乌鲁木齐市维吾尔族城市居民语言选择调查研究
|
摘要
语言选择是一种非常活跃的社会语言学现象,从上世纪六十年代以来,国内外不同领域的学者纷纷致力于语言选择的研究。在新疆,我们常能发现维吾尔族在说话时从维吾尔语转到汉语,或是维吾尔语夹杂汉语。另一个普遍存在的事实是,人们在不同场合,针对不同的交际对象,使用不同的交际语言。在许多情况下,语言的选择性使用表现出相当复杂而微妙的社会心理,说话者的个体行为往往指向社会层面的原因。
本研究旨在研究乌鲁木齐维吾尔族城市居民的语言选择趋势以及社会变量对其语言选择的影响。基于对语言选择研究的理论基础,采用了问卷调查法对乌鲁木齐市七个辖区的2480名维吾尔族城市居民进行了调查,并结合了访谈法。本研究使用的问卷是根据徐大明(2004)的问卷修订而成的,问卷共计48题。本次问卷调查开始于2009年3月,结束于2008年11月。全部的调查结果采用“社会科学设计配套软件”(SPSS 13.0)进行统计分析。
论文通过理论论证和分析得出以下结论:第一,该群体在保持和发展本民族言语能力的同时,正积极地朝着提高汉语口头表达能力的方向发展;也从一个侧面反映出乌鲁木齐市双语教育的日趋成熟。第二,维吾尔语仍然是该群体的强势语言,但在同一次维吾尔语对话或交谈中兼用汉语的现象占一定比重;该群体在不同语域中的语言选择模式和整体趋势基本一致,但维吾尔语、维汉夹杂和汉语的使用量在不同语域中存在差异:随着语域中交际者双方关系亲近或熟悉度增加,维吾尔语使用量加大,反之维汉夹杂和汉语使用量增加,这进一步说明了说话人是根据不同的交际对象和场景来选择语码的,而这种选择相对固定并有其规律。本研究结果对维汉语言接触和语言变异研究提供又一佐证,同时对维吾尔族双语教育中具体问题的处理提供了参考依据。第三,维吾尔语,维汉夹杂和汉语的使用的出现了不同的社会分层不同。维语和维汉夹杂使用的社会分层复杂程度相似,汉语使用的复杂程度略低,但并不是与维语和维汉夹杂的社会分层完全不同。
总之,本研究结果对维汉语言接触和语言变异研究提供又一佐证,同时对维吾尔族双语教育中具体问题的处理提供了参考依据。
Since 1960s, language choice is a hot discussed sociolinguistic phenomenon, which has been analyzed by a great number of investigators from a wide range of disciplines with diverse approaches and perspectives. In Xinjiang, it is commonly seen that Uygur people switch Uygur to Han Chinese or Uygur mixed with Chinese during their conversation. The other fact is that people will choose different code with different interlocutors in different settings. In most situations, people’s language choice reflects complex and subtle social psychology. Their language choices are part of the social identity they claim for themselves.
The present study aims to find Urumqi Uygur urban residents’language choice and how social factors affect their language choice in different domains with different interlocutors. Based on the theories proposed by previous scholars, the present study integrates both questionnaire and interview to investigate 2480 Urumqi Uygur urban residents coming from seven districts. The questionnaire adopted in this study is composed of three parts, with 48 items. The close-end questionnaire is designed based on Xu (2004)’s questionnaire. The questionnaire survey begins in April 2008 and completes in March 2009. All the questionnaire data are input and processed through the Statistical Package for Science (SPSS 13.0).
The main findings of this thesis are as follows: 1) The members of this ethnic group are orienting themselves to the improvement of their oral ability in Chinese while trying to maintain their mother tongue ability.; this also reflects that bilingual education in Urumqi matures gradually. 2) The Uygur language is still the dominant language among Uygur people, but Chinese used in their daily communication; on the whole, their language choice in different domains are quite similar, but the proportions of the Uygur and Chinese are different. With an increase in the degree of intimacy or familiarity there appears a preference for the Uygur, otherwise there is a preference for the bilingual use of the Uygur and Chinese language. 3) Uygur, Uygur mixed with Chinese and Chinese are found to have different patterns of social differentiations. Uygur and Uygur mixed with Chinese are about equal in the complexity of social differentiation. Chinese is a lesser extent but not dramatically different.
