R. (2007). Phonation type as a stylistic variable: The use of falsetto in constructing a persona. Journal of sociolinguistics, 11, 478–504. Rampton, B. (1999). Styling the other: Introduction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 421–427. Rutherford, J. (1988). Who’s that man? In R. Chapman & J. Rutherford (Eds.), Male order: Unwrapping masculinity (pp. 21–67). London: Lawrence & Wishart.

12

1 Introduction: Gangtaiqiang

Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., & Sebastian, R. J. (1982). An integrative perspective for the study of attitudes toward language variation. In E. B. Ryan & H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes toward language variation (pp. 1–19). London: Edward Arnold. Sayers, D. (2014). The mediated innovation model: A framework for researching media influence in language change. Journal of sociolinguistics, 18(2), 185–212. Seidler, V. (2006). Transforming masculinities: Men, cultures, bodies, power, sex and love. London: Routledge. Staehr, A. (2014). The appropriation of transcultural flows among Copenhagen youth—The case of Illuminati. Discourse, Context and Media, 4(5), 101–115. Strasburger, V. (1995). Adolescents and the media: Medical and psychological impact. London: Sage. Stuart-Smith, J. (2007). The influence of media on language. In C. Llamas, L. Mullany, & P. Stockwell (Eds.), The Routledge companion to sociolinguistics (pp. 140–148). London: Routledge. Stuart-Smith, J., Pryce, G., Timmins, C., & Gunter, B. (2013). Television can also be a factor in language change: Evidence from an urban dialect. Language, 89(3), 501–536. Yueh, H.-I. S. (2016). Identity politics and popular culture in Taiwan: A Sajiao generation. Lexington Books. Zhang, Q. (2005). A Chinese Yuppie in Beijing. Language in Society, 34, 431–466. Zhang, Q. (2017). Language and social change in China: Undoing commonness through cosmopolitan Mandarin. New York: Routledge. Zhu, Y. (2008). Television in post-reform China: Serial dramas, confucian leadership and the global television market. London, New York: Routledge.

Chapter 2

Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

Abstract This chapter begins with a sociolinguistic overview of Taiwanese Mandarin including some of its features, one of them being the postverbal placement of the gˇei-phrase. Using this feature as an example, the second half of the chapter examines the potential social factors that influence the choice of pre- and postverbal variants. With both production and perception data, the study suggests that substrate influence from speakers’ home vernaculars plays a crucial role in deciding the placement of the gˇei-phrase. The results, however, merit more research to unpack the complex role of social factors in regional variations. Keywords gˇei · Co-verb · Constituent order · Geographical distribution · Regional variation

2.1 Socio-historical Background Taiwan is an island separated from the southeast coast of mainland China by the Taiwan Strait. From 1949 when the Chinese Civil War ended, which resulted in the creation of Taiwan as a separate political entity, until 1987 when the Taiwanese government began allowing limited family visits, Taiwan was disconnected from mainland China. Political tension severed contact between people across the Strait. During this period of separation, TM started to diverge from Beijing Mandarin. It started receiving much scholarly attention after Kubler’s (1981, 1985) pioneering work which identified TM as a linguistic outcome of language contact between Mandarin and the local languages in Taiwan, such as Taiwanese Southern Min and Hakka. Many phonological and lexical features of TM can be attributed to the substrate influence of these local languages (Kubler 1981, 1985). Many subsequent studies on TM (e.g. Cheng 1985; Teng 2002; Tseng 2003; Kuo 2005) continue along this line and look more closely into the formation of this Mandarin variety as well as its divergence from Beijing Mandarin. These studies suggest that the deviation of TM from MSM was motivated both by substrate influence from local Taiwanese Parts of this chapter has appeared in Peng, Chun-Yi. 2020. The placement of co-verb gei in spoken Mandarin Varieties: A study on regional influences. Chinese Language and Discourse 11(2), 335– 354. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021 C.-Y. Peng, Mediatized Taiwanese Mandarin, Sinophone and Taiwan Studies 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4222-0_2

