國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	蔡仲茵 Chung-Yin Tsai
論文名稱：	北高地區大學生對國語和臺語之語言態度調查 Language Attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese in Taipei and Kaohsiung Metropolitan Areas
指導教授：	蘇席瑤 Su, Hsi-Yao
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	153
中文關鍵詞：	語言態度、語言使用、區域因素、意識形態
英文關鍵詞：	language attitudes, language use, regional factor, language ideology
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：223 下載：28
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在探討台北及高雄都會區的大學生對國語和臺語之語言態度。過去文獻中關於語言態度的研究已有一般性的討論（e.g. Lin 1987；Baran 2004），本文則將過去鮮少探討的區域因素納入分析中，目的在討論北、高兩大都會區如何評價國語及臺語。
本研究以施作問卷方式蒐集數據。參與調查者為臺北及高雄都會區的大學生， 155份有效問卷中，84份來自臺北、71份來自高雄。參與本研究的受試者須自評語言能力及臺語使用頻率，回答語言態度相關問題，並表達對國語及臺語的印象。
問卷結果發現，高雄受試者的臺語程度明顯優於臺北受試者。在與不同對象、處於不同地點及討論不同話題時的語言使用上，臺北受試者使用臺語的頻率低於高雄受試者。統計數據並指出，臺北受試者使用臺語的原因在於親疏關係，高雄受試者使用臺語的原因則取決於語境。大體而言，全體受試者的臺語使用程度相當低，顯示在生活各方面，國語的使用已逐漸取代臺語。
語言態度相關問題主要探討受試者對於臺語的評價。概括而言，全體受試者說臺語之因源自於整合性動機（integrative motivation）及工具性動機（instrumental motivation）。而研究結果發現，受試者在態度或信念的表達上，與實際行為表現有所差距。此現象或可歸因於個人語言使用習慣及對臺語的觀感。在統計結果中，高雄受試者對臺語的評價比臺北受試者持有更多的正面態度。
有關對國語及臺語的印象，受試者普遍認為國語比臺語有價值、有活力及較不複雜。其中，高雄受試者對於臺語持有較正面的觀感。統計數據顯現，此現象與北高地區受試者的社會語言背景及文化概念有所關連。
本問卷調查結果顯示，語言使用、語言態度及語言觀感三者互有關連。語言使用和語言態度不一定相符，此現象可能跟社會變遷有關。此外，地區因素確實造成不同的語言評價。在臺北和高雄受試者對國語和臺語的不同評價中，反映出兩區在歷史發展及社會語言背景的不同。語言的概念深植於社會經驗中，因此刻版印象和語言就產生特定連結。這些現象可在本研究調查中發現。
本文將語言使用、語言觀感及區域因素納入國語和臺語的語言態度調查中，期能深入討論並對於語言態度議題有所助益。

This study investigates language attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese in Taipei and Kaohsiung metropolitan areas through questionnaires. Earlier studies have provided general accounts on language attitudes (Lin, 1987, Baran, 2004), but the present study incorporates regional factors—a commonly noted factor that is rarely analyzed systematically—into the analysis. The thesis is aimed at looking into how Mandarin and Taiwanese are evaluated in the two target areas.
The study has collected data by means of questionnaires. Subjects participated in the survey were composed of college students from universities of Taipei and Kaohsiung. 155 valid questionnaires were acquired, with 81 Taipei subjects and 74 Kaohsiung respondents. The participants were asked to provide self-reported answers on language use, judge language attitude-related statements, and express their impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese on bipolar attributes.
The subjects’ reported language use show that Kaohsiung respondents’ Taiwanese proficiency is significantly higher than their northern counter parts. With regard to the frequency of speaking Taiwanese with different interlocutors, in different locations and about different topics, Taipei subjects’ use of Taiwanese is lower than that of their peers. Besides, it is found that Taipei students’ use of Taiwanese varies in the dimension of intimacy, while Kaohsiung students speak Taiwanese based on contexts. On the whole, all the subjects showed quite a low use of Taiwanese, which suggests that it is being replaced by Mandarin in all aspects of people’s life.
The language attitude-related statements were mainly designed to explore subjects’ evaluation of Taiwanese. Generally speaking, the sample population was integratively and instrumentally motived to speak Taiwanese. However, there is a contrast between their attitudes/beliefs and reported behaviors. Possible reasons may be due to people’s language use and social images of Taiwanese. When regional differences are taken into consideration, it is observed that Kaohsiung subjects held more positive attitudes toward Taiwanese.