To sum up, this research is also a useful case study of the language contact and variations with its significance in the bilingual education for the Uygurs.
本研究旨在研究乌鲁木齐维吾尔族城市居民的语言选择趋势以及社会变量对其语言选择的影响。基于对语言选择研究的理论基础,采用了问卷调查法对乌鲁木齐市七个辖区的2480名维吾尔族城市居民进行了调查,并结合了访谈法。本研究使用的问卷是根据徐大明(2004)的问卷修订而成的,问卷共计48题。本次问卷调查开始于2009年3月,结束于2008年11月。全部的调查结果采用“社会科学设计配套软件”(SPSS 13.0)进行统计分析。
论文通过理论论证和分析得出以下结论:第一,该群体在保持和发展本民族言语能力的同时,正积极地朝着提高汉语口头表达能力的方向发展;也从一个侧面反映出乌鲁木齐市双语教育的日趋成熟。第二,维吾尔语仍然是该群体的强势语言,但在同一次维吾尔语对话或交谈中兼用汉语的现象占一定比重;该群体在不同语域中的语言选择模式和整体趋势基本一致,但维吾尔语、维汉夹杂和汉语的使用量在不同语域中存在差异:随着语域中交际者双方关系亲近或熟悉度增加,维吾尔语使用量加大,反之维汉夹杂和汉语使用量增加,这进一步说明了说话人是根据不同的交际对象和场景来选择语码的,而这种选择相对固定并有其规律。本研究结果对维汉语言接触和语言变异研究提供又一佐证,同时对维吾尔族双语教育中具体问题的处理提供了参考依据。第三,维吾尔语,维汉夹杂和汉语的使用的出现了不同的社会分层不同。维语和维汉夹杂使用的社会分层复杂程度相似,汉语使用的复杂程度略低,但并不是与维语和维汉夹杂的社会分层完全不同。
总之,本研究结果对维汉语言接触和语言变异研究提供又一佐证,同时对维吾尔族双语教育中具体问题的处理提供了参考依据。
Since 1960s, language choice is a hot discussed sociolinguistic phenomenon, which has been analyzed by a great number of investigators from a wide range of disciplines with diverse approaches and perspectives. In Xinjiang, it is commonly seen that Uygur people switch Uygur to Han Chinese or Uygur mixed with Chinese during their conversation. The other fact is that people will choose different code with different interlocutors in different settings. In most situations, people’s language choice reflects complex and subtle social psychology. Their language choices are part of the social identity they claim for themselves.
The present study aims to find Urumqi Uygur urban residents’language choice and how social factors affect their language choice in different domains with different interlocutors. Based on the theories proposed by previous scholars, the present study integrates both questionnaire and interview to investigate 2480 Urumqi Uygur urban residents coming from seven districts. The questionnaire adopted in this study is composed of three parts, with 48 items. The close-end questionnaire is designed based on Xu (2004)’s questionnaire. The questionnaire survey begins in April 2008 and completes in March 2009. All the questionnaire data are input and processed through the Statistical Package for Science (SPSS 13.0).
The main findings of this thesis are as follows: 1) The members of this ethnic group are orienting themselves to the improvement of their oral ability in Chinese while trying to maintain their mother tongue ability.; this also reflects that bilingual education in Urumqi matures gradually. 2) The Uygur language is still the dominant language among Uygur people, but Chinese used in their daily communication; on the whole, their language choice in different domains are quite similar, but the proportions of the Uygur and Chinese are different. With an increase in the degree of intimacy or familiarity there appears a preference for the Uygur, otherwise there is a preference for the bilingual use of the Uygur and Chinese language. 3) Uygur, Uygur mixed with Chinese and Chinese are found to have different patterns of social differentiations. Uygur and Uygur mixed with Chinese are about equal in the complexity of social differentiation. Chinese is a lesser extent but not dramatically different.
To sum up, this research is also a useful case study of the language contact and variations with its significance in the bilingual education for the Uygurs.
引文
[1] Auer, P. (1984). Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[2]Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge.
[3] Allport, G.W (1937). Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilston.
