Perceptions of Mandarin Chinese Varieties for United States-based Chinese Heritage Learners of Taiwanese Ethnicity
Perceptions of Mandarin Chinese Varieties for United States-based Chinese Heritage Learners of Taiwanese Ethnicity
Wei-Yi Lee
Department of Language and Literacy Education, University of Georgia
Abstract
This case study examines how United States-based college-level Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties and how their perceptions shaped their learning experiences. Mandarin Chinese is a lingua franca across diverse Chinese communities, with Mainland Mandarin being the mainstream variety. Although college classes in the United States predominantly teach Mainland Mandarin, many Taiwanese learners initially acquire Taiwanese Mandarin. By analyzing interviews and questionnaires from five Taiwanese learner participants, the findings indicate that Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity prefer the pronunciation, vocabulary, and style differences of Taiwanese Mandarin for cultural identity reasons, and prefer Mainland Mandarin for its broader use. The findings also show how participants adapted to various contexts, regretted limited learning, and considered career prospects, aiming to inform Chinese language educators and to promote equity and inclusivity.
Keywords: Chinese heritage language learner, language ideology, equity and inclusivity, non-mainstream language variety, Chinese language education
Introduction
The study examines 1) how United States-based college-level Chinese heritage language learner participants of Taiwanese ethnicity perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties; and 2) how the participants’ perception of Mandarin Chinese varieties informed their learning experiences in college-level Chinese language classes. Mandarin Chinese is primarily based on Beijing and acts as the lingua franca for communication in Mainland China and other pan-Chinese communities (Li, 2006; Plumb, 2016). In the United States, Mandarin Chinese varieties are the most common Chinese language varieties used by Chinese American and Taiwanese American groups because Mandarin Chinese is the official language in both Taiwan and Mainland China. Many Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity acquire Taiwanese Mandarin before they take K-12 or college-level Chinese language courses (Wiley, 2017). However, most K-12 and college-level Chinese language courses in the United States only teach standard Mainland Mandarin (Putonghua 普通話) rather than Taiwanese Mandarin (S. Zhang, 2021; Wong & Xiao, 2010). Therefore, this study investigates how the participants perceived Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin to provide Chinese language educators with a deeper understanding of Chinese heritage language learners of non-mainstream varieties. Non-mainstream language variety refers to a style of expression that is not commonly acknowledged as the norm in community or educational settings (Garcia, 2011; Milroy, 2002). Because Taiwanese Mandarin is a non-mainstream language variety in United States-based (U.S.-based) K-16 Chinese language classrooms, this study joins the cause of advocating equity and inclusivity for heritage language learners of non-mainstream varieties (Allard et al., 2014; Chang, 2020; Pak & Stallings, 2023).
The following introduction is divided into four parts, each of which establishes the groundwork for the study. The first part discusses the significance of Taiwanese Americans. Subsequently, the second part defines Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity. Then, the third part shares varieties of spoken and written Mandarin Chinese. Finally, the fourth part explains the rationale and purpose of study. In the study, Taiwanese Americans are referred to as a pan-Chinese American group.
Taiwanese Americans
In the United States, individuals of pan-Chinese descent (huaren 華人), including Chinese Americans and Taiwanese Americans, form pan-Chinese communities and account for 24%, or 5.4 million, of the Asian American population (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021). Pan-Chinese communities worldwide are often seen as ethnically connected through a common Chinese heritage that dates back thousands of years (Fei, 2017). Despite this assumed shared heritage, many Taiwanese Americans view themselves as distinct from Chinese Americans, as they support Taiwan’s independence from Mainland China (Kang & Yang, 2011; B. Wang & M. Zhou, 2021; W. Wang et al., 2009). A Pew Research Center report estimated that in 2019 around 697,000 Taiwanese Americans reside in the United States (Passel, 2021). The report defines Taiwanese Americans as those who came from Taiwan and those who had at least one parent from Taiwan. Although Taiwanese Americans are not a small group among the Asian American population, they are often underrepresented.