13

14

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

languages and dialects, and by normal linguistic divergence due to a long period of social separation as Taiwanese developed their own cultural and social identity over time. Influenced by theso-called “third-wave”1 sociolinguistics studies, more recent studies look at the varying attitudes towards TM, either among TM speakers themselves (e.g. Liao 2008, 2010; Baran 2014; Su 2008) or among Mainland Chinese (e.g. Juan 2011). Aside from TM, the language politics and power relations of Taiwanese (a.k.a. Tai-yu) and Taiwanese-accented Mandarin also receive scholarly attention (e.g. Wei 2008; Su 2008). Taken together, all these works serve to show that language ideologies are rather dynamic. They are constantly changing, and—to a certain extent—reflecting politics and socioeconomic status of the speakers in relation to the perceivers. Transitions of socio-political power often come with drastic change of language ideologies. Residents of the island have seen languages that were banned by one set of rulers but promoted by the next, and vernaculars marked backwardness in one period coming over time to signal all that is progressive. I will start the discussion with the example of Taiwanese-accented Mandarin (Taiwan Guoyu),2 a variety of Mandarin spoken by speakers who have a strong Taiwanese accent. The past 100 years have seen Taiwan’s series of dramatic political transformations, many of which have been accompanied by equally dramatic linguistic reversals. Mandarin was first mandated in Taiwan as an official language in 1940s when the Nationalist (a.k.a. KMT) government retreated to Taiwan after the Chinese Civil War. At the time Mandarin was learned and used by many children of Taiwanese speakers, and the use of Taiwanese or other home vernaculars was strictly prohibited at school. Many of these children grew up speaking Mandarin with a strong Taiwanese influence on their Mandarin phonology and lexicon. The so-called Taiwanese-accented Mandarin had been socially stigmatized for a long time, often associated with a rural and less-educated identity. The ability to speak ‘standard Mandarin’ was highly recognized. However, for the past two decades, with the transition of political power and the anti-China ideology permeating Taiwanese society, the social connotation of Taiwanese-accented Mandarin has been upended. Thanks largely to Taiwan’s former president (in office 2000–2008), Shui-bian Chen, who was a speaker of Taiwaneseaccented Mandarin, and who constantly code-switched between Taiwanese and Mandarin in his public addresses, Taiwanese and Taiwanese-accented Mandarin had become a potent political tool to project a distinctive Taiwanese identity as well as to identify with the locals (see Wei 2008: 40–42). The languages that used to mark backwardness have been elevated as part of the so-called Taiwanese or local identity, distinguishing the Taiwanese identity from the Chinese one, and therefore these languages surged in terms of their local social prestige and attractiveness. Instead

1 See

Sect. 1.3 for a more detailed discussion on “third wave” sociolinguistics studies.

2 Note that Taiwanese-accented Mandarin discussed here is a cultural stereotype; it does not refer to

the national dialect of Mandarin spoken in Taiwan, which is termed “Taiwan Mandarin” in linguistic research.

2.1 Socio-historical Background

15

of a rural identity and lack of education, they started to assume more positive social meanings such as being down-to-earth and amiable. The dynamics of language ideologies is not only observed within the local speech community but also across speech communities. Many sociolinguists have looked beyond local speech communities to explore how non-local linguistic features acquire new situated local meanings. Many studies found that TM—despite being a non-standard variety—is not socially stigmatized among Chinese Mainlanders (e.g. Zhang 2005; Ling 1991). In fact, TM is subject to rather positive attitudes among many Mainland Chinese (see Zhang 2005). TM has for some time been perceived by many MSM speakers to be a variety that indexes a hip, cosmopolitan identity (Zhang 2005). This variety is also considered to be “cool” and desirable by millions of Chinese youth who watch variety shows featuring Hong Kong and Taiwanese pop stars (Zhu 2008: 103). The formation of such connotations can be traced back to the 70s when China opened the door to the overseas Chinese communities. China’s continuing economic reform since the late 1970s has heralded many drastic social, cultural and ideological changes. As the country embarked on the path of market-fundamentalism and embraced the value of a free economy, the Chinese diaspora (i.e. Chinese living outside of Mainland China) fueled this transformation. Their investment contributes the greatest portion of foreign direct investment in Mainland China and many Chinese managers from overseas serve to bridge the communication gap between the local market and Western investors (Yeung 2000: 91; Zhang 2005). When China opened up its booming economy to the world, cultural products (e.g. pop music, films, and TV dramas) from overseas Chinese communities such as Hong Kong and Taiwan flooded the fledgling pop culture market due to their linguistic and cultural proximity (Zhang 2005; Zhu 2008; Gold 1993). Linguistically, the prevalence of films and TV dramas from Taiwan and Hong Kong has also triggered many lexical and phonological changes in Mandarin on the mainland, such as the use of neutral tone in a weakly stressed syllable, the use of adverb mán instead of tˇıng for ‘rather’, and the use of mˇeiméi to refer to ‘pretty girl’ (Zhang 2005, 2017). These phonological and lexical features all index a new urban lifestyle. However, as China is ascending in its political and economic power, people’s attitudes toward Taiwan Mandarin are also changing, especially for the millennials. Unlike their parents’ generation, the millennials on the mainland grew up in affluent Chinese metropolises, surrounded by abundant exposure to both Chinese-made and international television programs. Taiwan and Hong Kong are no longer their primary feeding source of television programs and other cultural products. As a result, Taiwan’s social prestige seems to be on the wane. As sociolinguists started to look beyond local speech communities to explore how non-local linguistic features acquire new situated local meanings, many studies found that TM—despite being a non-standard variety—is not socially stigmatized among Chinese mainlanders (see Zhang 2005, 2017; Ling 1991). In fact, as films and TV dramas from Taiwan and Hong Kong seized the attention of many mainlanders with a hip, cosmopolitan lifestyle and an urban identity, TM was found to be subject to rather positive attitudes (Zhang 2005). Consequently, this variety was considered ‘cool’ and

16

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

desirable by millions of Chinese youth who watched variety shows featuring Hong Kong and Taiwanese pop stars (Zhu 2008: 103).

