Redesigning Linguistic Landscapes
The Statement of Purpose
The language landscape has been around in different settings across the world. It is not surprising that not all people are fully aware of their linguistic landscape, though most of them can easily notice the language they use and the specific characteristics of linguistics of the linguistic landscape (Bailey et al., 2016). Today, there is a rise in the predominance of the visual information involving more signs than in the past. Thus, a country like China uses a variety of regional languages, which the Chinese Scholars refer to as dialects. With these dialects, different visual signs have been evident in the postal cards or pictures of the shopping streets of about a century ago, indicating that the signs of linguistics have risen tremendously. The core purpose of this research is to examine the redesigning concepts of the linguistic landscape in the Chinese setting. This paper provides a summary of the findings regarding this subject and gives a set of recommendations based on the issues of language and literacy.
The Statement of the Types of Language Policy Issues
Before going deeper into describing the types of language policy problems, it is necessary to have an understanding of the diverse languages that are used in various Chinese settings. These languages have been placed in a category ofthe regional varieties, including topolects, Putonghua, and minority varieties. Based on this situation, several linguists have presented an argument for the value of the simultaneous utilization of the regional and national varieties since 1996 when the State Language Commission finally accepted it. The findings concerning this topic reveal that Language Law of 2001 has placed emphasis on continuously promoting Putonghua, which was officially adopted as the China’s national language in the 1950s(Lewis et al., 2013). This law also provided a list of the appropriate situations which permit the public use of both the regional and the minority languages. While the topolectsconstitute the biggest population of Han Chinese, non-Han Chinese are the minority groups(Lewis et al., 2013). The core argument for the recognition of these languages has been a pragmatic realization providing knowledge in the minority varieties which would be the quickest approach to attaining the goals of national ideology (Lewis et al., 2013).The greatest language policy issue here is the tension that has beencreated between the Putonghua movement and the related search for the national unity of the loyalty to local autonomy that is persistent and the language.
The language policy issue takes into account the use of language in the writing systems. Notwithstanding the fact that the government of PRC accepted the recognition concept of various minority languages, developing the writing systems for facilitation and preservation of its application is a great concern in the language management task (Bailey et al., 2016). After the appropriate research and experimentation in 1958, the language policy makers agreed on the development of the minority languages that lacked a writing system of new phonetic alphabets on the basis of Pinyin(Bailey et al., 2016). This policy was unlike the initially used Cyrillic or other systems in the interest of the wishes of these minorities.
Moreover, some case studies on the minority varieties depict the obvious tension existing between the maintenance of the minority language and the spread of Putonghua, related to other issues of the minority groups’ condition. This aspect has been vividly addressed in many case studies that have been published by different language policy scholars. For instance, Mair (2013) presents Tibetan as a good example of the Chinese setting where three diverse vernacular languages have a single writing system as common aspect among them. In most official policy studies, Tibetan has been recognized as a language used in schools when giving instructions, though secondary schools have many teachers who are non-Tibetan (Mair, 2013). Nonetheless, there is a limited application of Tibetan language outside Tibet. Some language policy scholars have raised their lack of satisfaction concerning the fact that the government officials are not embracing the use of Tibetan in the implementation of legal and constitutional support (Mair, 2013). This situation is an indication that there is a severe limitation of the teachers speaking Tibetan in schools, resulting in high levels of illiteracy among the Chinese population and thus becoming a major language policy issue (Bailey et al., 2016). Based on this issue, the scholars have concluded that the gap between the dialects of Tibetans remains unresolved. Additionally, they have pointed out that there is a lack of sufficient funds for all the tasks involved in the management of languages in the country (Bailey et al., 2016).