Taiwanese Americans consist of heterogeneous groups with diverse language preferences, political beliefs, and cultural backgrounds. For example, many older-generation Taiwanese Americans primarily identify themselves as Taiwanese Americans (Arrigo, 2006). The identification tendency is particularly noticeable among those who belong to the baby boomer generation (born between 1945 and 1965) or even earlier Taiwanese generations (born before 1945). These individuals typically speak the Taiwanese language, or Taiwanese Southern Hokkien,[1] as their mother tongue to maintain a link to Taiwan, although Taiwanese Mandarin has been the official language in Taiwan since 1945. By contrast, a smaller segment of Taiwanese Americans considers themselves part of the Chinese American community. Most of them are Chinese Mainlanders, who relocated from Mainland China to Taiwan between 1945 and 1949, before moving to the United States. They normally speak Mandarin Chinese or non-local Chinese dialects as their mother tongues to maintain a connection to Mainland China. Some of these Chinese Mainlanders intermarry with Taiwanese Americans of Taiwanese ancestry. The intermarriage results in intricate language use and ethnic identities for their U.S.-born children.
[1] In this study, Taiwanese or the Taiwanese language are defined as Taiwanese Southern Hokkien to show respect for non-Hoklo groups in Taiwan. The definition is used as not all sub-ethnic groups in Taiwan are Hoklos. Hoklos are the largest ethnic group in Taiwan, making up 70% of the residents (Simon, 2010).
Chinese Heritage Language Learners of Taiwanese Ethnicity
Most U.S.-born children of Taiwanese Americans who immigrated from Taiwan to the United States can be seen as Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity. The study follows Kelleher’s (2010) definition of heritage language learners to characterize Chinese heritage language learners as individuals with cultural or ancestral ties to diverse Chinese language varieties, including Mandarin Chinese and Chinese dialects. Chinese dialects refer to regional language varieties, like Cantonese, Shanghainese, and Hokkien, most of which have distinctive phonetic, lexical, and syntactic features that differ significantly from Mandarin Chinese (Norman, 1988; M. Zhou, 2003). Chinese heritage language learners do not necessarily speak Chinese dialects or Mandarin Chinese at home, but they recognize their Sinitic heritage or connections. In a similar vein, the study conceptualizes Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity as individuals who acknowledge their ancestral and cultural associations with Taiwan without necessarily speaking Chinese dialects or Mandarin Chinese at home.
Overview of Mandarin Chinese Speech and Written Varieties
Mandarin Chinese varieties, such as Taiwanese Mandarin and standard Mainland Mandarin, are the predominant Chinese language varieties used in Chinese American and Taiwanese American communities. A language variety is a distinct form of a language that systematically differs from other forms of the same language (Wardhaugh & Fuller, 2021). Language varieties are shaped by diverse factors, like geographical locations, social status, and contextual situations of language use. These diverse factors create differences in vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. For instance, there are differences in how Mainland Mandarin and Taiwanese Mandarin are spoken. Researchers have identified differences in tonal variations (Fon & Chiang, 1999; Fon & Hsu, 2007; Hsu & Tse, 2009) as well as phonological and syntactic features between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin (Cheng, 1985; Sanders, 1992). One distinct difference between spoken Taiwanese Mandarin and standard Mainland Mandarin is the absence of the “er” sound (érhuà yīn 兒化音) in Taiwanese Mandarin. The “er” sound refers to a phonological phenomenon in Mainland Mandarin, particularly prominent in Beijing-accented Mandarin, where the non-syllabic final “ér” 兒 is added to words.
The difference between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin can also be seen in their writing. Mainland Mandarin is written in the simplified Chinese script, while Taiwanese Mandarin is written in the traditional Chinese script. Although both scripts employ Chinese characters (sinographs), the two scripts indicate noticeable differences. The simplified Chinese script follows the principle of simplification by combining homophones and eliminating redundant characters. For example, the Chinese characters 範 fàn and 范 fàn share the same pronunciation, but they are combined into the latter with fewer strokes. The combination mechanism serves the simplified writing system associated with Mainland Mandarin (McBride-Chang et al., 2005). By contrast, the traditional Chinese writing system associated with Taiwanese Mandarin distinguishes between 範 and 范 by maintaining them as separate characters. The following subsection will discuss why the distinctions between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin in their writing systems and speech varieties are at stake for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity, thereby illustrating the rationale and purpose of the study.