[4] Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London: Allen and Unwin.
[5] Bloomfield, L (1933). Language. London:Longman..
[6] Coates, J. (1993). Woman, Men and Language: A Sociolinguist Acount of Gender Differences in Language. New York: Longman.
[7] Clyne, M (1997). Trends and changes in home language use and shift in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(6):451-473
[8] Coulmas, F. (2001). The handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publisher.
[9] Eckert, P. & McCconnel-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. London: Cambridge University Press.
[10] Fasold, Ralph. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[11] Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
[12] Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglosssia. Word, 15:325-40. In Giglioli (1972) and Hymes (1964a).
[13] Fishman,J.A (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when?. La Linguistique, (2): 67-88
[14] Fishman, J. A. (1971). Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
[15] Fiske, s, & Depret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. European Review of Social Psychology, 7:31-61
[16] Gal, S.(1978). The political economy of code choice. In Heller, M.(ed.), Codeswitching:Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 245-264.
[17] Giddens. A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
[18] Gumperz. J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19] Gumperz, J. (1966). Language and Society. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
[20] Gumperz. J. (1987). Social meaning in linguistic structure: code switching in Norway. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (ed.). Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
[21] Garcia, Ofelia, Evangelista, Isabel, (1988), Spanish language use and attitude: A study of two New York City communities. Languge in Society, 17:475-511
[22] Greenfield (1972). Situational measures of normative language views in relation to person, place and topic among Puerto Rican bilinguals. In J. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
[23] Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
[24] Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
[25] Jacobson, R. (1990). Codeswitching as a world-Wide Phenomenon. New York: Peter Lang.
[26] Jespersen, A. & Murachver, T. (2004). The Relationship Between Gender and Topic in Gender-Preferential Language Use. Written Communication, 21(4): 344-365.
[27] Key , M.R. (1975). Male/Female Language. NJ: Scarecrow Press.
[28] Labov,W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, I:Internal Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[29] Lakoff, R.T. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Haper and Row.
[30] Li W. (1994). Three Generations, Two languages, One Family. Multilingual Matters.Clevendon Philadelphia. Adelaide.
[31] Li, W. and Milory, L. (1995). Conversational Codeswtiching in a Chinese community in Britain: A sequential Analysis. Jounal of Pragmatics, 23: 281-99.
[32] Mackey, W. F.(1962). The description of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 7:51-85.
[33] Myers-Scotton, C and Ury, W. (1977). Bilingual strategies: The social functions of code-switching. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, (13).
[34] Myers-Scotton. (1988). Comparing Codeswitching and Borrowing. .Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 19-39.
[35] Mayer-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivations for Code-switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[36] Milory, J & L. Milory (1985). Authority in Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
[37] Muysken, P. (1995). Code-switching and Grammatical Theory. In Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (eds.) One Speaker, Two Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[38] Robbins, R.H. (2000). General Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.
[39] Royce, A.P (1982). Ethnic Identity: Strategies of diversity. Bloomington, IN: Indian Universtity Press.
[40] Rubin, J. (1986). How Does the Way Women are Referred to and Describrd Affect Their Participation in Development and Democracy? In Fishman, Tabouret-Keller, Clyne, Krishnamurti, and Abudulaziz.
[41] Sacks, H, Schegloff, E, and Jefferson,G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of trun-taking for conversation. Language. 50(4):696-735.
[42].Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney, and Auckland: Arnold.
[43] Wang Z, B. and Amat A. (2001), Xinjiang minority bilingual instruction and study. City: National Press.
[44] Wardhaugh,R. (2000). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.
[45] Weinreich, U. (1953) Language in Contact. The Hague: Mouton de Gryyter.
[46] Wolfson, N. (1974). The conversational historical present alternation. Language, 55: 168-82.
[47] Yu Guodong (2001). The Chinese/English Codeswitching as Realization of Linguistic Adaptation. Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
[48]包冬梅(2008).在京蒙古青年语言使用及态度调查[D].中央民族大学硕士论文.
[49]陈松岑(1997).语言变异研究[M].广州:广东教育出版社.
[50]迪拉热.吐尔地(2007).中国新疆双语教育域跨文化交际[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
[51]高莉琴(2006).新疆的语言状况及推广普通话方略研究[M].北京:北京语言大学出版社.