As for the stereotypical impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese, Mandarin was evaluated to be more valuable, more potent, and less complex than Taiwanese. The comparison of the ratings derived from the two target areas suggests that Kaohsiung respondents expressed more positive images of Taiwanese. This may be associated with the sociolinguistic background and cultural concepts of the North and the South.
The questionnaire reveals that language use, language attitudes, and social images of the two languages interact with each other. It is found that language use does not coincide with language attitudes, and this may be linked with social change. Besides, regional differences do have an impact on people’s evaluations. Taipei and Kaohsiung are distinct in their historical development and sociolinguistic background, and the contrast seems to be parallel with the social images of Mandarin and Taiwanese. People’s conceptualization of language is rooted in social experience, with stereotypical linkage with certain features and a linguistic variety. This is observed in how they evaluated Mandarin and Taiwanese in the survey.
The study has attempted to investigate language attitudes toward Mandarin and Taiwanese by incorporating language use, social images of languages, as well as regional factors. It is hoped that this thesis could provide an in-depth discussion and shed some lights on the issues of language attitudes.

摘要    i
Abstract    iii
Acknowledgements    v
Table of Contents    viii
List of Tables    xii
List of Figures    xiv
Chapter 1    1
Introduction    1
1.1 Motivation    1
1.2 Background    2
1.3 Research Questions    4
1.4 Significance of the Thesis    5
1.5 Organization of the Thesis    6
Chapter 2    8
Literature Review    8
2.1 Overview of Attitudes    8
2.1.1 Definition of Attitudes    8
2.1.2 Language Attitudes    9
2.1.3 Dimensions for Assessing Language Attitudes and Language Preference Patterns    12
2.1.4 Approaches of Language Attitudes    17
2.1.5 Language Attitudes in Taiwan    20
2.1.6 Stereotyped Attitudes: A Case Study of English Dialects    22
2.2 Language Use, Identity, and Symbolic Power    24
2.2.1 Symbolic Power    24
2.2.2 Language Use and Identity    28
2.2.3 Taiwanese Identity    31
2.2.4 Attitudes and Perceptions of Identity: A Study in Brittany    33
2.3 Language in Taiwan    36
2.3.1 The National Language Policy and Language Ideology    36
2.3.2 Mother Tongue Language Policy    38
2.3.3 Language Practice and Language Ideologies in Taiwan    40
Chapter 3    43
Methodology    43
3.1 Sociolinguistic Background of Taipei and Kaohsiung    43
3.2 Data Collection: Participants    44
3.3 Questionnaire Design    46
3.3.1 Personal Background    47
3.3.2 Language Use    47
3.3.3 Language Attitude-Related Statements    48
3.3.3.1 Motivations of Speaking Mandarin and Taiwanese    48
3.3.3.2 Opinions about Taiwanese    49
3.3.3.3 Attitudes toward Language Education and Policy    52
3.3.4 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese    54
3.4 Methods of Data Analysis    55
3.4.1 Language Use: Language Proficiency and Use of Taiwanese    55
3.4.2 Language Motivations of Speaking Mandarin and Taiwanese    55
3.4.3 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Opinions about Taiwanese    57
3.4.4 Regional Differences Regarding Attitudes toward Taiwanese    63
3.4.5 Attitudes toward Language Education and Policy    63
3.4.6 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese    64
Chapter 4    66
Results and Analyses I: Language Use    66
4.1 Language Proficiency in Mandarin and Taiwanese    66
4.2 Taiwanese-Frequency: Interlocutors    67
4.3 Taiwanese-Frequency: Locations    69
4.4 Taiwanese-Frequency: Topics    72
Chapter 5    75
Results and Analyses II: Language Attitudes and Stereotypical Impressions    75
5.1 Motivations of Using Mandarin and Taiwanese    75
5.1.1 Overall Observation    77
5.1.2 Comparison of Motivations    78
5.1.3 Comparison of Languages    79
5.1.4 Comparison between the Current Study and Chan’s (1994) Study    80
5.2 Overall Performance    82
5.2.1 Integrative    82
5.2.1.1 Transmission    82
5.2.1.2 Symbol of Identity    84
5.2.1.3 Self-Expressiveness    86
5.2.1.4 Marker of Solidarity    87
5.2.1.5 Summary    89
5.2.2 Instrumental    89
5.2.2.1 Marker of Social Status    90
5.2.2.2 Tool of Communication    90
5.2.2.3 Tool of Upward Mobility    92
5.2.2.4 Summary    93
5.2.3 Language Functions on a Integrative-Instrumental Continuum    93
5.3 Regional Differences Regarding Attitudes toward Taiwanese    95
5.3.1 Transmission    96
5.3.2 Symbol of Identity    97
