‘I feel a sense of solidarity when speaking Teochew’: unpacking family language planning and sustainable development of Teochew from a multilingual perspective

ABSTRACT

The complexity of language contact and intercultural communication has generated various issues in relation to language use and education. As one of the many Chinese dialects (fangyans), the Chaoshan dialect (Teochew) has been affected by the extensive promotion of Putonghua, the key lingua franca across China, and English, the lingua franca for international communication. Therefore, it is worth exploring the current situation and sustainability of Teochew from the perspective of multilingualism. This study used a questionnaire and interviews with local Chaoshan people as the research instruments with which to investigate the perspective of family language policy, the usage frequency of Teochew on different occasions and among different groups, parents’ and students’ levels of Teochew mastery and the factors influencing the family language policy of Teochew. It also aimed to determine the participants’ first-language practices and attitudes towards Teochew. The findings reveal that the majority of the participants have positive attitudes regarding the inheritance and development of Teochew; however, the future of sustainable development shows a weakening trend. The paper concludes by emphasising the significance of maintaining Teochew as one of the many fangyans in China, in addition to the lingua franca, as seen from a multilingual perspective.

KEYWORDS:

• Attitude
• dialect
• family language policy
• multilingualism
• Teochew

Introduction

As one of the many Chinese dialects (方言, fangyans),¹ Chaoshan dialect (Teochew) is the dominant dialect used by the Chaoshan people in Chaoshan area in southeast China and many Chinatowns abroad. It is considered to be one of the most conservative Chinese dialects (Tan and Woo 2020). It preserves features from ancient Chinese that have been lost in some of the other modern Chinese fangyans, and it is spoken by approximately 10 million people in the Chaoshan area and approximately 2–5 million people overseas (Eberhard, Simons, and Fennig 2021). Teochew has a longstanding history, which has also influenced the culture and language of Southeast Asia because many Chaoshan people moved to Southeast Asia to start businesses, a phenomenon known as ‘the old Red-Top Sailing Merchant Boats’ (坐红头船过番), during the Ming and Qing dynasties (Wen 2012).

Although Teochew is still spoken by millions of people, many in the younger generation regard it as inferior and either feel it is unnecessary to use it in their daily lives or are reluctant to do so because, traditionally, speaking fangyan has been associated with low social status and a lack of education (Dong 2011). More recently, this dialect has been greatly impacted by contact with people who speak other dominant lingua francas, such as Putonghua and English. Given the specific language policy in education, as well as more complex factors, such as linguistic preferences, cultural contact and social mobility, the younger generation seems to use Teochew less frequently and fluently than previous generations. One potential reason is that the younger generation has more opportunities to engage with other languages (Liu and Li 2020). Furthermore, although the concept of multilingualism has been well known (May 2014), given the popularity and promotion of certain dominant languages, such as Putonghua and English, the use of Chinese dialects is implicitly restricted or replaced by more mainstream languages in some circumstances (Jiang and Dewaele 2019). With this background in mind, the current situation and sustainability of Teochew remain important not only within the Chaoshan area but in the context of providing a deeper understanding of the relationship between language and culture. Specifically, the study of students’ attitudes towards and use of Teochew in their domestic lives will provide insights into the sustainability and future development of Teochew from a multilingual and multicultural perspective.

Although the Chinese government has launched the China Language Resources Conservation Project (中国语言资源保护工程) (Ministry of Education 2015) to protect dialects or endangered minority languages, little progress seems to have been made in increasing public awareness of this issue and supporting the use of these languages in practice. The methods adopted by the government and schools cannot ensure that dialects are passed on to the next generation or developed so that they can be sustainable. The insufficiency of the natural intra- and intergenerational transmission of dialects, which usually occurs in family language planning and management, can lead to the endangerment of a dialect or even the loss of it (Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2018). Therefore, it is necessary to investigate language policy, planning and practice from the point of view of the family domain (Spolsky 2012; Zhu and Li 2016; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2021). Family language policy (FLP) has a significant influence on maintaining the Chinese fangyans (Curdt-Christiansen and Huang 2020). In addition to reflecting the implementation and influence of the micro-language policy in the family domain at the individual level, family language policy could also provide a real and reliable basis for the modification of macro-level language policy (Curdt-Christiansen 2017; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2018). Thus, it is important for the study of FLP to investigate the current situation and sustainability of Teochew from the multilingual perspective.

This paper presents a literature review to provide the theoretical framework regarding language policy and FLP, linking it to the development and status quo of Teochew. Through a questionnaire and a series of semi-structured interviews with people who speak Teochew as their first language (L1), the study discussed in this paper explored the use of Teochew on different occasions, the factors influencing FLP, and local Chaoshan people’s attitudes towards the development and sustainability of Teochew. The paper further provides some implications regarding the sustainability of Teochew at the micro, meso and macro levels, namely, family, school and society. It is hoped that this paper will provide another wake-up call for policy makers and language educators to revisit the need for minority languages in the language education domain, as well as multilingual speakers to understand the need for their L1s in maintaining and vitalising local cultures and identities for intra- and intercultural communication.

