NORTHERN PINGHUA PROFICIENCY AMONG HERITAGE SPEAKERS: INFLUENCING FACTORS IN A MULTILINGUAL CHINESE CONTEXT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v6i4.732Keywords:
language proficiency, heritage language, sociodemographic variation, home language use, multilingual rural ChinaAbstract
Language proficiency plays a crucial role in heritage language maintenance by influencing language choice. Northern Pinghua, a heritage language spoken in rural multilingual areas of northern Guangxi, China, is undergoing a language shift. This study examines the self-rated proficiency of Northern Pinghua speakers and its relationship with demographic factors (age, gender, education, occupation, income) and home language use (frequency of Northern Pinghua, Guiliu Hua, and Mandarin). Data were collected from 34 participants using a closed-ended questionnaire. Results from group difference and correlation analyses indicate that: (a) age significantly affects proficiency, with speakers aged 36 and above reporting higher proficiency than younger counterparts; (b) males reported slightly higher proficiency than females; (c) home use of Northern Pinghua positively correlates with proficiency, while the use of Mandarin and Guiliu Hua shows negative correlations; (d) education and income levels do not significantly influence proficiency. These findings highlight the importance of home language practices and generational continuity in sustaining heritage language vitality. The study contributes to the understanding of heritage language dynamics in multilingual contexts and highlights the urgency of supporting language transmission within families.
References
[1] Adams, Y., Matu, P.M., Ongarora, D.O. (2012): Language use and choice: A case study of Kinubi in Kibera, Kenya. – International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2(4): 99-104.
[2] Ajepe, I., Ademowo, A.J. (2016): English language dominance and the fate of indigenous languages in Nigeria. – International Journal of History and Cultural Studies 2(4): 10-17.
[3] Ayeomoni, M.O. (2012): The languages in Nigerian socio-political domains: Features and functions. – English Language Teaching 5(10): 12-19.
[4] Bromham, L., Hua, X., Algy, C., Meakins, F. (2020): Language endangerment: a multidimensional analysis of risk factors. – Journal of Language Evolution 5(1): 75-91.
[5] Cao, Z. (2014): Dialect endangerment, cultural fragments, and the mission of dialect scholars. – Zhongguo Yuyan Xuebao (Journal of Chinese Linguistics) 16(1): 207-214.
[6] Chiswick, B.R., Miller, P.W. (2007): The economics of language: International analyses. – London: Routledge 622p.
[7] Chui, J. (2023): The effects of cultural assimilation on the loss of the Tuvan and Seri languages. – Journal of Student Research 11(3): 1-4.
[8] De La Fuente Stevens, D., Pelkonen, P. (2023): Economics of minority groups: Labour-market returns and transmission of indigenous languages in Mexico. – World Development 162: 33p.
[9] Fei, X., Hamilton, G.G., Zheng, W. (1992): From the soil: The foundations of Chinese society. – Univ. of California Press 160p.
[10] Fishman, J.A. (1991): Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. – Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 76: 431p.
[11] Gao, K.B. (2017): Dynamics of language contact in China: Ethnolinguistic diversity and variation in Yunnan. – University of Hawai'I 153p.
[12] Guevara, I., Cabrera, G., Suleiman, N., Sanjur, N. (2024): Role of gender in the conservation of the Ngabere language in Sitio Prado, Indigenous Area. – Revista Colegiada de Ciencia 5(2): 41-49.
[13] Haugen, E. (1972): The ecology of language. – Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 10p.
[14] Henley, A., Jones, R.E. (2005): Earnings and linguistic proficiency in a bilingual economy. – The Manchester School 73(3): 300-320.
[15] Holmes, J. (1993): Immigrant women and language maintenance in Australia and New Zealand. – International Journal of Applied Linguistics 3(2): 159-179.
[16] De Houwer, A. (2017): Bilingual language input environments, intake, maturity and practice. – Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(1): 19-20.
[17] Leo, A.R., Abdullah, A.N. (2013): Language choice and use of Malaysian Tamil Christian youths: A survey. – Frontiers of Language and Teaching 4: 149-166.
[18] Li, G., Lin, Z., Zhen, F., Gunderson, L., Ji, R. X. (2023): Home literacy environment and early biliteracy engagement and attainment: A gendered perspective. – Bilingual Research Journal 46(3-4): 258-274.
[19] Li, L. (2007): The distribution, internal division, and genetic issues of Pinghua. – Fangyan (Dialect) 1: 71-78.
[20] Lin, Y., Yu, J. (2012): The status of Guangxi Pinghua. – Journal of Guilin Teachers College 2: 1-5.
[21] Mei, T.L., Abdullah, A.N., Heng, C.S., Kasim, Z.B. (2016): Language choice and use of Malaysian public university lecturers in the education domain. – Advances in Language and Literary Studies 7(1): 21-32.
[22] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2020): Response to Proposal No. 8137 at the Third Session of the 13th National People’s Congress. – Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China 4p.
[23] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2001): Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language of the People’s Republic of China. – Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China 6p.
[24] Montrul, S. (2013): How “native” are heritage speakers? – Heritage Language Journal 10(2): 153-177.
[25] Mulík, S., Corona-Dzul, B., Amengual, M., Carrasco-Ortíz, H. (2021): Psycholinguistic profile of Otomi (Hñäñho)–Spanish bilinguals, migrants from Santiago Mexquititlán to Querétaro, Mexico [Perfil psicolingüístico de los bilingües otomí (hñäñho)–español, migrantes de Santiago Mexquititlán a Querétaro, México]. – Cuadernos de Lingüística de El Colegio de México 8: 1-50.
[26] Park, K.S., Kim, S.H. (1997): Tools for interactive multiattribute decision making with incompletely identified information. – European Journal of Operational Research 98(1): 111-123.
[27] Ramonienė, M. (2018): Regional dialects in the Lithuanian urban space: Skills, practices and attitudes. – In M. Ramonienė & L. Zabarskaitė (Eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States: Societal Discourses and Contact Phenomena, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK 29p.
[28] Ricento, T. (2000): Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(2): 196-213.
[29] Smith, J., Durham, M. (2011): A tipping point in dialect obsolescence? Change across the generations in Lerwick, Shetland. – Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(2): 197-225.
[30] Spolsky, B. (2021): Rethinking language policy. – Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press 276p.
[31] Spolsky, B. (2009): Language management. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 308p.
[32] Spolsky, B. (2004): Language policy. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 250p.
[33] United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2024): World Atlas of Languages. – UNESCO 4p.
[34] Vorobyeva, T., Bel, A. (2021): Factors affecting language proficiency in heritage language: The case of young Russian heritage speakers in Spain. – Journal of Language Contact 14(2): 304-330.
[35] Wang, L., King, K. (2024): Language ideologies, language policies, and shifting regional dialect proficiencies in three Chinese cities. – Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 45(6): 2166-2182.
[36] Yang, H., Liang, Z., Li, P., Liu, C. (1985): Chinese dialects in Guangxi (Draft). – Fangyan (Dialect) 3: 181-190.
[37] Yazici, B., Yolacan, S. (2007): A comparison of various tests of normality. – Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 77(2): 175-183.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 WENMIN HUANG, CHIOW THAI SOON
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