Another language policy concern is the Uygur use. In the broader context of the complexity of the language policy of the minority, Williams (2013) argued that there are competing interests among the linguists and language experts, top political leaders, and minority group leaders. The manner through which they address the tension between the periphery and center has become another key concern of the scholars. Further, Williams(2013) points out the issue of the development of the policy changes in the Xin-jiang Uygur Autonomous Religion. In connection with this concern, Ma (2012) provided evidence of a strong impact of the educational policy of schools on the minority languages in China. Based on the argument by Zhu andBlachford(2012), the language policy of the minority has for many decades remained not only a major but also a complex problem. The exacerbation is believed to have emanated from the economic policy’s failure to promote the minorities’ position.
Additional issues of language regulations on the minorities have drawn the attention of Blachford and Jone (2011) based on the previous focus on teaching English in the latest policies. This aspect calls for the policy makers to tackle the complex nature of trilingual education where those speaking the minority language need to be taught the Putonghua first before English. This policy has resulted in many people in some areas having poor qualifications as well as proficiency in English. Blachford and Jones (2011) provide further evidence using an example of one particular school called Naxi School in Yunnan where there was only one teacher of English who could note converse fluently in it. Furthermore, the parents and children learning are not motivated to learn English. This finding reveals that the minority groups get little concern from the country’s language policy (Cheng & Curtis, 2010). Another problem associated with such schools is that they do not have enough resources, for instance, the school has only a few teachers were only nine as compared to the required number of 12 teachers (Blachford& Jones, 2011). In general, the Blachford and Jones have concluded that taking English considered as the third language for globalization has made the educational for the minorities worse like it is the case in Naxi School.
The Historical and Current Context of theChinese Language
From the time of the formation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, there has been an active involvement of the government of Chinese in matters of language planning and policies (Liang, 2015). Since that time, Chinese has been considered as a member of the family of languages of Sino-Tibetan comprising several regional varieties (Dialects). In the Chinese context, scholars argue the dialects are not mutually intelligible. This language occurs in seven broad categories of dialect groups known as Fanfyan. They include Mandarin, Gan, Yue, Min, Wu, Hakka, and Xiang (Liang, 2015). The northern part of China has the Chinese varieties, mainly the Mandarin dialects. The present association of the Chinese language and other languages of Sino-Tibetan has become a critical concern among the active researchers, though it has been a controversial issue, in the redesigning of the language landscape. Thus, this aspect has constituted an obvious issue in the historic linguistics, which is an area incorporating the comparative technique of deducing the changes in the landscape of linguistics (Bailey et al. 2016). Most importantly, scholars have found that a common ancestry of the Tibeto-Burman and Chinese languages still remains to be the hypothesis that has not been proven (Jingjing, 2013).
Also, the historical development of the spoken Chinese language from the ancient historic periods appears to be complex ideology in the past and also today. It is worth to note that the Mandarin dialects have become a home language for a larger number of the Chinese in Sichuan and a wider arc for the northeast, Manchuria, to the southwest, Yunnan (Jingjing, 2013). Geographically, the existence of these dialects in the whole northern part of China broadly results from the plains of the country (Jingjing, 2013). In contrary to this finding, the rivers, as well as the mountains of the southern section of China encouraged the diversity of linguistics that has shaped today’s Chinese languages. In a social scale, the general population used a variety of Mandarin used this language widely during this period in China, although there was no a single Mandarin that existed in the mid twentieth century.