Literature review

Language policy and FLP

Language policy is defined as the ‘mechanisms for creating and sustaining systems of inequality that benefit wealthy and powerful individuals, groups, institutions and nation-states, as well as for resisting systems of inequality’ (Tollefson 2013, 27). During the past two decades, many studies have focused on language policy and the language use associated with public spaces, such as the state, the school or the workplace (Amorós-Negre 2017; King and Fogle 2013; Nguyen and Hamid 2020; Zhu and Li 2016). Previous studies have pointed out that, to some extent, the promotion of the national language – in many cases also the official language – is done at the expense of marginalising the minority language. For example, Kovacs Rac and Halupka-Rešetar (2018) investigated the Hungarian-speaking minority in Serbia and found that, due to the promotion and teaching of standard Hungarian, people considered it an honour to speak it, while using the Vojvodina dialect was ignominious. From another perspective, a study in Quebec indicated that, although the families involved supported Quebec’s official language policy, they expressed concerns about the policy’s stance on official institutional support for heritage languages (Ballinger et al. 2020). In sum, previous studies revealed that official language policies are largely hierarchical (top-down) in order to protect the mainstream language, with the assumption of a ‘one language, one nation ideology’ (Cooke and Simpson 2012), even at the expense of some dialects or variants (Manan, David, and Channa 2019; McLelland 2021; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2021).

Studies in the Chinese context have also focused on the relationship between Putonghua (the official language in China, also known as the common speech), fangyans (also known as regional dialects) and other languages (Han, De Costa, and Cui 2019; Shen and Gao 2019; Xu 2019; Zhang and Pérez-Milans 2019). For example, Shen (2016) revealed that, although many bottom-up responses have been implemented to protect the Shanghai dialect, the biggest impact concerning the marginalisation of that dialect was the official policy promoting Putonghua as the official language in educational and higher social level in the Chinese context. In a similar vein, Ng and Zhao (2015) found that people had limited opportunities to use their dialects because the active top-down language policy did not adequately promote a multilingual environment or the multicultural development of the diversity of Chinese languages.

Although language policies in the Chinese context have received little attention, the issue of FLP has been prevalent in the past two decades because it ‘provides a conceptual framework for investigating language changes in family domains of a given society’ (Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2018, 236). Spolsky (2004) divided the study of language policy into three aspects: language ideology (what people think about language), language practice (what people actually do with language) and language management (what people try to do to language). These three aspects of language policy can be extended to FLP because ‘language policy in the family may be analysed as language practice, ideology and management’ (43). King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry (2008) defined FLP as ‘explicit and overt planning in relation to language use within the home among family members, and [it] provides an integrated overview of research on how languages are managed, learned, and negotiated within families’ (907). As one of the focuses of research on language policy, family is an important and interesting domain in terms of understanding ‘how external pressures are reflected in it and because of the critical relevance to decisions inside the family concerning the language or languages with which children should grow up’ (Spolsky 2004, 45).

Family plays a critical role in how children learn and develop language (Spolsky 2004; Zou 2020). Although it is not fixed, family is a domain in which children gradually constitute and maintain a specific language ideology and certain practices as they grow up. Family is a microcosm of society, being influenced by social and economic development and reflecting a larger sociocultural environment (King, Fogle, and Logan-Terry 2008; Macalister and Mirvahedi 2017). The dimensions concerning language policy discussed above have a direct or indirect impact on family language awareness, changing people’s perspectives on and attitudes about a specific language and, consequently, how they plan to learn and use it. For instance, Crump’s (2017) study in Montreal found that children living in this multilingual environment were aware of the hierarchy of languages used, while Hu and Ren (2017) revealed that parents play a key role in regulating children’s language practices in multilingual Singapore. In comparison to the official language policy, FLP has a smaller reach. At the meso or even micro level, it is worth noting the impacts of FLP in terms of saving endangered dialects or minority languages. For instance, Li (2018) believed that, in addition to official language policies, FLP, which is unofficial and less explicit, should be given more attention because FLP has a more lasting influence on language practice and management.

A family’s socialisation dictates that studies on maintaining family language should involve the factors that influence FLP, such as educational and social environments (Curdt-Christiansen and Huang 2020; Gu and Han 2021; Hollebeke, Struys, and Agirdag 2020). To understand the complexity of FLP in relation to language planning and management, Curdt-Christiansen and Huang (2020) divided the factors influencing FLP into two categories: internal factors (‘emotion’, ‘sense of identity’, ‘cultural practices and social norms’, ‘parental impact beliefs’ and ‘child agency’) and external factors (the socio-cultural, socio-political and socio-linguistic environment). Therefore, the study of FLP should consider the micro-internal factors, as well as the macro-external factors, because the impact of FLP not only reflects the linguistic domain, such as language proficiency, language use and language maintenance, but, more importantly, leads to ‘outcomes in the socio-emotional and cognitive sphere’ (Hollebeke, Struys, and Agirdag 2020, 3).

Burgeoning research on FLP has been conducted recently in the Chinese context; those studies have found that parents play a significant role in deciding which language should be used among family members and serve as agents for intergenerational transmission (Curdt-Christiansen 2013; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2018; Wang 2017; Xia and Shen 2019). Studies have also emphasised the role of grandparents in influencing FLP and language practice. In their study exploring the interaction between rural migrant workers’ language ideologies, linguistic identities and family language planning activities, Yang and Curdt-Christiansen (2021) suggested that macro-level language policy and planning played a dominant role in shaping parental language ideologies and planning activities in family domains. The study indicated that grandparents were pivotal in increasing the fangyan input for children and passing the language on to the next generation. In a similar vein, for over 30 years, Zou (2020) explored the language ideologies and practices of three Hakka-speaking families who migrated to Guangzhou; that study revealed that a combined use of Hakka and Putonghua was the most common language practice at home, while the level of the children’s Hakka development was significantly influenced by their grandparents’ loyalty to the Hakka language.