2.2 Substrate Influence: Linguistic Features of Taiwanese Mandarin TM differs from Putonghua (PTH, henceforth) in its lexicon, phonology and syntax. Some of the most studied features of TM are, for example, (i) the retroflex sounds in MSM are realized as alveolar-palatal affricates or fricatives in TM (e.g. /tù/→/ts/, /tùh /→/tsh /, and /ù/→/s/) (Kuo 2005), (ii) in (1), the structure of [gei+obj+complement] illustrates an innovative function and grammaticalization of gei in PTH, which is not observed in PTH, and (iii) example (2) shows that the morpheme you has developed the function of an aspect marker in TM (Tseng 2003; Ling 1991; Kubler 1981). (1) Zhenshi you gei ta jingya Really have give it surprising ‘It made me surprised.’ (2) wo you kan guo zhe bu dianying I have see-ASP this-CL movie ‘I have seen this movie.’

These differences have likely arisen through two factors: Firstly, through substrate influence from local Taiwanese languages and dialects, and secondly through normal linguistic divergence due to a long period of social separation and Taiwan’s independent economic and cultural identity. Both are relevant to understanding how variation in the gei-phrase and aspectual you has come about, both in TM as well as in other mainland varieties of Mandarin. TM has been influenced by local dialects such as Southern Min and Hakka. Kubler (1981, 1985) describes the Taiwan Mandarin variety as a linguistic outcome of language contact with preexisting local languages. He found that when speaking Mandarin, native speakers of Southern Min tend to substitute [ù] with [s], and to substitute [ü] with [dz] before vowels. Syntactically, the use of you/meiyou (have/not have) as auxiliaries in Taiwan Mandarin is said to be due to the influence from Southern Min (Kubler 1985: 162). Southern Min speakers are conscious of the correspondence between bou (not) in Southern Min (3a) and meyou (not/have not) in Mandarin (3b), and tend to translate word for word, creating the syntactic structure of (3c) (Examples are from Kubler 1985: 162).

2.2 Substrate Influence: Linguistic Features of Taiwanese Mandarin

17

Table 2.1 Lexicon influence from Southern Min Standard Mandarin

Southern Min

Taiwanese Mandarin

English Gloss

ts1 Ciŋ úùh 7/自行車

kh ta tCh ja

tCiA* tA úùh 7/腳踏車

Bicycle

ùAŋ rђŋ/商人

tCh ђŋ

ù7ŋ i rђŋ/生意人

Businessman

tsuO f7En/做飯

tsu tsh aj

úùu tsh aI/煮菜

To cook

li laŋ

(3) a.

(Standard Mainland Mandarin) ni kanjian ta le me you you see him-ASP not have ‘Did you see him?’ (Taiwanese Mandarin)

b. ni you kandao ta mei you you have see him not have ‘Did you see him?’

(Southern Min)

c. Li u khua:ki: I bou You have see him not ‘Did you see him?’

The lexicon of TM is also subject to the influence of Southern Min. Table 2.1 shows some examples of such. The equivalents of ‘bicycle’, ‘businessman’, and ‘to cook’ in Taiwan Mandarin employ the corresponding morphemes in Southern Min, instead of morphemes in MSM, although the morphemes are realized using Mandarin phonology. The substrate influence of Taiwanese on TM is not unique since many Mandarin speakers on the mainland grow up speaking their local vernacular at home and PTH at school, giving rise to many hybrid varieties of Mandarin. In the next section, I take as an example the oscillation of the pre- and post-verbal gˇei-phrase in Spoken Mandarin Varieties to show how dialect contact and other social factors are influencing speakers’ choice of variants.

2.3 The Oscillating of Co-verb gˇei in Spoken Mandarin Varieties This section examines social and regional influences on the variable placement of the coverb gˇei in spoken Mandarin. In Mandarin, the morpheme gˇei is a means of adding an external object to the argument of a verb. Li and Thompson (1974, 1981) use the term ‘co-verb’ to refer to this type of verb-like morpheme that also carries a prepositional meaning. As shown in (4), many spoken Mandarin varieties allow for both pre- and post-verbal placement of the co-verb gˇei. Although numerous syntactic accounts (e.g. Chao 1968; Li and Thompson 1981; Zhu 1983; Sybesma

18

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

1999; Liu 2006; Huang et al. 2009) have been proposed for the variation, the sociolinguistic factors involved remain understudied. Therefore, this chapter seeks to link the syntactic variation with its sociolinguistic underpinnings by examining the potential social and dialectal factors involved. (4) a.