Rationale and Purpose of the Study
The distinctions between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin are at stake for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity because most of them acquire Taiwanese Mandarin rather than Mainland Mandarin before enrolling in K-16 Chinese language courses. Taiwanese Mandarin is a non-mainstream Chinese language variety in K-16 settings because most K-16 Chinese language courses only teach Mainland Mandarin (S. Zhang, 2021; Wong & Xiao, 2010). Non-mainstream language variety typically receives less backing or recognition in comparison to the standard language varieties, which creates potential social, economic, or educational challenges for non-mainstream language variety users (Garcia, 2011; Milroy, 2002). For instance, Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity may face learning challenges in K-16 Chinese language classes because many of them acquire Taiwanese Mandarin rather than Mainland Mandarin before taking these classes (Wiley, 2018).
To address the possible learning difficulties for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity in college-level Chinese language classes, the study examines how the participants perceive Mandarin Chinese varieties. To meet this objective, the study adopts the conceptual framework of language ideology to promote equity and inclusivity in world language classrooms (Alim, 2005; Johnson, 2013). Language ideology refers to beliefs and perceptions about language use (Woolard, 1998; Kroskrity, 2004). Additionally, the study implements Silverstein’s (2013) metacommentary approach to language ideology by regarding language ideology as comments on language use and structure. This approach is implemented to expose the normative judgments and cultural values woven into language use. The participants’ language ideologies about Mandarin Chinese varieties are significant to Chinese language educators and curriculum developers because understanding these language ideologies will enable the educators and curriculum developers to recognize the possible biases and assumptions that marginalize Taiwanese Mandarin language. Thus, these educators and curriculum developers can address these biases and assumptions by developing teaching methods and course materials in line with the principles of equity and inclusivity. To embrace these principles, the study poses two research questions (RQ):
How did college-level Chinese heritage language learner participants of Taiwanese ethnicity perceive Mandarin Chinese varieties?
How did the participants’ perceptions of Mandarin Chinese varieties inform their learning experiences in college-level Chinese language classes?
The next section will discuss how the data are collected and analyzed to answer the two research questions mentioned above.
Method
Data Collection
The data were collected from a case study research project on the relationship between language use, language ideology, and ethnic identity for Chinese heritage language learner participants of Taiwanese ethnicity. This project is a case study that comprehensively explores a singular unit, or a relatively bounded phenomenon, which is a group of Chinese heritage language learner participants of Taiwanese ethnicity from a large R1 university[2] in the Southeastern United States. This research project recruited nine participants. Each participant met the following criteria: 1) having at least one parent or grandparent from Taiwan; 2) enrolling in at least one Chinese language course at the target university within three years before data collection; 3) taking a Chinese language course at the target university for over half a semester; 4) identifying as Taiwanese to some extent; and 5) being able to elaborate on their connections with Taiwanese ethnic identities.
[2] According to the Basic Classification of Universities established by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, R1 and R2 universities fall under the category of doctoral universities (American Council on Education 2023). Doctoral universities refer to those universities that award a minimum of 20 doctoral degrees in research and have a research budget of at least $5 million every year. As doctoral universities, R1 and R2 universities are known for their research efforts.According to the Basic Classification of Universities established by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, R1 and R2 universities fall under the category of doctoral universities (American Council on Education 2023). Doctoral universities refer to those universities that award a minimum of 20 doctoral degrees in research and have a research budget of at least $5 million every year. As doctoral universities, R1 and R2 universities are known for their research efforts.