5.3.3 Self-Expressiveness    98
5.3.4 Marker of Solidarity    98
5.3.5 Tool of Communication    99
5.3.6 Tool of Upward Mobility    99
5.3.7 Standard Language Ideology    100
5.3.8 Summary    101
5.4 Issues about Language Education    101
5.4.1 Language Comparison: Taiwanese and Mandarin    101
5.4.2 Issues Related to Taiwanese Education: the North vs. the South    104
5.4.3 Comparison in Regions: Chi-square Test    105
5.5 Correlation of Language Use and language Attitudes    107
5.6 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese    109
5.6.1 Dimension of “Value”    112
5.6.2 Dimension of “Potency”    115
5.6.3 Dimension of “Activity”    116
5.6.4 Dimension of “Complexity”    118
5.6.5 Summary    120
Chapter 6    123
General Discussion    123
6.1 Language Use    123
6.2 Language Attitudes    125
6.3 Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese    128
6.3.1 Dimension of “Value”    128
6.3.2 Dimension of “Potency”    130
6.3.3 Dimension of “Activity”    131
6.3.4 Dimension of “Complexity”    132
6.3.5 Implications of the Findings    133
Chapter 7    134
Conclusion    134
7.1 Summary of the Major Findings    134
7.2 Summarized Answers to Research Questions    139
7.3 Directions for Future Research    140
References    142
Appendix 1. Questionnaire    147
Appendix 2. Subjects’ Responses in Three Types of Comments    152


List of Tables
Table 3.1. Categorization of Opinions about Taiwanese    52
Table 3.2. Classification of Language Attitude-Related Statements along the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Orientation    60
Table 3.3. Scoring Mapping of the 12 Attributes    65
Table 4.1. Self-Reported Language Proficiency in Mandarin and Taiwanese    66
Table 4.2. Subjects’ Ratings of Use of Taiwanese with Fourteen Subcategories of Interlocutors    68
Table 4.3. Subjects’ Ratings of Use of Taiwanese with Six Categories of Interlocutors    68
Table 4.4. Subjects’ Ratings of Their Use of Taiwanese in 7 Different Locations    70
Table 4.5. Subjects’ Ratings of Their Taiwanese-Frequency on Different Topics    73
Table 5.1. Item-to-Item Ratings in Two Types of Motivations    78
Table 5.2. Average Scores in Taipei Metropolitan Areas    79
Table 5.3. Average Scores in Kaohsiung Metropolitan Areas    79
Table 5.4. Subjects’ Ratings of the Two Motivations for Speaking Mandarin    79
Table 5.5. Subjects’ Ratings of the Two Motivations for Speaking Taiwanese    79
Table 5.6. Results of Statements Related to Transmission    82
Table 5.7. Results of Statements Related to Identity    84
Table 5.8. Results of Statements Related to Self-Expressiveness    86
Table 5.9. Results of Statements Related to Solidarity    87
Table 5.10. Subjects’ Responses to Statements of “Solidarity” Set    88
Table 5.11. Results of Statements Related to Social Status    90
Table 5.12. Results of Statements Related to Communication    90
Table 5.13 Subjects’ Responses to Statements of “Communication” Set    91
Table 5.14. Results of Statements Related to Upward Mobility    92
Table 5.15. Seven Sets of Statements on the Integrative-Instrumental Continuum    94
Table 5.16. Average Ratings of Each Statement    96
Table 5.17. Responses to Taiwanese, Mandarin, and English in Three Types of Comments    102
Table 5.18. Responses to Region-Related Statements in Three Types of Comments    104
Table 5.19. Subjects’ Responses to Issues Related to Language Education and Politics    106
Table 5.20. Correlation of Taiwanese proficiency and Taiwanese Attitudes    108
Table 5.21. Correlation of Taiwanese proficiency and Taiwanese Attitudes in Taipei Metropolitan Areas    109
Table 5.22. Correlation of Taiwanese proficiency and Taiwanese Attitudes in Kaohsiung Metropolitan Areas    109
Table 5.23. Stereotypical Impressions of Mandarin and Taiwanese    111
Table 5.24. Two Regional Groups’ Ratings of Their Stereotypical Impressions on Four Judgmental Dimensions    121


List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Seven-Point Semantic Differential Scale    19
Figure 5.1. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Value” Dimension    113
Figure 5.2. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Potency” Dimension    116
Figure 5.3. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Activity” Dimension    117
Figure 5.4. Average Ratings on Five Features in “Complexity” Dimension    119
Figure 5.5. Overall Ratings on Four Dimensions    121

                                

Agheyisi, Rebecca, & Fishman, Joshua A. (1970). Language attitude studies: A brief survey of methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics, 12(5), 137-157.