(Preverbal) wǒ děngyíxìa gěi nǐ dǎ dìanhùa I later to you make phone call ‘I will give you a call later.’

b.

(Postverbal) wǒ děngyíxìa dǎ dìanhùa gěi nǐ I later make phone call to you ‘I will give you a call later.’

2.3.1 Syntactic Properties of gˇei Mandarin has syntactic possibilities for both the pre- and post-verbal placement of gˇei as shown in (5) and (6). The pre-verbal gˇei marks the role of benefactive while adding an external object to the argument structure of the verb as shown in (5) (Li and Thompson 1981; Her 2006). The status of the post-verbal gˇei, however, is more ambiguous. It has been variously analyzed from the perspective of prepositional datives (e.g. Zhu 1983; Her 2006), serial verb constructions (e.g. Huang and Ahrens 1999), and applicatives (e.g. Paul and Whitman 2010). (5)

gěi IO Verb

DO

(6)

a. Verb

DO gěi IO (post-verbal gěi)

b. Verb gěi IO DO

(pre-verbal gěi)

(V-gěi sequence)

Historically derived from the verb gˇei (to give), the pre-verbal gˇei is generally analyzed as a preposition rather than as a verb, because the pre-verbal gˇei cannot take an aspect marker as verbs can. However, the syntactic nature of the post-verbal gˇei has been relatively contentious. This is due in part to the blurry line between verbs and prepositions in Mandarin, which results from the fact that most prepositions in modern Mandarin are grammaticalized from verbs. Therefore, this study adopts Li and Thompson’s (1974, 1981) concept of co-verb to avoid the controversy of whether to categorize gˇei as a verb or as a preposition. Li (1990: 101–105) argues that the pre-verbal gˇei is a preposition, whereas the post-verbal gˇei is in fact a verb. Huang and Ahrens (1999) state that in these variations gˇei is not a preposition. They suggest that the gˇei in (6a) is part of a serial verb construction (SVC), and the gˇei in (6b) is part of a complex predicate. Nonetheless, if (10a) is analyzed as an SVC, the aspect marker should be allowed to attach to either verb (Huang and Ahrens 1999), but gˇei cannot take an aspect marker as shown

2.3 The Oscillating of Co-verb gˇei in Spoken Mandarin Varieties

19

in (7) and (8). Due to the fact that gˇei cannot take an aspect marker in such a construction, Zhang (1990) suggests that the post-verbal gˇei is not an SVC but instead a preposition. While perspectives on the post-verbal gˇei vary, it is almost always analyzed as an element of a larger constituent. The direct and indirect objects are made subconstituents of one larger constituent (i.e., the lower VP), and that entire larger constituent serves as the single post-verbal complement of the verb in its spelled-out position. (7) tā zhòng le jiǎng mǎi le yì tái chē he win-ASP prize buy-ASP one-CL car ‘He won the prize and bought a car.’ (8) wǒ xǐe-le yì shǒu gē gěi (le*) nǐ I write-ASP one-CL song for-(ASP*) you ‘I wrote a song for you.’

Her (2006) argues that the post-verbal gˇei is indeed a preposition, supported by the evidence that the post-verbal gˇei cannot be stranded, since Mandarin Chinese does not allow preposition stranding. As shown below, the V-gˇei sequence in (9b) is derived from the post-verbal gˇei-phrase in (9a) by fronting the theme object (i.e. ‘that book’) to the left. The fronting of the object to the left in Mandarin is often referred to as topicalization, where the fronted object becomes the topic of the sentence rather than the subject of the sentence. Therefore, with this derivation, the post-verbal gˇei and the gˇei-V sequence share the same underlying structure. Moreover, in the V-gˇei sequence, the verb and gˇei must be adjacent. As shown in (9d), when the direct object is topicalized, the aspect marker ‘le’ cannot occur between the V-gˇei sequence but rather follows the prepositional gˇei, This suggests that the post-verbal gˇei has to be attached to a verb and is not a stand-alone preposition.

20

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

(9) a. wǒ ná nà běn shū gěi ta le I take that-CL book to him ASP ‘I took the book for him.’ b. nà běn shū wǒ ná gěi tā le that-CL book I take to him ASP ‘I took the book for him.’ c. wǒ ná le nà běn shū gěi tā I take ASP that-CL book to him ‘I took the book for him.’ d. nà běn shū wō ná (*le) that-CL book I take ASP ‘That book I took it for him.’

gěi to

tā (le) him ASP

In terms of argument structure, the pre-verbal gˇei usually takes a benefactive, while the post-verbal gˇei takes a recipient. A recipient usually involves transaction or transition of possession whereas a benefactive does not. As shown in (10), since dˇazh¯en ‘to give a shot’ does not involve transaction or transition of possession, the pre-verbal gˇei takes a benefactive and (10) does not allow for the post-verbal variation. Similarly, in (11), chúibèi ‘to give a massage on the back’ does not involve transaction or transition of possession and therefore does not allow for the post-verbal variation. (10) yīshēng gěi wǒ dǎle doctor to me give-ASP ‘The doctor gave me a shot.’