The understanding of language policy and FLP in relation to the use of minority languages or dialects will also affect the language development and maintenance of minority groups. For instance, Shen, Wang, and Gao (2021) revealed that the use of the Miao minority language declined noticeably across generations, with ‘noticeable inconsistencies between language management efforts and language ideologies in the Miao families’ (439). Furthermore, FLP decisions are deeply mediated by the language policies and practices promoted in various organisations at the meso level (school) and the macro level (national). Zhang and Tsung (2019) explored the intersection between government bilingual education policies in schools for Tibetan students and family language practices; they unpacked the conflicts between top-down government language policies and bottom-up family language practice because government policies disregarded the support parents provide for children’s language learning at home and bilingual education programmes in schools. Therefore, the nuance and complexity of the relationship between government language policies at the macro level and family language policies, planning and practice should also be recognised.

To summarise, family is a key domain to ensure the implementation of language policies; it could further influence language ideology and maintenance (Fang 2018; Zheng and Mei 2021). The study of FLP is significant in terms of protecting and maintaining the vitality and sustainability of local languages/dialects because it is ‘policy at the family level that finally determines language maintenance and loss’ (Spolsky 2004, 55).

The shift in Teochew in a multilingual setting

From the 1980s to the 1990s, with the acceleration of China’s reform and opening up policy, Shantou, in addition to Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Hainan, was named one of the four special economic zones in China. Shantou, Chaozhou and Jieyang, as the home of Teochew in mainland China, are the main cities in the Greater Chaoshan area. With the area’s economic development and social contact, the Chaoshan people have been increasingly exposed to a variety of languages/fangyans, including Putonghua, Cantonese and English. Thus, the dominant status of Teochew in the Chaoshan area has been significantly affected by the inhabitants’ social contact with Putonghua and English, as well as relevant educational policies. The national language policy in education requires the use of Putonghua, the national lingua franca; along with the development of English as an international lingua franca, English is another compulsory subject starting from the third year of primary school in China (Gao 2015; Zhang 2013).

At present, Teochew remains the main language spoken by the older generation of the Chaoshan people, and it is also used to broadcast information about local bus rides and on TV channels. However, because of the use of Putonghua as the key medium of instruction and the popularity of English learning, even at the kindergarten level, the younger generation of Chaoshan people do not speak Teochew as fluently and frequently when they are growing up as compared to the previous generation (Liu and Li 2020). In the Chaoshan area, Teochew has gradually come to be regarded as a dialect with a lower status (cf. Dong 2011). Compared to the dominant status of Teochew in the Chaoshan area three decades ago, concerns have been raised at the sociolinguistic level regarding the ‘survival’ and sustainable development of Teochew in that area (Liang 2015; Tan and Woo 2020). Situated within the paradigm of multilingualism, and due to rural-urban migration and international contact, translanguaging has been merged in the Chaoshan area for multilingual (multidialectal) speakers to demonstrate both creativity and criticality for their new identities (Fang and Liu 2020; García and Li 2014). Still, with urbanisation in China and economic advancement, as a fangyan spoken mainly for the older generation, Teochew has gradually been regarded as an uneducated and low variety. Because of the commodification of language, Teochew represents neither profit nor opportunity in general (Dong 2011; Heller 2010).

In view of the dilemma of Teochew in recent years, scholars have conducted research and made many constructive suggestions, including integrating dialect learning into the curriculum of primary schools to increase students’ engagement and pride in their hometown (Li and Huang 2017). Furthermore, it is important to utilise Teochew in Chaoshan operas and folk stories to ensure the continuation of the dialect, for instance, through modern Chaoshan nursery rhymes (Zeng 2020).

In spite of these suggestions regarding ways to develop Teochew, there is a lack of research on the current situation of Teochew in the family domain within mainland China. Liu and Li (2020) investigated the language use of urban and rural residents of four cities in eastern Guangdong and found that, although Putonghua was the main language, the participants had a stronger affinity for their dialects because they reaffirmed their cultural identities. Li and Huang (2017) also explored the residents’ language attitudes towards the multilingual practices in special economic zones of Guangdong Province, but these two studies did not analyse how Teochew is transmitted intergenerationally. As a living language in the Chaoshan area, the ways that Teochew is passed down from the older generation to the younger generation are rarely mentioned. Therefore, the study discussed in this paper investigated the various occasions on which Teochew was used in the family domain to further unpack the current situation and sustainability of Teochew in the multilingual context. It aimed to provide empirical evidence of Chaoshan people’s attitudes towards and use and maintenance of Teochew. The main research questions formulated in this study are as follows:

1. On what occasions is Teochew used and for what purposes?

2. What are the influencing factors of FLP regarding the passing on the Teochew to the younger generation?

3. What are people’s attitudes towards Teochew in relation to its maintenance and future sustainable development?

Methodology

Participants

This study selected respondents ranging in age from 12 to 70. In all, 141 parents and 109 students responded to the questionnaire. The informants were invited to participate in the interviews if they met the following criteria: (1) they spoke Teochew as their L1, and (2) they were older than 12 and younger than 70. Ultimately, 17 informants were selected (five parents and twelve students) to participate in the interviews. The informants’ profile is presented in Table 1. It is important to emphasise that the results reported in this study may not be generalisable to the entire population of people speaking Teochew; rather, this study represents a small group of people speaking Teochew in the Chaoshan area.