Temporarily, the language landscape in China changed with the establishment of an elementary school system whose commitment was to teach the modern Standard Chinese (Mandarin). This scenario was in both the Republic of China (ROC) and PRC, except in Macau and Hong Kong s(Jingjing, 2013). Broadly speaking, Mandarin is the language that is mostly used in the current Chinese population in Taiwan and mainland China. Therefore, the literature that Mandarin has become increasingly influential has emerged as a threat to the locals who fear that their native language that might die slowly. Visual presentation using signs has been a dominant area of study by many researchers, where the largest density of signs is evident in towns and cities, especially in industrial sectors and shopping streets. As an example, most signs on the shops in the streets of China are an evidence of the historic linguistic as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Use of Chinese and Foreign Languages in Chinese Shops (Source: Jingjing, 2013, p.45)
The Description of Current Research on Linguistic Landscapes
The current studies have provided the imperative knowledge of the language and linguistic landscape. Most studies have concentrated on the shop signs in Chinese Cities such as Beijing to depict the linguistic landscape in the nation. Most importantly, the research has sought to examine the China’s multilingual environment. In the first place, the findings on the languages used in signs reveal that there has been a bone of contention concerning the gap existing between the China’s linguistic landscape and that of other nations. Notably, many Chinese linguists have studied the concept of signs from the translation perspective, not like the international scholars.The definition of the public signs that has been publicly quoted is gongshiyu(公示语) as pointed out by Jingjing (2013). Such signs have displayed the information to the public in symbolic or written form, with the close association with the work, environment, and lives of the public. As a result, this concept has compelled, directed, or restricted the functions of the language displayed in the public signs.
In a broader international perspective, the signs have been mostly considered in the linguistic landscape studies of a given place. Here is where the researchers have attempted to give a definition of the term “linguistic landscape.” This concept means the salience and visibility of languages on the commercial as well as public signs in a certain region or territory (Jingjing, 2013). Zou et al. (2011) provided another meaning that it is a language that is used more often in the road signs, place names, advertising billboards, commercial shop signs, and street names of the public. As well, it means the public signs on the buildings of the government combining to yield linguistic landscape of a particular urban agglomeration, region, or territory. These two definitions reveal the diverse views that the scholars have concerning the public signs. While former definition places emphasis on the “information,” the latter focuses on the term “language” as the central aspect of the studies. Based on this case, the current research on the China’s linguistic landscape has emerged an urgent concern faced by the scholars in the country (Bailey et al., 2016). Furthermore, this aspect has been another way of documenting the developments and the economical, historical, cultural, social, and political changes that are facing China.
In studying the signs as a whole, researchers have noted it is crucial to have an understanding of this term “sign” since it has been useful in the studies of linguistic landscape (Bailey et al., 2016). The findings on this subject have revealed that most the current surveys have also sought to investigate the public or government signs. The places where the researchers have drawn the evidence of the language pattern in China include the hospitals, train or bus stations, scenic spots, and parks among other publicly used facilities. Also, several studies concerning the aspect of advertisement, particularly their translations have been a cornerstone of the linguistic landscape studies (Bailey et al., 2016). Such studies have come up with the conclusion that there is still no systemic and complete comprehension of the signs in a given place in spite of the fact the wider usage of signs on the storefronts and business institutions.
In the surveys on this topic, multilingual signs have also constituted an area of concern. It is not surprising to point out that the Chinese-English bilingual signs have been debated broadly in China. Nonetheless, the multilingual signs are increasingly drawing the attention of the researchers in this nation. The many studies on the Chinese-English bilingual present the evidence that the obvious bilingual signs have been present in the bus parks, downtown, and the main streets among others. However, some researchers have asserted that most of the non-Chinese languages have been utilized on the signs. As an illustration, Jingjing (2013)presents a list of the foreign languages used including Spanish, Korean, English, and Japanese among others. Such languages are the minorities that are spoken in some Chinese parts like Wen Zhou. Further findings indicate that the concept of multilingual signs gets a little attention among the scholars in China. On the other hand, there is critical view raised by Jingjing (2013) regarding using the multilingual signs in the places that are mostly used by the public. Their reason for this criticism is that such signs depict the desire of the local people to be globalized. Therefore, it is not a new observation that the multilingual signs have been underappreciated or rather given little concern in the prior research in China.
Moreover, the linguistic landscape has been utilized as an instrument or the latest technique of studying multilingualism in the International Journal of Multilingualism, in its special issue. This finding is evident in several studies such as that of Jingjin (2013) who provided an analysis of the shops in Macedonia with the English signs among other places. In China, such multilingual signs have been used, though there are challenges of the political and historical influence to the use of these signs in China like any other nation.