yìzhēn a shot

(11) wo gěi māmā chúichúi bèi I to mom massage back ‘I gave mom a massage on the back’

Therefore, the variation of the co-verb gˇei between the pre- and post-verbal positions is highly contingent on the semantics of the verb. Since not all gˇei-phrases can switch between the pre- and post-verbal variants, we will first review the categorization of gˇei-phrases and then identify the target gˇei-phrases that allow for such internal syntactic variation. As illustrated in Table 2.2, Chinese verbs can be categorized by the way they take complements (Li and Thompson 1981; Lin 2011): (a) verbs that obligatorily take the gˇei-phrase (i.e. the dative construction3 ), (b) verbs that cannot take the gˇei-phrase 3 See

Liu (2006) for detailed discussion of the Chinese dative construction.

2.3 The Oscillating of Co-verb gˇei in Spoken Mandarin Varieties

21

Table 2.2 The categorization of Mandarin verbs (Li and Thompson 1981; Lin 2011) Verb types

Dative

Double object

Patterns

Examples

1 gˇei-obligatory verbs

+

−

[gˇei-IO-V-DO] [V-IO gˇei-DO] [V-gˇei-DO-IO]

dài (bring), xˇıe (write), ná (take), r¯eng (toss), t¯ı (kick)

2 gˇei-forbidden verbs

−

+

[V-IO-DO]

gào sù (tell), wèn (ask), húi dá (answer), d¯ayìng (promise)

3 gˇei-optional verb

+

+

[V-IO-DO] [V-IO gˇei-DO] [V-gˇei-DO-IO] [gˇei-IO-V-DO]a

Sòng (send), fù (pay), jìe (lend), húan (return), f¯en (share)

4 Non-ditransitive

−

−

[V-DO]

Kàn (watch), pá (climb)

a This

will yield a benefactive reading, rather than a recipient reading

(i.e. ditransitive), (c) verbs that optionally use the gˇei-phrase, and (d) non-ditransitive verbs. According to Li and Thompson (1981), gˇei-obligatory verbs do not convey the meaning of transaction or transfer of possession to another party, such as xˇıe (to write), ná (to take), and dài (to bring). In Mandarin, these verbs usually do not require animate objects, and the gˇei construction is necessary only if an animate object is involved (as type 1 in Table 2.2). This type of verb usually allows for the pre- and post-verbal oscillation of the gˇei-phrase as in (12) and is thus the focus of this study. (12) tā xǐe le yì fēng xìn gěi wǒ he write ASP one-CL letter to me ‘He wrote a letter to me.’

The second type is the gˇei-forbidden verbs (type 2 in Table 2.2). These verbs cannot occur simultaneously with the preposition gˇei, because they inherently embody the meaning of transfer and always take an indirect object without gˇei. Examples of this type of verb are gàosù4 (to tell, see example (13)), húidá (to answer), and d¯ayìng (to promise). The third type is the gˇei-optional verbs as in (12). They can appear either with or without the preposition gˇei. Examples are sòng (to send), fù (to pay), and huán (to return), but the pre-verbal and post-verbal variants convey different meanings. The pre-verbal gˇei usually takes a benefactive as in (14a), whereas the post-verbal gˇei takes a recipient as in (14b). The fourth type constitutes those verbs that do not allow a second object by any means and is therefore irrelevant to this study. Of the four types of verbs, only the gˇei-obligatory type (type 1 in Table 2.2) allows for both the 4 The verb ‘gaosu’ (to tell) requires a personal object. Unlike English, where ‘tell’ can occur without

a personal object, as in ‘I tell a story,’ Mandarin requires a personal object for the verb ‘gaosu’ (to tell). For example, wo gaosu ni yi ge gushi. I tell you one-CL story. ‘I tell you a story.’.

22

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

pre- and post-verbal variants. The other three types do not allow for such variation. The goal of this study is therefore to explore potential sociolinguistic factors involved in the choice of gˇei-phrase variant with respect to the gˇei-obligatory verbs. (13)

(gěi-forbidden verb) tā gàosù wǒ yí ge mìmì he tell me one-CL secret ‘He told me a secret.’

(14) a.

(pre-verbal) wǒ gěi nǐ jìe běn shū I to you borrow CL book ‘I check out a book (from the library) for you’ (post-verbal)

b. wǒ jìe běn shū gěi nǐ I lend CL book to you ‘I lend you a book.’