Table 1. Profile of the interviewees.

Name	Gender	Age	Profession	Self-reported proficiency in Teochew	No. of children/grandchildren
LPF	F	34	Civil servant	Excellent	2
WJL	M	70	Self-employed	Excellent	4
ZNS	F	26	Self-employed	Good	1
HJC	M	65	Self-employed	Excellent	3
LZK	M	29	Restaurant owner	Good	0
DTX	F	19	student	Good	0
YPP	F	21	student	Moderate	0
HYT	F	20	student	Moderate	0
HZM	F	21	student	Poor	0
ZC	F	21	student	Moderate	0
CL	M	23	student	Moderate	0
WYL	F	22	student	Average	0
ZXM	F	23	student	Average	0
DMZ	F	19	student	Good	0
LM	F	20	student	Poor	0
HWJ	F	22	student	Good	0
WHC	F	21	student	Good	0

Data collection

This study modified questionnaires from Schwartz (2008). The two questionnaires were developed independently, one for the grandparents/parents and one for the students. The Cronbach’s Alpha was .81 for the parents/grandparents’ questionnaire and .62 for the children’s questionnaire, suggesting good internal consistency reliability for the scale. Both of the questionnaires consisted of three parts: personal background information, language practice and language management of Teochew, and language ideology. Anonymity and confidentiality were maintained before the completion of the questionnaire. Through the online survey platform, we received 250 valid questionnaires.

As triangulation to acquire more in-depth information about the FLP of Chaoshan people and their covert attitudes towards and use of Teochew, the study also used semi-structured interviews. Convenience sampling was adopted for participant recruitment (Dörnyei 2007). All the interviews were conducted regarding the three aspects of FLP (see Appendix 1 for the interview questions): language practice, language management and language ideology ‘to explore the deeper meanings so as to add interpretive depth and breadth to the analysis’ (Jenkins 2014, 128). Each interview lasted for about 30–40 minutes and was audio-recorded. The interviews were conducted in Putonghua or Teochew, mainly for two reasons: (1) some of the interviewees were unable to speak Putonghua (in such cases, Teochew was chosen for the interviews), and (2) the shared linguistic repertoire (although translanguaging was clearly demonstrated) was adopted; more often, Putonghua was used to allow the participants to better express their ideas in a flexible manner (Mann 2011). A research assistant who speaks Teochew as her L1 was invited to help transcribe the interviews conducted in Teochew.

Data analysis

The questionnaire data were processed and analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 16.0. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics were calculated to reveal how people used the dialect on different occasions. Moreover, a one-way ANOVA test was performed to examine the significant factors influencing the FLP of Teochew.

Qualitative content analysis was employed to analyse the interview transcripts (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). We read each transcript thoroughly from beginning to end, highlighting keywords or phrases related to the research questions. We went through each of the transcripts and double-checked them against the audio for analysis. We then identified the main themes (language ideologies, language management and language practice) with regard to the framework in each transcript, refining the identified themes to gain an in-depth understanding. Finally, we established interconnections among the themes across all the transcripts. After all the transcripts had been coded, we examined all the data to identify the emergent codes.

Trustworthiness

It is not possible to generalise the findings from this small case study. However, it is hoped that, with data collected in this unexplored area and rich descriptions of participants’ experiences, the findings can be transferable to other similar dialect-speaking areas (Lincoln and Guba 1985). The data were primarily collected by the first author, while the second author managed the data collection process. As a local Chaoshan person who speaks Teochew as his L1, the second author carefully observed data collection process and took field notes to minimise subjectivity. The data collection and analysis processes were balanced by the researchers by being reflexive and explicit about their roles (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Research ethics were strictly followed in this study. The participants voluntarily participated in this study and were all informed of the study purposes and told that they could discontinue the study at any time.

Findings

Language practice and management in the family domain

According to the questionnaire data, Teochew was most frequently used by the parents to communicate with the elderly (97.87%), their friends (97.17%) and their own parents (95.74%). In contrast, the most frequent occasion for students using Teochew was talking with friends (87.16%). Less than 50% of the students chose to speak Teochew when they met other Chaoshan people outside the Chaoshan area. As seen in the extract below, this was also reported by HZM (student):

Extract 1:

When I met Chaoshan people in Shenzhen, I felt more familiar than when I met Chaoshan people in the Chaoshan area. However, I would not speak Teochew first until I recognised that the one I talked to was also from the Chaoshan area.

In the interview responses, both the parents and students mentioned that Teochew was most frequently used every day in their family domain. In contrast, Putonghua and English were not spoken at home on purpose because these languages had already been taught in school. According to the questionnaire results for language practice in the family domain, both parents and students chose Putonghua programme as their first choice when watching TV and singing. Teochew was ranked as the third choice, even after Cantonese. Students also chose Putonghua as their primary language in the school domain, such as talking to classmates and teachers at school and to friends after class, while Teochew was ranked as the second choice.

