Article published in:Restructuring Chinese Speech Communities: Urbanization, language contact and identity formation
Edited by Marinus van den Berg
[Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 26:1] 2016
► pp. 8–31
Speech community theory and the language / dialect debate
Much research has been done addressing the issue of language and dialect and has attracted much interest in the Sinophone world. In this paper, the issue is approached from the perspective of Speech Community Theory (SCT) with discussion of the identification of Chinese varieties. There are mainly two approaches in previous research: linguistic and sociolinguistic. In the linguistic approach, the classification of languages and dialects is through comparison of linguistic descriptions and intelligibility. In the sociolinguistic approach, actual language use and attitudes of the speakers are investigated and ethnic and political factors are considered. The two approaches tend to result in different classifications. The purely linguistic classification tends to be narrower than the classification invoking attitudinal, cultural and political factors, resulting in a larger number of languages than the sociolinguistic approach. The different approaches are traced to divergent understandings of what a language is. A language is often understood purely as a tool of communication or, alternatively, it is regarded primarily as an identity device. Applying SCT, we analyze the connection between communication and identity formation, taking the example of Cantonese speakers. That case shows a correlation of linguistic contact with linguistic identity among native speakers. Consequently, the relevance of cultural and socio-political factors is explained through their impact on communication rather than directly on a linguistic identity.
Keywords: speech community theory, language and dialect, Cantonese, communication and identity formation, language attitude
Published online: 16 June 2016
Cook, Edwin A.
Dorian, Nancy C.
Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A.
Groves, Julie May
Lambert, W.E., Hodgson, R.C., Gardner, R.C., & S. Fillenbaum
(2012) Cantonese: Is it a dialect in China or language of the world? Paper for WRA 1004-009, Revising Literacy, April 7 2012 (Professor Marohang Limbu, Michigan State University). http://wrakatrina.webs.com/p4revliteracy.htm, accessed on 3/12/2016.
Mair, Victor H.
Mau, Wing-yan, Annie
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M.
Miao, Ruiqin, & Li, Jiaxuan
Tang, Chaoju, & Van Heuven, Vincent J.
(2010) Predicting mutual intelligibility in Chinese dialects from subjective and objective linguistic similarity. In M.E. van den Berg & Daming Xu (Eds.), Industrialization and the restructuring of speech communities in China and Europe (pp. 91–119). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Van den Berg, M.E.
(2010) Socio-economic stratification in the Guangzhou speech community: Language behaviour in shopping areas of Yuexiu and Tianhe Districts. In M.E. van den Berg & Daming Xu (Eds.), Industrialization and the restructuring of speech communities in China and Europe (pp. 236–268). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
VanNess Simmons, Richard
Wurm, S.A., & Laycock, D.C.
(2012) Speech communities in transformation: The effects of linguistic urbanization in China. Plenary Speech at Sociolinguistics Symposium 19, August 21–24, Berlin, Germany.
(1998) Dialect MT: A case study between Cantonese and Mandarin. In Christian Boitet & Pete Whitelock (Eds.), ‘Proceedings of 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 17th international conference on Computational linguistics (pp. 1460–1464). Burlington, Mass.: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers / ACL.
Cited by 4 other publications
Coulmas, Florian & Zi Wang
DE ALMEIDA, MARCOS ABREU LEITÃO
Wang, Xiaomei & Yin Yin Yeoh
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 31 october 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.