2.3.2 Sociolinguistic Hypotheses This study considers both social and dialectal factors in explaining the choice of variant. Social factors include gender, social network, and age of contact. Previous sociolinguistic studies (Labov 1966; Milroy and Milroy 1978, 1992) have shown that women usually adopt incoming prestige forms, or so-called ‘changes from above,’ at a higher rate than men. Women are more innovative with ‘changes from above’ but more conservative with ‘changes from below’ when a linguistic feature is socially stigmatized (Labov 2001: 274). Women are therefore anticipated to show a stronger preference for the pre-verbal gˇei-phrase variant than men, as the pre-verbal variant might be considered a more normative form in standard Mandarin, a.k.a. putonghua (PTH hereafter). Distribution of input is crucial in explaining sociolinguistic variation, as individual differences often result from varying input (Ellis 2002). The acquisition of grammar is the frequency-biased abstraction of regularities out of many thousands of constructions, which is reflected in grammatical acceptability judgments (Ellis 2002: 164; Luka and Barsalou 1998). Besides, early exposure to other varieties could also increase the likelihood of adopting the variants in those varieties. With these points established, this study examines input from two common sources: social networks and the media. A social network is defined as “the aggregate of relationships contracted with others” and can be conceptualized as “the dynamics underlying speakers’ interactional behaviors” (Milroy 1995, 2004: 549). Interaction within networks can potentially lead to speech accommodation (Trudgill 1986; Ellis 2002; Giles et al. 1991).

2.3 The Oscillating of Co-verb gˇei in Spoken Mandarin Varieties

23

Another important form of input is broadcast media. Many Chinese Mainlanders are regularly exposed to television broadcasts from Taiwan. This could potentially influence their language use, although the role of broadcast media and especially television in language variation has long been disputed (Stuart-Smith 2007, 2012). This study defines media exposure as language input from media (TV, radio, internet, etc.) to which a speaker is exposed. Essentially, the more frequently a speaker is exposed to a non-local language variety—whether through one’s social network or through media exposure—the more likely the speaker will acquire that variant. Since many spoken Mandarin varieties allow for both the pre- and post-verbal variants of the gˇei-phrase, the post-verbal gˇei does not always stand out as a salient feature that marks regional identity or social category (Peng 2020). In other words, gˇei is low in social salience, the relative ability to evoke social meanings, which is important in eliciting individuals’ reaction to linguistic variables (e.g. Kerswill and Williams 2002; Labov et al. 2006, 2011; Levon and Fox 2014). In light of gˇei’s low social salience, this study also takes into account—in addition to the traditional social factors—substrate influence from speakers’ home vernacular, as the typology of Chinese dialects may also play a role in the choice of gˇei-phrase variant. Many southern non-Mandarin vernaculars have a strong preference for an equivalent of the post-verbal gˇei. In Southern Min, for example, the recipient marker khO5 is only allowed in the post-verbal position, as in (15) and (16) (Chen 2020: 339–341). Cantonese also presents a similar syntactic preference. As shown in (17), pei35 [畀]—the equivalent of gˇei—appears post-verbally (Chin 2011). (15)

(NP1) VP

NP2 khɔ5 NP3

pun1 lŋ4 paʔ7 khɔ5 i0 distribute two hundred give 3SG ‘Give him two hundred (yuan).’ (16)

(NP1) VP

(NP2) khɔ5 NP3

loʔ8-4-tshia1 sue3 khɔ5 i0 descend-vehicle wash give 3SG ‘Wash (it) and give (it to) her after getting out of the bus.’ (Chen 2020: 340-341) (17) ŋɔ13 tsɪk5 tsɔ35 kin22 laŋ55 sam55 pei35 nei13 I knit ASP CL sweater give you ‘I knitted a sweater for you.’ (Chin 2011)

Although the classification of Chinese dialects has always been contested as new data constantly emerges (Ho 2015), this study draws upon the conventionally recognized seven dialect groups as a potential factor in the choice of gˇei-phrase variant: Mandarin, Wu, Xiang, Gan, Hakka, Yue (Cantonese), and Min (Yuan 1961; Norman

24

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

2004; Ramsey 1989; Handel 2015; Ho 2015). Figure 2.1 shows the geographical distribution of these dialect groups. As shown in Fig. 2.1, Han Chinese dialects are divided between the north (i.e. Mandarin dialect group) and the southeastern coastal areas (i.e. non-Mandarin dialect groups). In general, the northern dialects are rather unified while the Southern dialects are more divergent, especially in terms of their phonology and lexicon (Norman 2004: 20–26; Ramsey 1989: 183–186; Ho 2015). The northern Chinese varieties are primarily used across the Yellow Plain and the Huangtu Plateau (the brown area in Fig. 2.1). The dialect area extends all the way southwest across the provinces of Sichuan and Yunnan. They are relatively young compared to the southern dialects

Fig. 2.1 The Chinese language: basic North–South division (Ramsey 1989: 23, Fig. 6)

