Language policies are dynamic, as they tend to change under different regimes. The article by Todd Sandel explores the specific impact of the Mandarin Language Policy on family-based language practice in Taiwan.
Historically, in 1945, the Nationalist Government introduced a language reform in Taiwan in order to promote the Mandarin language and restrict the use of local dialects (including Japanese forms). At the uneasy time of the 1940s-1980s, when the Communist threat was particularly strong, this step could be justified. In 1987, when the leader of the Nationalist Government passed away, the rebirth of local languages like Tai-gi began. The research question is formulated in the following way: “What has happened, and what is happening, in private fields of discourse, to the folk who have lived through these politicized and changing linguistic policies?” (Sandel, 2003, p.532).
The author describes the research method in the following way: using the theoretical framework of folk approach to childrearing, the research team conducted a series of interviews, and the scholar analyzed the rules of talk and communication, used in two Taiwanese communities. The sample was composed of 25 participants: 17 adults, 5 seniors and 3 young adults, who spoke both Mandarin and Tai-gi.
The two major sections of the interview were following: “personal experiences of learning to speak Tai-gi at home and Mandarin at school; 2) the languages parents use (or used) in the home with their children” (Sandel, 2003, p. 533), as well as the ideologies which underlie the particular language choice.
As the study suggests, the earlier generation, which experienced the introduction of the Mandarin as official language, quickly became fluent in this language at school, but these memories appeared to them stressful and traumatic, as this speaking practice was obligatory at school and it was too sudden for children to come to class once and hear another language from the teacher. This language was also referred to “self-censorship” language (Sandel, 2003, p.535). This means, Mandarin was used for formal communication, whereas other languages or dialects – for joking or socializing with friends.
The representatives of the so-called “second generation” (citizens who began their first grade not long before 1987) were thus taught Mandarin by their parents. Although the parents themselves were feeling bitterness, as they were forced to allocate much time for preparing their children for school and teaching the proper language, the children themselves willingly spoke Mandarin and used it sometimes even more frequently than Tai-gi.
The third generation, or children, who first went to school after 1987, are fluent in both languages and like watching Mandarin Chinese TV as well as the programs on Tai-gi. Thus, the results indicate that “These links [between school-based and family-based seeking practices] are both intrapersonal – affecting personal perceptions of the value assigned to a language – and interpersonal, affecting which language is spoken in interpersonal communication” (Sandel, 2003, p. 547).
To sum up, the study in fact examined the consequences of the reform, imposed upon the citizens of Taiwan. Nowadays, their children are growing in the bilingual environment with the prevalence of Mandarin in media. For me, the research of the similar direction, is both interesting and useful, as the investigations into language practices in post-totalitarian states have been conducted in narrow formats and small numbers, whereas this information might be valuable for me as a linguist.
Reference
Sandel T. (2002). Linguistic capital in Taiwan: The KMT’s Mandarin language policy and its perceived impact on language practices of bilingual Mandarin and Tai-gi speakers. Language in Society 32, 523-551.