The popularity of the use of Putonghua in the family and education domains was also expressed by the participants in the interviews, as shown in the following extracts:

Extract 2:

Even kindergarten adopts Putonghua as the medium of instruction nowadays. I realised that, after my son went to kindergarten, he spoke Putonghua better than Teochew. (LPF, parent)

Extract 3:

Speaking Putonghua is not compulsory at school, but I do feel that it is more convenient to use it when I discuss some maths problems with my classmates. I only know how to express many technical terms in Putonghua. (CL, student)

A potential reason for the dominant use of Putonghua in people’s daily lives is that most TV programmes and songs are produced in Putonghua. Therefore, even though some of the interviewees (ZC, student; HYT, student; LZK, parent) mentioned that their elder family members preferred to watch news reports or Chaozhou Opera productions in Teochew, they were also exposed to Putonghua via mainstream TV programmes. One of the students said the following:

Extract 4:

My parents watched Teochew TV programmes and took me to watch Chaozhou Opera when I was a kid. I found that many words from Chaozhou Opera were difficult to understand because some expressions were obsolete. I could not understand the intonation and some of pronunciation and meanings from Chaozhou Opera. After we moved to Shenzhen, we watched news reports or TV programmes in Putonghua more often. (HZM, student)

Moreover, the students ranked watching TV programmes and singing songs in Teochew the least, indicating that the younger generation was not interested in forms of entertainment that used this fangyan. Three of the interviewees (HZM, student; WYL, student; ZC, student) said that they had little knowledge of Chaoshan TV programmes or Chaozhou Opera. For instance, ZC (student) said the following:

Extract 5:

I saw Chaozhou Opera when I was young, but after growing up, I no longer watch it. I think young idol drama is more interesting than Chaozhou Opera.

Factors influencing FLP

In terms of exploring how parents implemented their FLP, this study conducted a one-way ANOVA test on family language planning and the internal family conditions for speaking Teochew, including the parents’ proficiency of Teochew, educational level and occupation. Based on the data, the parents’ language proficiency had a significant effect on family language planning, F (2, 138) = 5.72, p < .01; while the parents’ educational level and occupation were positively correlated with family language planning, the effect was not significant.

These data show that the parents’ proficiency was the key factor influencing the children’s language planning and learning (Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2018; Forey, Besser, and Sampson 2016). According to the interviews, we found that parents with a higher educational level had a more open attitude towards multilingual abilities. They were able to switch between languages flexibly, and they transcoded linguistically. This is also seen in the comments made by one of the students:

Extract 6:

My father and mother have received higher education, and they sent me to a bilingual kindergarten, where I was taught Putonghua and English. Then, they speak Teochew with me at home mostly. My father said that he would teach his grandchildren to speak Teochew. (YPP, student)

The proficiency of Teochew

Language proficiency plays an essential role in affecting the parents’ language management in the family domain, which is an important factor influencing their implementation of FLP. According to the questionnaire results, 63.83% of the parents believed that they were proficient in speaking Teochew, while 97.87% believed that they had no problem in understanding and speaking Teochew at a basic level. Nearly half of the parents (47.52%) noted that it was not necessary for them to speak Teochew, given the help provided by Putonghua or English for daily communication. In comparison, only 16.51% of the students felt that they were able to speak Teochew without the help of Putonghua or English to express their thoughts more clearly, while 75.23% noted that they needed to mix in Putonghua or English when speaking Teochew. In general, 90.83% of the students believed they had no problem understanding and speaking basic Teochew. However, some opined that it is sometimes difficult for them to speak uncommon or academic words in Teochew, so they needed to resort to Putonghua. This is seen in the following extract:

Extract 7:

I feel that my peers cannot speak Teochew as fluently as the previous generation, because they are mainly exposed to Putonghua when they leave their hometown. I find that it is sometimes difficult for me to express some words in Teochew when communicating with my peers, so we would switch to some Putonghua together to express ourselves, especially for some uncommon words. (CL, student)

Attitudes towards Teochew

According to the questionnaire results, the parents wanted their children to master both Putonghua (87.23%) and Teochew (84.40%), followed by English (42.55%). In the interviews, the participants also noted the importance of mastering Putonghua and Teochew. For example, consider the following:

Extract 8:

I think speaking Putonghua is very important because it is the official language in China. Even if you come from other cities, as long as you can speak Putonghua, I can still understand what you are saying. Speaking Teochew is also important because I am a Teochew. If I speak Teochew with you, I feel we belong to the same group. (WHC, student)

According to the questionnaire results, the majority of parents showed a positive attitude towards the use of Teochew in various situations. More specifically, 81.6% of them expressed willingness to promulgate Teochew. Over 70.0% of the parents believed that Teochew sounds beautiful and that it is necessary to speak it at home in order to improve their children’s multilingual abilities and ensure that the dialect is passed on. Furthermore, most of the parents (83.69%) were aware that a multilingual language environment is important for language learning and that they should thus use their L1 to speak to their children. It was also found that grandparents played an important role in teaching children Teochew. The frequency of speaking Teochew was even higher when the grandparents lived with the nuclear family. Two interviewees stated that their grandparents could not understand Putonghua well, so they had to use Teochew in order to communicate better.