2.3 The Oscillating of Co-verb gˇei in Spoken Mandarin Varieties

25

and therefore are phonologically more homogenous. PTH is based on the speech of the educated residents of Beijing (Ramsey 1989; Chen 1999), but the fine line between PTH and the Beijing dialect is not always clear (see also Zhang 2005 for discussion). The Southern dialects—also referred to as ‘non-Mandarin dialects’ (Ramsey 1989; Ho 2015)—are spoken in the areas to the southeast of the Yangtze River. Unlike northern varieties which are generally mutually intelligible, Southern dialects are phonologically distinctive. Below are the southern dialect groups from which I recruited subjects for this study: – Wu (吳) dialect—spoken in the Southeast coastal area, around Shanghai and Zhejiang province – Gan (贛) dialect—spoken in Jiangxi province – Xiang (湘) dialect—spoken in Hunan province – Hakka (客家) dialect—widely scattered from Sichuan to Taiwan – Yue (粵) dialect (a.k.a. Cantonese)—spoken in Guangdong and Guangxi provinces as well as Hong Kong – Min (閩) dialect—spoken in Fujian province and coastal areas of Southern China as well as Taiwan. Since Mandarin was stipulated as the official spoken language of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the 1950s, PTH has been taught in schools across the country. Thus, many Chinese speakers grow up speaking their local vernacular at home and PTH at school, giving rise to many hybrid varieties of Mandarin. As of 2006, about 73% of the country’s population could communicate with PTH, according to the Steering Group Office of China’s Ministry of Education (2006). For such reasons, this study hypothesizes that speakers’ home vernacular(s) may have exerted influence on their use of gˇei-phrase variants.

2.4 Data and Methods 2.4.1 Informants Informants were recruited through personal contacts at Michigan State University, City University of New York, and National Taiwan Normal University. There were 20 Taiwanese Mandarin (TM) speakers and 384 PTH speakers from various dialect backgrounds. Most of them were students at the aforementioned universities. All informants were required to have received formal education in their regions of origin at least to the age of 16 in order to ensure that they had acquired idiomatic use of the Mandarin variety of their area.

26

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

2.4.2 Procedure In support of the claim regarding substrate influence, empirical data was collected through a survey conducted using the following sections: elicitation task, grammatical judgment test, and demographic questions. The elicitation task was conducted in Mandarin in the form of one-on-one, face-to-face interviews to elicit the following transitive verbs that are commonly used with the target gˇei-phrase: na (to take), zhˇun bèi (to prepare), dˇa dìan hùa (to call), jì (to send), dào (to pour), f¯a (to send), sòng (to take, to bring), dài (to bring), mˇai (to buy). The task consisted of eleven target sentences and eleven filler sentences as well as two picture description questions. If an informant failed to produce at least seven target variants, the sample would be seen as invalid and the informant would not be qualified for the remaining tasks. A total of 404 valid samples were collected from different dialect areas of mainland China and Taiwan. Upon the completion of the elicitation task, informants proceeded to the acceptability judgment test, where they rated the acceptability of sentences with pre- or post-verbal variants. In the acceptability judgment test, the informants were asked to rate the written sentences on a scantron form on a scale from one to seven, with one being ‘extremely unnatural’ and seven being ‘perfectly natural.’ The ratio of targets to fillers was one to three—twenty targets consisting of ten pre-verbal and ten post-verbal gˇei-phrases, as well as sixty fillers (i.e. sentences without a gˇei-phrase). All tokens and fillers were normalized to the length of ten to thirteen characters. The acceptability judgment portion of the survey used a between-subjects design. Informants were randomly assigned to one of the two groups (Group A or B). Both groups were presented with the same lexical items, but the variants were swapped. The grouping of informants made sure that each stimuli sentence appears with both variants an equal number of times, so the results would not be affected by lexical items, information structure, or pragmatics. Finally, informants were required to answer demographic questions. The demographic questions were primarily concerned with their dialectal and social backgrounds, including gender, social network, media exposure, and their home vernaculars. The social network rating was calculated using the responses to the following questions: – Do you attend any groups in which speakers of different Chinese varieties are highly involved (e.g. a church, a sports team, or a student association, etc.)? – Do you attend the same classes or work in the same workplace as at least two Chinese people who speak a different dialect from your own? – Do you live in a neighborhood with a sizeable Chinese/Taiwanese population? – Do you voluntarily involve yourself with Chinese students/coworkers in your free time? And for each of the questions, the respondents were given the following answer choices: – No.

2.4 Data and Methods

– – – –

27

Yes, with 1–5 Chinese involved. Yes, with 6–10 Chinese involved. Yes, with 11–15 Chinese involved. Yes, more than 16 Chinese involved.