[52]贾玉新(1997).跨文化交际[M].上海:外语教育出版社,423-438.
[53]李静(2006).民族心理学教程[M].民族出版社.
[54]李茹(2008).在语言选择中构建社会身份[J].山西农业大学学报,(7).
[55]龙惠珠(1998).从职业背景看语言态度的分析[J].外语教学与研究(1):56-62.
[56]马戎(2004).民族社会学——社会学的族群关系研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[57]秦晓晴(1999).外语教学研究中的定量数据分析[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社.
[58]滕星,张俊豪(1997).试论民族学校的民族认同与国家认同[J].中南民族学院学报,(4):105-109.
[59]王昕(2004).中国年轻人对普通话和方言的态度研究[D].北京语言大学硕士论文.
[60]王洋(2004).新疆维吾尔族语言态度探析[D].新疆大学硕士论文.
[61]乌鲁木齐2006年统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社.
[62]王远新(1994).中国民族语言学纲要[M].北京:中央名族大学出版社.
[63]卫炜(2008).甘洛县彝族的语言使用情况与语言态度[D].中央民族大学硕士论文.
[64]邬美丽(2007).在京少数民族大学生语言使用及语言态度调查[D].中央民族大学.
[65]徐大明(2004).语言使用和语言态度调查报告.
[66]徐俊芳(2007).少数民族大学生语言使用情况调查[D].中央民族大学硕士论文.
[67]许小颖(2007).语言政策和社群语言-新加坡福建社群社会语言学研究[M].北京:中华书局.
[68]张倩(2003).青岛年轻人语言态度研究[D].北京语言大学硕士论文.
[69]祝畹瑾(1992).社会语言学概论[M].湖南:湖南教育出版社.
[70]朱学佳(2005).维吾尔语汉语使用变异研究[D].中国传媒大学博士论
[2]Auer, P. (1998). Code-switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London: Routledge.
[3] Allport, G.W (1937). Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilston.
[4] Barth, F. (1969). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. London: Allen and Unwin.
[5] Bloomfield, L (1933). Language. London:Longman..
[6] Coates, J. (1993). Woman, Men and Language: A Sociolinguist Acount of Gender Differences in Language. New York: Longman.
[7] Clyne, M (1997). Trends and changes in home language use and shift in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(6):451-473
[8] Coulmas, F. (2001). The handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publisher.
[9] Eckert, P. & McCconnel-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. London: Cambridge University Press.
[10] Fasold, Ralph. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[11] Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.
[12] Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglosssia. Word, 15:325-40. In Giglioli (1972) and Hymes (1964a).
[13] Fishman,J.A (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when?. La Linguistique, (2): 67-88
[14] Fishman, J. A. (1971). Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.
[15] Fiske, s, & Depret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. European Review of Social Psychology, 7:31-61
[16] Gal, S.(1978). The political economy of code choice. In Heller, M.(ed.), Codeswitching:Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 245-264.
[17] Giddens. A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
[18] Gumperz. J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19] Gumperz, J. (1966). Language and Society. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.
[20] Gumperz. J. (1987). Social meaning in linguistic structure: code switching in Norway. In J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (ed.). Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
[21] Garcia, Ofelia, Evangelista, Isabel, (1988), Spanish language use and attitude: A study of two New York City communities. Languge in Society, 17:475-511
[22] Greenfield (1972). Situational measures of normative language views in relation to person, place and topic among Puerto Rican bilinguals. In J. Fishman (ed.) Advances in the Sociology of Language. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
[23] Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with Two Languages. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.
[24] Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
[25] Jacobson, R. (1990). Codeswitching as a world-Wide Phenomenon. New York: Peter Lang.
[26] Jespersen, A. & Murachver, T. (2004). The Relationship Between Gender and Topic in Gender-Preferential Language Use. Written Communication, 21(4): 344-365.
[27] Key , M.R. (1975). Male/Female Language. NJ: Scarecrow Press.
[28] Labov,W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change, I:Internal Factors. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[29] Lakoff, R.T. (1975). Language and women’s place. New York: Haper and Row.