Extract 9:

I intended to speak Teochew with my grandmother, even I did not speak fluently. If I find it hard to express some words in Teochew, sometimes I will ask my parents for help rather than speaking Putonghua. (HZM, student)

Extract 10:

It is convenient to speak Teochew with my grandpa, so I like to learn Teochew and speak it. (LM, student)

These findings reveal that the participants have a positive attitude towards the use of Teochew in the family domain but that the younger generation does not speak Teochew as well as the previous generation.

Willingness to pass Teochew on to the next generation

Most of the participants felt it was important to learn and speak Teochew and thus reinforce their sense of belonging. Teochew is presented as an important ethnic identity marker. For example, HWJ (student) noted the following:

Extract 11:

For me, Teochew is very interesting; I feel a sense of solidarity when speaking Teochew. I want to teach my classmates Teochew if they want to learn it.

Another participant believed that it was inevitable that Teochew would be used less often than Putonghua or English due to the trends of economic development and the increase in population mobility. He noted the following:

Extract 12:

If some words in Teochew were rarely spoken, other languages can also convey the same meaning. More importantly, both sides can understand this mixed language; then, we should not worry about the disappearance of these words. (CL, student)

Even so, two of the parents (LPF, ZNS) stated that it was necessary for them and their children to speak Teochew fluently because doing so made them feel friendly in the community.

Extract 13:

I tend to consider Teochew a carrier of Chaoshan culture and a symbol of my identity. Chaoshan people may not stay in the Chaoshan area for their whole lives, but I think it is important for them to understand and speak their own dialect. (LPF, parent)

Extract 14:

The children born here can communicate with more people if they learn Teochew, since not everyone can speak Putonghua. I think mastering an extra language can help my child. (ZNS, parent)

The interview responses also told the story from another side; for example, some grandparents tended to respect their children’s wishes and did not teach their grandchildren the dialect on purpose. For example, consider the following:

Extract 15:

I believe that language choice and learning is the parents’ responsibility and decision, and as a grandfather, I will not intentionally teach my grandchildren dialect. (WJL, grandparent, aged 70)

Discussion

This study explored the current situation regarding FLP and the sustainability of Teochew from the multilingual perspective. The findings showed that, when young people speak Teochew, they tend to combine other languages (such as Putonghua or English) and perform translanguaging. Although the respondents have positive attitudes about the inheritance and development of Teochew, a weakening trend was found regarding the frequency of its use in various settings. As shown in the findings, Putonghua has become the primary language of choice for informants during many activities, and the frequency of using Teochew has been impacted by this.

In response to the first research question regarding on what occasions Teochew is used, both the questionnaire results and the interview responses revealed that Teochew is still the most frequently spoken language in the family domain. However, the use of Teochew is in decline across generations. There are several potential reasons for this. First, when people start using Putonghua to communicate with teachers and classmates from primary school or high school, the frequency of speaking Teochew is reduced. Second, some of the dialect words have disappeared, and the number of opportunities to use Teochew in academic and formal settings has decreased. Interviewee LPF (parent) responded that her son spoke Putonghua better than Teochew as soon as he went to kindergarten. Similarly, interviewee CL (student) opined that it was sometimes difficult for him to speak uncommon or academic words in Teochew, so he needed to resort to Putonghua. With the emergence and promotion of Putonghua, many concepts have no counterpart in Teochew, so people use all their linguistic resources, such as Putonghua and even English, to convey their intended meaning. In addition, as two interviewees (ZC, student; ZNS, parent) mentioned, Teochew is so different from Putonghua that outsiders consider it to be a difficult language to learn. Furthermore, many important cultural conveyors, such as Chaozhou Opera and Chaoshan folk songs, are not popular among young people, as three interviewees (ZC, student; HYT, student; LZK, parent) mentioned. Moreover, Teochew can be spoken differently from village to village and from town to town. Hence, there could be a situation in which two Chaoshan people from different regions (such as Shantou and Chaoyang) could not understand one another if they use Teochew to communicate, as interviewee HZM (student) mentioned. Finally, the tools for learning Teochew, such as phonetic and semantic dictionaries, are relatively outdated and rarely known to young people, as two student interviewees (WYL; DTX) stated. In general, most of the participants were able to speak Teochew, but their proficiency level and frequency of doing so were obviously lower than those of the previous generations. Many believe the trend towards Teochew’s marginalisation inevitable given economic development and the increase in population mobility. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the younger generation may perform translanguaging to convey meaning (see Extract 15), which could result in new language integration and the creation of new varieties of language (García and Li 2014; Li and Zhu 2019).

In response to the first research question regarding the purposes of speaking Teochew, the questionnaire results showed that some parents used Putonghua instead of Teochew in everyday communication so that their children would be able to adapt to school life. The interview responses revealed that, although Teochew is primarily used in the family domain, recently, Putonghua has gradually been adopted as a primary medium of instruction, beginning in kindergarten (Feng and Adamson 2018; Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2018; Zou 2020). To some extent, this has led to the limited use of Teochew, particularly in the family domain. Some of the student interviewees (ZC; CL) mentioned that, although Teochew was their L1, they had forgotten many of its expressions because they did not use them frequently in their daily lives. Although this does not affect the use of Teochew for communication, it is detrimental to its development and inheritance. It was also found that, although Teochew was spoken on many occasions, people had a tendency to not speak Teochew initially when they were talking to a stranger. This finding echoes the results reported by Ng and Zhao (2015) in their investigation of Cantonese. The possibility of speakers using dialects decreases as their familiarity with the target speakers decreases. In public situations, strangers do not preferentially use dialects as a means of communication when they are unsure of the other person’s L1.