Baran, Dominika. (2004). "Taiwanese don't have written words": Language ideologies and language practice in a Taipei County high school. Paper presented at the 2004 International Conference on Taiwanese Romanization, National Museum of Taiwanese Literature and National Chengkung University. Tainan, Taiwan.
Berg, Marinus E. van den. (1992). Ethnolinguistic identities and accommodation across generations in Taiwan. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 3(1), 145-164.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645-668.
Britain, David. (2010). Supralocal regional dialect levelling. In Carmen Llamas & Dominic Watt (Eds.), Language and Identities (pp. 193-204). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Brubaker, Brian Lee. (2003). Language Attitudes and Identity in Taiwan. (Master Thesis), University of Pittsburgh.
Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, Kira. (2004). Language and identity. In Alessandro Duranti (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, Kira. (2010). Locating Identity in Language. In Carmen Llamas & Dominic Watt (Eds.), Language and Identities. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Chan, Hui-chen. (1994). Language Shift in Taiwan: Social and Political Determinants. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Georgetown University. Washington, D.C.
Chang, Mei-yu. (1996). Language Use and Language Attitudes among Taiwanese Elementary School Students in Native Language Instruction Programs: A Study on Language Maintenance, Language Shift, and Language Planning in Taiwan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Indiana University.
Chen, Su-Chiao. (2010). Multilingualism in Taiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2010(205), 79-104.
Cheng, Robert L. (1993). Hu tsa te tsu-ti yu chi-hui tu Tai-yü hsieh Tai-yü (Let our children have opportunities to read and write Tai-yü). Tai-wan wen-i (Taiwan Literature), 136, 173-180.
Cooper, Robert L., & Fishman, Joshua A. (1974). The study of language attitudes. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1974(3), 5-20.
Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1982). Acceleration, retardation, and reversal in language decay? In Robert L. Cooper (Ed.), Language Spread (pp. 321-336). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Eastman, Carol M., & Reese, Thomas C. (1981). Associated language: how language and ethnic identity are related. General Linguistics, 21(2), 109-116.
Edwards, John. (1985). Language, Society and Identity. Oxford; New York, NY, USA: Basil Blackwell in association with Andre Deutsch.
Edwards, John. (2009). Language and Identity: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fasold, Ralph. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford, England; New York, NY, USA: B. Blackwell.
Feifel, Karl-Eugen. (1994). Language Attitudes in Taiwan: A Social Evaluation of Language in Social Change. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
Ferguson, Charles A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1971a). Attitudes and beliefs about Spanish and English among Puerto Ricans. Viewpoints, 47, 51-72.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1971b). Sociolinguistics: A brief introduction. Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1972). Domains and the relationship between micro-and macro-sociolinguistics. In John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication (pp. 435-453). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fishman, Joshua A. (1973). Language and Nationalism. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House
Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Garrett, Peter. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Garvin, Paul L. (1964). The standard language problem- concepts and methods. In Dell Hymes (Ed.), Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology (pp. 521-526). New York: Harper & Row.
Heller, Monica. (1995). Code-switching and the politics of language. In Lesley Milroy & Pieter Muysken (Eds.), One Speaker, Two Languages (pp. 158-174). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hoare, Rachel. (2000). Linguistic competence and regional identity in Brittany: Attitudes and perceptions of identity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(4), 324-346.
Hsiau, A-chin. (1997). Language ideology in Taiwan: The KMT's language policy, the Tai-yü language movement, and ethnic politics. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(4), 302-315.