[30] Li W. (1994). Three Generations, Two languages, One Family. Multilingual Matters.Clevendon Philadelphia. Adelaide.
[31] Li, W. and Milory, L. (1995). Conversational Codeswtiching in a Chinese community in Britain: A sequential Analysis. Jounal of Pragmatics, 23: 281-99.
[32] Mackey, W. F.(1962). The description of bilingualism. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 7:51-85.
[33] Myers-Scotton, C and Ury, W. (1977). Bilingual strategies: The social functions of code-switching. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, (13).
[34] Myers-Scotton. (1988). Comparing Codeswitching and Borrowing. .Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 19-39.
[35] Mayer-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivations for Code-switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[36] Milory, J & L. Milory (1985). Authority in Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
[37] Muysken, P. (1995). Code-switching and Grammatical Theory. In Milroy, L. & Muysken, P. (eds.) One Speaker, Two Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[38] Robbins, R.H. (2000). General Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.
[39] Royce, A.P (1982). Ethnic Identity: Strategies of diversity. Bloomington, IN: Indian Universtity Press.
[40] Rubin, J. (1986). How Does the Way Women are Referred to and Describrd Affect Their Participation in Development and Democracy? In Fishman, Tabouret-Keller, Clyne, Krishnamurti, and Abudulaziz.
[41] Sacks, H, Schegloff, E, and Jefferson,G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of trun-taking for conversation. Language. 50(4):696-735.
[42].Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney, and Auckland: Arnold.
[43] Wang Z, B. and Amat A. (2001), Xinjiang minority bilingual instruction and study. City: National Press.
[44] Wardhaugh,R. (2000). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press.
[45] Weinreich, U. (1953) Language in Contact. The Hague: Mouton de Gryyter.
[46] Wolfson, N. (1974). The conversational historical present alternation. Language, 55: 168-82.
[47] Yu Guodong (2001). The Chinese/English Codeswitching as Realization of Linguistic Adaptation. Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
[48]包冬梅(2008).在京蒙古青年语言使用及态度调查[D].中央民族大学硕士论文.
[49]陈松岑(1997).语言变异研究[M].广州:广东教育出版社.
[50]迪拉热.吐尔地(2007).中国新疆双语教育域跨文化交际[D].上海外国语大学硕士学位论文.
[51]高莉琴(2006).新疆的语言状况及推广普通话方略研究[M].北京:北京语言大学出版社.
[52]贾玉新(1997).跨文化交际[M].上海:外语教育出版社,423-438.
[53]李静(2006).民族心理学教程[M].民族出版社.
[54]李茹(2008).在语言选择中构建社会身份[J].山西农业大学学报,(7).
[55]龙惠珠(1998).从职业背景看语言态度的分析[J].外语教学与研究(1):56-62.
[56]马戎(2004).民族社会学——社会学的族群关系研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
[57]秦晓晴(1999).外语教学研究中的定量数据分析[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社.
[58]滕星,张俊豪(1997).试论民族学校的民族认同与国家认同[J].中南民族学院学报,(4):105-109.
[59]王昕(2004).中国年轻人对普通话和方言的态度研究[D].北京语言大学硕士论文.
[60]王洋(2004).新疆维吾尔族语言态度探析[D].新疆大学硕士论文.
[61]乌鲁木齐2006年统计年鉴[M].北京:中国统计出版社.
[62]王远新(1994).中国民族语言学纲要[M].北京:中央名族大学出版社.
[63]卫炜(2008).甘洛县彝族的语言使用情况与语言态度[D].中央民族大学硕士论文.
[64]邬美丽(2007).在京少数民族大学生语言使用及语言态度调查[D].中央民族大学.
[65]徐大明(2004).语言使用和语言态度调查报告.
[66]徐俊芳(2007).少数民族大学生语言使用情况调查[D].中央民族大学硕士论文.
[67]许小颖(2007).语言政策和社群语言-新加坡福建社群社会语言学研究[M].北京:中华书局.
[68]张倩(2003).青岛年轻人语言态度研究[D].北京语言大学硕士论文.
[69]祝畹瑾(1992).社会语言学概论[M].湖南:湖南教育出版社.
[70]朱学佳(2005).维吾尔语汉语使用变异研究[D].中国传媒大学博士论