When answering the second research question addressing the factors impacting FLP and the current situation of Teochew in FLP, it was found that parents’ proficiency level was the most significant factor influencing their children’s language planning and learning, which reflects parents’ role as the medium translators or agents in intergenerational language transmission (Wang and Curdt-Christiansen 2021). In contrast to the findings reported by Tuominen (1999), in which children play a key role in deciding the language used in the family domain, we found that grandparents played a key role in maintaining Teochew, which is in accordance with Zou’s (2020) investigation of Guangzhou Hakka families. As Wang and Curdt-Christiansen (2018) stated, grandparents usually spend most of their lives in their hometowns, and they speak dialects because Putonghua was not often used in school when they were being educated. Therefore, when the grandparents are invited by their children to participate in childcare, they tend to speak Teochew with their grandchildren, even if they understand Putonghua. However, status and contact with multiple languages will inevitably lead to competition between languages. Because a fangyan is believed to have less privilege than the national lingua franca, Teochew is likely to be ‘relegated’ to the family domain from the perspectives of both parents and children. Grandparents may also naturally choose to use Putonghua instead of Teochew to communicate with their grandchildren. Therefore, the FLP of Teochew is affected by external factors, such as socio-cultural environment and national language policy, as well as internal factors, such as the impact of parental beliefs (Curdt-Christiansen and Huang 2020).

Regarding the third research question, concerning people’s attitudes towards Teochew and its sustainable development in the future, the study’s findings unveil that most of the participants have a positive attitude towards Teochew and translanguaging. Teochew remains the first choice when people speak with their parents or children based on the questionnaire results and previous studies (e.g. Liu and Li 2020). Furthermore, the participants (see Extracts 11, 13 and 14) positively evaluated Teochew as a language that represented their identity and sense of belonging to the region. Because most of the participants had grown up using Teochew, there was a strong connection to the language and a sense of solidarity with the people in the area who spoke it.

Implications

This study contributes to the field of fangyan maintenance in the process of intergenerational transmission. As with other languages and dialects within and across regions, some micro-, meso- and macro-level implications can be drawn.

At the micro and meso levels, it is critical to increase parents’ awareness of the importance of Teochew maintenance. Parents should be informed about the various benefits of multilingualism, including that it is helpful for children’s career development. Meanwhile, school authorities should realise the importance and necessity of dialect protection and inheritance when promoting Putonghua. Because of the promotion of Putonghua in educational settings, students are exposed to and use dialects less frequently at school, particularly during formal instruction. Therefore, activities such as Cháoxuétáng (潮学堂), which is a TV programme that invites famous scholars of Teochew to actively interact with students from primary and middle schools, will better carry forward traditional culture, popularise local education and actively promote the inheritance and popularisation of Teochew. Social media and online applications can be used as channels to promote the use of Teochew, build people’s confidence in their ability to speak it and increase their willingness to speak and pass along the language.

Far more importantly, at the macro level, it is pivotal to use heritage languages, such as Teochew, in public spaces because in such a case, it is more likely that these languages will be valued, thus making it more likely that local dialects will survive. In view of the importance of fangyans against the backdrop of globalisation, one requirement when recruiting frontline civil service servants could be the candidate’s ability to speak a fangyan. The government could do more than merely invest in initiatives to protect endangered languages (语言保护, Yŭyán băohù) (Shen and Gao 2019; Shen, Wang, and Gao 2021); For example, it could support the use of fanyans throughout the linguistic landscape. Moreover, it is important to strengthen the ties between Teochew-speaking businessmen overseas, who are distributed all over the world in large numbers; many of them communicate with one another in Teochew (Liu and Li 2020). They have a certain degree of economic strength, extensive social connections and cultural advantages that integrate Chinese into the languages spoken in foreign countries. They play a unique role in the ‘The Belt and The Road’ initiative promoting Chinese culture.

In summary, the linguistic hierarchy between the key dominant languages and marginalised local dialects is still salient. The development and sustainability of local languages/dialects require various channels of awareness and action in the family, school and society because ‘language practices need to be sustained (not simply maintained)’ (García and Li 2014, 72). As a heritage language, Teochew represents not only sentimental or emotional connections in terms of intergenerational relations but also ethnic cultural diversity. The official language and heritage languages are not engaged in a battle. Policy makers should recognise that all languages are resources, corresponding to the instrumental approach to language policy making used in China, which will help China avoid plural monoculturalism (Fang 2018; Pennycook and Makoni 2020; Shen, Wang, and Gao 2021).

Conclusion

Some limitations should be noted. Admittedly, the data only cover a specific type of participant. More people from various professions and ages could be researched to unpack the complexity of language policy and planning. For ethical reasons, we were unable to observe people in the context of their families. Therefore, an ethnographic approach could be adopted to better understand people’s FLP and language practice.