Another area where the linguistic landscape has emerged based on the signs is the scripts and images and thus hasbecome a good part of the research on this subject. One of the previous contributors to this research is Bailey et al. (2016), who pointed out the concept of Linguistic Landscape as the objects of linguistics making the public space. He also notes that the term refers to any signs in written form that an individual can get outside the private house, particularly from signs on the road to private names of schools, shops, or streets. Additionally, Garvin (2010) argued that the concept of linguistic landscape goes beyond the concrete inscriptions where he considers images and icons among other multimodal literacies that exist in the public environment. Though, this researcher suggests further research on the language use not only in its written form but also in images.
The Additional Sociolinguistic Literature relating to Chinese Language Use
In sociolinguistic or sociological point of view,it is important to examine the multidisciplinary methods to gain a better understanding of the subject of linguistic landscape (Spolsky, 2009). Some views in the geography and psychology can provide insights into the likelihood of having an in-depth knowledge of multilingualism. For instance, Spolsky(2014) argues that the linguistic landscape, which has labeling that is awkward and yet attractive, has led to the development of the study of the signage of the multilingual into the sub-areas of language policy as well as sociolinguistics. Additionally, the prior studies indicate that some studies on the probable techniques of multilingual consequences can tremendously contribute to the Chinese research regarding the visual presentation of language using signs (Spolsky, 2014).
Like Bailey et al. (2016, pg.312) who argues that “the sociolinguistics of globalization is accompanied by a constitutive scalar politics”,Liang (2015) also tried to associate the aspect of linguistic landscape and the politics and sociolinguistics of the dialects in China. Liang pointed out that this relationship first emanates from the definition of the term ‘linguistics’, which is an ideological problem the level of the society as well as the attitudinal decision for every person. In this case, the descriptive analysis, in the synchronic perspective, shows that a language may mean a group of norms that are linguistically related or a single norm. On the other hand, a dialect is considered as one of such norms. In China’s language landscape, dialects have a certain functional approach, whose focus is on the social role of the varieties of languages (Liang, 2015). Arguably, a language can have broader roles than just being a dialect. In other words, it may be regarded as a medium of communication between diverse dialects, whose development may be in a more sense of being standardized and codified (Liang, 2015). Therefore, the beauty of linguistics or the attitudes of people towards variety relies on the degree of its development as well as the ideological importance of that development. In the context of Chinese dialects, there exists at least one prestigious variety serving as a regional lingua franca. The varieties include the Mexican variety in the dialect group ofKejia (Hakka) dialect group; the Xia men (Anomy) or Fuzhou (Foochow) variety in the Min dialect group; the Guangzhou variety in the Yue (Cantonese) dialect class; the Suzhou or Shanghai variety in the dialect group of Wu (Liang, 2015).
In the historical and sociolinguistic analysis, the Chinese sub-grouping is a subject of debate. Though, the most frequently used approach groups the Chinese dialects into eight major groups aforementioned in this study (Hakka, Xiang, Min, Beifang, Wu, Kejia, Yue, and Gan) (Liang, 2015). Such groupings have greatly shaped the current language landscape in China where some groups have been found to be dominating as compared to others in different places of the country. More importantly, the three major dialect groups have are relevant for the current research concerning the relationship between linguistic landscape and sociolinguistics. These groups include the Mandarin, Yue, and Min dialects.
In the political perspective of the Chinese dialects, the political unrest as well the need for modernization of China in the 20th century emerged to be a chance for the redesigning the language landscape in the nation (Jingjing, 2013). In addition to this idea, the dialectal diversity has presumably impeded the strength, unity, and modernization of the country. Also, the frequently used languages have become more complicated in the national decision-making process. As a result, such dialects have lost an opportunity of becoming the country’s language that is most powerful.