The social network index was calculated as follows: one point for informants who chose ‘no,’ two points for ‘1–5 people involved,’ three points for ‘6–10 people involved,’ four points for ‘11–15 people involved,’ and five points for ‘more than 16 people involved’ (see appendix survey Part 4 questions 1–4). Each question was weighted equally. The total of the points tallied from the four questions represented the individual’s social network index score. The minimum possible score was a five, with one point for each question, and the maximum possible score was twenty, with five points for each question. A low score indicated the speaker had little contact with speakers of other Mandarin varieties, and a high score indicated greater contact with speakers of other Mandarin varieties. Media exposure was measured by asking the informants “Do you often watch Taiwanese television programs?” (see appendix for survey Part 4 question 10). The informants were given the following answer choices: – – – – –

No. Yes, but no more than 5 h a week. Yes, 5–10 h a week. Yes, 10–15 h a week. Yes, more than 15 h a week.

The number next to each answer choice represents the amount of exposure: the greater the number, the more exposure one has to Taiwanese televised media. The results from the production and perception tasks were regressed against media exposure to assess the influence of televised media on the choice of variants. The last question specifically asked the informants about the use of target variants in their home vernaculars. This question connects speakers’ home vernaculars and the Mandarin varieties they speak—whether the choice of one variant over the other is influenced by the speakers’ home vernaculars.

2.5 Results 2.5.1 Elicitation Task Figure 2.2 shows the proportion of pre-verbal gˇei-phrases out of all the target variants elicited. In general, high percentages of pre-verbal gˇei-phrases were elicited from the informants of the northernmost provinces. Indeed, the informants from the northeast produced 100% pre-verbal gˇei-phrases. Moving south down to Hebei province (including Beijing and Tianjin), post-verbal variants started to emerge, although

28

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

Fig. 2.2 Regional (provincial) breakdown of the percentage of the pre-verbal gˇei-phrases used

most of the variants were still predominantly pre-verbal. The informants from Hebei province on average produced 86% pre-verbal gˇei-phrases. Continuing further south to the central part of China, including regions such as Anhui and Sichuan province, an approximately equal number of pre- and post-verbal gˇei-phrases were elicited. The informants from Jiangsu province produced 45% preverbal gˇei-phrases, Anhui 64%, and Hunan province 53%. In the southernmost dialect area, the post-verbal gˇei-phrase was the dominant structure elicited. An average of 43% of pre-verbal gˇei-phrases were elicited from Fujian province, and 30% from Guangdong province. Finally, very few post-verbal gˇei-phrases were elicited from TM speakers. In the TM group, only one informant produced pre-verbal variants, while the remaining group members produced 0% pre-verbal variants. In the demographic survey, this particular informant indicated relatively early contact with other varieties at the age of sixteen. In general, there is a gradually decreasing preference for the pre-verbal gˇei-phrase moving from the north to the south.

2.5.2 Acceptability Judgment Task The random effect model was adopted to gauge the effects social factors play on acceptability ratings. The model was fitted as follows:

2.5 Results

29

yi j = μ + Ui + β1 ∗ Moderate E x posur e + β2 ∗ E xtensive E x posur e + β3 ∗ Souther n Gr oup + β4 ∗ Female + β5 ∗ Age + β6 ∗ T aiwanese N etwor k + εi j , where yi j represents the acceptability ratings for individual i on item j, μ represents the grand mean of the acceptability rating across all informants and items, Ui represents the random effect for individual i to deviate from the grand means, and εi j represents the residuals, or unexplained variations, for individual i and item j. The variables β1 to β6 represents the main effects of the selected variables on the acceptability ratings. Table 2.3 summarizes the demographic distribution of the sample. As shown in Table 2.4, the results of the random effect model suggest that vernacular background is a significant predictor of the acceptability ratings. The vernacular group from the south showed significantly stronger preference for the post-verbal variant than northerners. On average, southerners rated the post-verbal gˇei-phrase 0.45 points higher than northerners did (95% CI: 0.210–0.688, p < 0.001). Taiwanese informants also actively preferred the post-verbal variant. No other social factors were found to be a significant predictor of the acceptability ratings. Table 2.3 Characteristics of sample and Univariate distributions N or Mean

% or SD

Minimal

209

52.38

Moderate

96

24.06

Extensive

94

23.56

North

244

60.40

South

160

39.60

Male

148

36.63

Female

256

63.37

Age (Mean, SD)

24.61

6.43

Network of Taiwanese (Mean, SD)

4.38

0.82

Item 1

6.04

1.58

Item 2

5.57

1.76

Item 3

5.22

1.96

Item 4

5.36

1.87

Item 5

6.29

1.30

Media exposure (N, %)

Vernacular group (N, %)

Gender (N, %)

Acceptability of post-verbal gˇei (Mean, SD)

30

2 Taiwanese Mandarin: A Sociolinguistic Overview

Table 2.4 Random effect model: the acceptability of post-verbal Gˇei β

S.E

P

95% CI

Media exposure Medium (vs. Minimal) Extensive (vs. Minimal)

−0.113

0.131

0.388

−0.371

0.144

0.040

0.148

0.787

−0.251

0.331

0.449

0.122