This study also contributes to the field of FLP from a minority language perspective. It explores the use of Teochew on different occasions, the factors influencing the FLP of Teochew and local Chaoshan people’s attitudes towards the development and sustainability of Teochew. There is no doubt that families play an important role in maintaining heritage languages, such as Teochew. The findings reveal the usage frequency of Teochew on different occasions and among different groups; it was found that parents’ proficiency is the key factor influencing the FLP of Teochew. Although the majority of the participants have positive attitudes regarding the inheritance and development of Teochew, the future of sustainable development for this dialect shows a weakening trend. The younger generation uses Teochew less frequently than the previous generations, and its use is mostly confined to the community and family domains. Additional studies can be performed across a wider geographical range with more fangyans to better understand and compare various FLPs, language planning and management, as well as to address the issues related to the sustainability of and concrete protection measurements for various local dialects in China and other multilingual contexts.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project (Youth Fund Project) – ‘Investigation of the Interaction Mechanism between Family Language Planning and Cultural Identity’ (grant number 21YJC740012).

Notes

1 We fully realise the controversy between language and dialect (Allen and Linn 1986) in relation to hierarchy, the power of ‘language’, and the subordination of ‘dialect’. The term ‘Chinese’ is traditionally regarded as a macrolanguage, while many ‘dialects’ are mutually unintelligible. There is no hierarchical connotation regarding language, dialect or fangyan (translation from Chinese pinyin) in this paper, although Putonghua is the only official language in China and the term ‘dialect’ is still familiar to many people.

Appendix

访谈提纲 (家长版) Interview Outline (Parent)

1. 您的母语是什么？您现在会说哪种/哪些语言或者方言呢？

   (What is your first language? What languages/dialects do you speak now?)

2. 您与家人交谈时，喜欢或者倾向于先用哪种语言？为什么？

   (What language do you prefer to use when talking with your family members? Why?)

3. 您一家人坐在一起看电视或听广播时，您们会选择什么语言的节目呢？为什么？

   (When you watch TV or listen to the radio with your family, what language do you choose? Why?)

4. 在家中，您和老一辈人和下一代人是否用潮汕话顺利交流？ 为什么？

   (Do you speak Teochew well with your family? Why or why not?)

5. 如果您会说多种语言/方言，您是否经常会把这几种语言混合着说？为什么？

   (If you speak more than one language/dialect, do you often mix them? Why?)

6. 您是否感觉潮汕话有和其他语言融合的现象？如何看待？

   (Do you feel that Teochew is being integrated with other languages? What do you think of this phenomenon?)

7. 与同辈，在工作中，比如与同事/领导交谈时，选择/喜欢用/哪些语言？为什么？

   (What language do you choose/prefer to speak when talking with your colleagues at work? Why?)

8. 您觉得现在的年轻的一代的潮汕话的掌握情况如何？

   (What do you think of the younger generation’s mastery of Teochew?)

9. 您觉得下一代人有必要学习潮汕方言吗？为什么？

   (Do you think it is necessary for your children to learn Teochew? Why?)

10. 您希望您的小孩学会多种语言吗？为什么？

    (Do you want your children to speak multiple languages? Why?)

11. 您认为潮汕话近年来有什么样的使用趋势？它的未来发展是什么样的？

    (What do you feel about the tendency of using Teochew? What is the future development of Teochew?)

12. 您觉得潮汕人在潮汕地区有必要讲普通话吗？为什么？

    (Do you think it is necessary for Chaoshan people to speak Putonghua in the Chaoshan area? Why?)

谈提纲 (学生版) Interview Outline (Student)

1. 你的母语是什么？您现在会说哪种/哪些语言或者方言呢？

   (What is your first language? What languages/dialects do you speak now?)

2. 你与家人交谈时，喜欢或者倾向于先用哪种语言？为什么？

   (What language do you prefer to use when talking with your family members? Why?)

3. 你一家人坐在一起看电视或听广播时，您们会选择什么语言的节目呢？为什么？

   (When you watch TV or listen to the radio with your family, what language do you choose? Why?)

4. 在家中，你和老一辈人和下一代人是否用潮汕话顺利交流？ 为什么？

   (Do you speak Teochew well with your family? Why or why not?)

5. 如果你会说多种语言/方言，您是否经常会把这几种语言混合着说？为什么？

   (If you speak more than one language/dialect, do you often mix them? Why?)

6. 您是否感觉潮汕话有和其他语言融合的现象？如何看待？

   (Do you feel that Teochew is being integrated with other languages? What do you think of this phenomenon?)

7. 与同辈，在学习中，比如与老师/同学交谈时，选择/喜欢用/哪些语言？为什么？

   (What language do you choose/prefer to speak when talking with your teachers/classmates at school? Why?)

8. 从你个人来看，你觉得需要掌握哪种/哪些语言呢？你觉得现在对你而言比较常用的语言是，为什么？

   (What languages do you think you need to master? Which is the most common language for you to use now? Why?)

9. 您认为潮汕话近年来有什么样的使用趋势？它的未来发展是什么样的？

   (What do you feel about the tendency of using Teochew? What is the future development of Teochew?)

10. 您觉得潮汕人在潮汕地区有必要讲普通话吗？为什么？

    (Do you think it is necessary for Chaoshan people to speak Putonghua in the Chaoshan area? Why?)