Recommendations and their Rationale
The first recommendation for this study is that further research is needed where it should also focus on the impacts of different factors like the country’s economy on the linguistic landscape. Surprisingly, China’s level of the economy can shape the use of language in the country. For instance, measuring the levels of income of the people against literacy levels can tell why some people are can use some foreign languages or not in schools, universities, and other institutions.
Additionally, the aspect of commoditization of language has drawn the attention of current sociolinguistic because of the economic value of the language seems to carry (Heller, 2010). As a matter of fact, the exchange of information appears to be a cornerstone for the creation and maintenance of the commercial and social ties, and multilingual and language skills. On the other hand, the market expansion outside the nation-states calls for the capability to communicate in foreign languages so as to engage in selling and buying of the services and products. Also, the technological advancement has required proper communication using diverse languages so as to break the communication barriers which impede the success of the nations, where China is not an exception.
Based on these findings, educating people of the foreign languages and acquisition of the forms of communication such as cell phones and Internet among others have proved to be costly. Thus, these needs can only favor the people with high income, and the low-income earners may find it difficult to pay for the educational programs that enhance their knowledge of the global languages (Heller, 2010). Therefore, the future research should consider the effect of the levels of income on the spread of minority languages such as the foreign languages for them to participate in the global markets.
Secondly, the further study needs to put into account how effective the language policy has been in China. This approach is important since it helps linguists to understand the factors which impede such policy in attaining the language control goals (Malcohm, 2014). One of the factors that have hindered the effectiveness of the language policy in China is the demands raised by the dominant groups like Mandarin that the official policy of naming should prioritize them in the country. In other words, such naming policy has empowered these groups to maintain their status quo and thus continuing to be a policy, which makes some indigenous and other minority languages(Malcohm, 2014). Therefore, this recommendation is relevant since there is still a need for China to have the language policy that gives equal power to all languages including those that are international acceptable in the world of business.
Moreover, the concept of majoritarianism has contributed a lot to lagging the success of the policy of language in many countries. In this case, defacto and professed policy have affected the language policy and social justice in education. Notably, the policies that have enforced a proper recognition of Aboriginal language in an explicit way within the systems of education seem to no longer exist (Spolsky, 2014). Also, the non-existent policies have played a role in meeting the political correctness, though little has been realized concerning this aspect. For instance, Chinese scholars have noted that this policy issue has never ceased since the colonial era and has stuck in the minds of many people who think they are the majority in the nations (Malcohm, 2014). For this reason, many Chinese schools have few teachers who speak English like Naxi School, and even most of those who seem to be qualified still have difficulties in using it because of the influence of the majority varieties. This aspect is another point for the relevance for this recommendation for the future research which should focus more on how effective the policy has been and then come up with ways of addressing the policy issues.
Thirdly, the current study has captured little on the demographics of the country. Thus, there is a need to take note of the role of age, ethnic background, gender, and income among others on the redesigning of the linguistic landscape. The relevance of this aspect is based on the fact that some ages have a higher capability of acquiring and using some languages than others, especially the youth against the old people (Bailey et al., 2016). Notwithstanding the fact that the use of some languages depends on a certain age group and ethnicity among others, there is limited still the data on the role of demographics in shaping the linguistic landscape. Thus, these findings make the proposal relevant for further study to investigate this issue in China.
Bailey et al. (2016) provide evidence that supports the relevance of the recommendation on demographics, and particularly in racialism or ethnicity. They point out that the sociolinguistic associations related to racialism have been thought to be approaches to appreciate the tension in the ideologies of language, though have tried to re-negotiate the underlying racial hierarchies based on the social scales. The data indicates that the people from other nations and residing in China have painful experience with the widespread of the Chinese languages since their languages are among the minority groups (Bailey et al., 2016). This aspect indicates how people are treated in relation to linguistic landscape based on their ethnic background. Therefore, the future studies need to dig deeper into this aspect among other demographic factors.