Hsiau, A-chin. (2000). Contemporary Taiwanese Cultural Nationalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Huang, Chuen-Min. (1997). Language Educaiton Policies and Practices in Taiwan: From Nationism to Nationalism. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Washington.
Huang, Shuanfan. (1995). Language, Society, and Ethnic Consciousness. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing.
Joseph, John E. (2004). Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kubler, Cornelius Charles. (1985). The Development of Mandarin in Taiwan: A Case Study of Language Contact. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University.
Labov, William. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19, 273-309.
Labov, William. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lee, Ann Wan-Hsin. (2012). Language Ideology of English: Its Relation with Linguistic Ownership. (Master Thesis), National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Liao, Sze-Wei. (2010). Identity, Ideology, and Language Variation: A Sociolinguistic Study of Mandarin in Central Taiwan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Davis.
Lin, Yi-chiou. (1987). The Social Evaluation of Mandarin and Taiwanese in Taipei: A Case Study of Attitudes towards Language Varieties and Language Use. (Master Thesis), National Taiwan Normal University.
McGuire, William J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Gardner Lindzey & Elliot Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (3rd ed., Vol. II, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House.
Millar, Robert McColl. (2010). An historical national identity? The case of Scots. In Carmen Llamas & Dominic Watt (Eds.), Language and Identities (pp. 247-256). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Noels, Kimberly A. (2001). New orientations in language learning motivaiton: Towards a model of intrinsic, extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivation. In Zoltán Dörnyei & Richard Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 43-68). Hawaii: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Potter, Jonathan, & Wetherell, Margaret. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.
Richard L. Street, Jr, & Hopper, Robert. (1982). A model of speech style evaluation. In Ellen Bouchard Ryan & Howard Giles (Eds.), Attitudes towards Language Variation (pp. 175-188). London: Edward Arnold.
Ryan, Ellen Bouchard, Giles, Howard, & Sebastian, Richard J. (1982). An integrative perspective for the study of attitudes toward language variation. In Ellen Bouchard Ryan & Howard Giles (Eds.), Attitudes towards Language Variation (pp. 1-19). London: Edward Arnold.
Ryan, Richard M., & Deci, Edward L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Sandel, Todd L. (2003). 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.
Sarnoff, I. (1970). Social attitudes and the resolution of motivational conflict. In M. Jahoda & N. Warren (Eds.), Attitudes. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Shuy, Roger, & Williams, Frederic. (1973). Stereotyped attitudes of selected English dialect communities. In Roger W. Shuy & Ralph W. Fasold (Eds.), Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects (pp. 55-96): Georgetown University.
Su, Hsi-Yao. (2005). Language Styling and Switching in Speech and Online Contexts: Identity and Language Ideologies in Taiwan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin.
Su, Hsi-Yao. (2008). What does it mean to be a girl with qizhi?: Refinement, gender and language ideologies in contemporary Taiwan. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(3), 334-358.
Sun, S. H., & Ma, S. R. (1996). Who are the New Taiwanese? (in Chinese). Global Views Monthly, 121, 46-50.
Thompson, John B. (1991). Editor's Introduction. In John B. Thompson (Ed.), Language and Symbolic power. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Tse, John Kwock-Ping. (2000). Language and a rising new identity in Taiwan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 143(1), 151-164.
Wölck, Wolfgang. (1973). Attitudes toward Spanish and Quechua in bilingual Peru. In Roger W. Shuy & Ralph W. Fasold (Eds.), Language Attitudes: Current Trends and Prospects (pp. 129-147): Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.
Wang, Fu-Chang. (2002). 族群接觸機會？還是族群競爭？：本省閩南人族群意識內涵與地區差異模式之解釋. Taiwanese Sociology(4), 11-78.
Wei, Jennifer M. Y. (2003). Codeswitching in campaigning discourse: The case of Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian. Language and Linguistics, 4, 139-165.
Williams, Frederick. (1974). The identification of linguistic attitudes. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1974(3), 21-32.
Wu, Nai-teh. (1994). Convergence of polarization?: Ethnic political support in the post-liberalization state. In Chen Chung-min, Chuang Ying-chang & Huang Shu-Min (Eds.), Ethnicity in Taiwan: Social, Historical, and Cultural Perspectives (pp. 151-168). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Young, Russell. (1989). Language Maintenance and Language Shift Among the Chinese on Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文