Fourth, there needs to be a framework concerning a universal official policy that needs to control languages without favoritism. This step will be important since the minority languages will have equal power to make all people have a sense of ownership of the language. For instance, the minority languages should also be used in local culture and tourism. As a result, there will be elevated public visibility though it can bring about the ambiguity of the advantages for its users (Bailey et al., 2016). In most cases, the official agencies in the county initiate and also support the idea of equal recognition given to the minority languages as a top-down aspect.
On the other, the significance of the public visibility of the minority groups needs not to be overestimated based on its direct impact on the language revitalization strengthening. Nonetheless, such a step may be essential towards language recognition (Bailey et al., 2016). In this case, the current research on different discourses concerning the minority languages in the landscape of linguistics is a proof for the need for more research in the offing on this subject.
Finally, there is a need for further research on the linguistic landscape in education (Jingjing, 2013). This consideration is necessary because this landscape exists both in schools and their surroundings.There has always been an issue in the education system when many educators belong to the majority language. Mostly, they tend to assume that they are all the same, regardless of other minorities existing in such as a system (Malcolm, 2014). Thus, this point proves that there is a severe need to address the issue in schools, universities, and other institutions so as to ensure the official language (English) is given priority.
Also, English is a dialect that has been brought in the education system of China and thus needs to be respected. This dialect has faced challenges due to the resistance from the majorities who find it difficult to have control over the features of Standard English. In addition to this problem, literacy myth has been an issue where literacy has been related to the ideological promises that are emblematic of progress and modernity and connected the development and economic growth (Malcolm, 2014). Thus, there is a need for the more research to propose ways of mitigating such issues in the Chinese education system.
References
Bailey, A. J., Canagarajah, S., Lan, S., & Powers, D. G. (2016). Scalar politics, language ideologies, and the sociolinguistics of globalization among transnational Korean professionals in Hong Kong. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 312-334.
Blachford, D.R., & Jones, M.(2011). Trilingual education policy ideals and realities for the Naxi in rural Yunnan. In A., Feng ed.English language education across greaterChina, Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 228–259.
Cheng, L. & Curtis, A.(2010). English language assessment and the Chinese learner. New York: Routledge.
Garvin, T. R. (2010). Responses to the Linguistic Landscape in Memphis, Tennessee: An Urban Space in Transition. In E.Shohamy, E. Ben-Rafael & M. Barni (Eds.), Linguistic Landscape in the City, 235-251.
Heller, M. (2010). The commodification of language. Annual Review of Anthropology,39, 101–14.
Jingjing, W. (2013).Linguistic Landscape of China: A Case Study of Shop Signs in Beijing, Studies in Literature and Language, 6(1), 40-47.
Lewis, M. P., Gary, F. S.,&Fennig, C.D. (2013). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (17thed). Dallas: SIL International.
Liang, S. (2015). Language Attitudes and Identities in Multilingual China, A Linguistic Ethnography, XVI (12), 202.
Mair, V. (2013). The classification of Sinitic languages: What is ‘Chinese’? Breaking down the barriers: Interdisciplinary studies in Chinese linguistics and beyond, ed. byCao Guangshun, RedouaneDjamouri, Hilary Chappell, and TheklaWiebusch, Beijing: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica, 735–754.
Malcolm, I.G. (2014). Social Justice Issues in the Education of Aboriginal English Speakers. Language as a Social Justice Issue Conference, 1-9.
Spolsky, B. (2014). Language management in the People’s Republic of China. Language, 90(4), e165-e179.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Prolegomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E. Shohamy& D. Gorter(Eds.), Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery (pp. 25–39). New York: Routledge.
Williams, C.H. (2013). Minority language promotion, protection and regulation: The mask of piety. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zhu, Y., &Blachford, D.R. (2012). Economic expansion, marketization, and their social impact on China’s ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet. Asian Survey, 51.4.714–33.
Zou, Y. Q., Man, Y., &Meng, Y. M. (2011). Review on Public Sign Translation in Recent Ten Years. Shanghai Journal of Translators, 4, 27-30.