The data collected from the nine participants who met the criteria mentioned above include: 1) two rounds of semi-structured interviews; and 2) the Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3).[3] LHQ3 is a self-report questionnaire for the participants to fill in. The LHQ3 information allowed the researcher to achieve a general understanding of the participants’ language use, heritage language acquisition, language ideologies, and ethnic identities, among others. The following subsection will describe the data analysis procedures.
[3] The website link to the Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): https://lhq-blclab.org/.
Data Analysis
For data analysis, five participants whose responses were most relevant to the study’s research focus were selected. This approach allowed for a more detailed and in-depth analysis of each participant’s experiences and perceptions. To achieve this purpose, the researcher adopted the six-step thematic analysis method (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A theme refers to a recognizable pattern or coherent meaning arising from the data to indicate concepts or topics relevant to research questions. Oftentimes, recurring patterns or meanings span across a dataset as themes. In this study, the recurring patterns and themes were how Chinese heritage language learner participants of Taiwanese ethnicity perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties and how their perceptions shaped their educational experiences. To achieve this purpose, codes and themes were generated and aligned with the research questions across the dataset to capture the participants’ diverse experiences and perspectives. Specifically, the thematic analysis method followed six steps—data familiarization, code generation, theme generation, theme review, theme definition, and report writing—to maintain clarity and consistency throughout the data analysis process (Braun & Clarke, 2014).
To contextualize the findings, the following subsection describes the five participants’ language and cultural backgrounds.
Participants
This subsection introduces the language and cultural backgrounds of the five learner participants to lay the foundation for the thematic analysis. The five participants are given pseudonyms to protect their privacy in accordance with the Institution Review Board (IRB) rules. The participants are Michael, Kevin, Lisa, Rachel, and David.
Participant 1: Michael
Michael was born and raised in the United States. Michael’s grandparents on his father’s side originally came from Mainland China. Michael’s family communicated primarily in English, although his grandparents sometimes spoke Mandarin and Taiwanese Southern Hokkien. Michael’s mother is Cambodian Chinese and speaks Khmer and Mandarin. Michael began attending a Taiwanese-run community-based weekend Chinese language school at the age of four or five and continued until around sixth or seventh grade. Weekend Chinese schools refer to those community-based schools that offer Chinese language and cultural classes on weekends to heritage language learners (Chao, 1997). Most Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese acquire Taiwanese Mandarin at weekend Chinese schools that primarily serve Taiwanese American communities (Fang, 2015). Although Michael acquired basic Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese writing script during his brief stay at the weekend Chinese school, his use of Mandarin Chinese has been limited in his daily life since then.
Participant 2: Kevin
Kevin was born and raised in the United States. Kevin’s mother is from Taiwan and his father is from Mainland China. Kevin was primarily exposed to a mix of Mandarin Chinese and English at home. Kevin attended a Taiwanese-run community-based Chinese language school from around the first or second grade until about fifth grade. Kevin acquired Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese writing system during that period. However, he tended to mix Taiwanese Mandarin and Mailand Mandarin occasionally in his daily life and college-level Chinese language classes.
Participant 3: Lisa
Lisa was born and raised mostly in the United States. Both of Lisa’s parents are Taiwanese. Her parents primarily communicated with her in English, while her grandparents on both sides spoke to her in Taiwanese Mandarin. Lisa spent three years, from ages 7 to 10, living in Taiwan with her paternal grandparents. During these three years, she attended a local primary school to acquire Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese writing system. However, she had lost most of her Chinese reading knowledge by the time she started to take a college-level Chinese language course. Thus, she was not able to distinguish between the traditional and simplified Chinese scripts at the beginning of this course.
Participant 4: Rachel
Rachel was born and raised mostly in the United States. She has a Taiwanese mother and an American White father. She initially grew up speaking Taiwanese Southern Hokkien with her Taiwanese grandmother, who lived with her family until she was around four years old. After her grandmother moved away, Rachel started to use English exclusively. At the age of 11, Rachel moved to Germany because of her father’s job. She started to learn German and continued to use it extensively until she came back to the United States at the age of 17. She wanted to learn Taiwanese Mandarin, the traditional Chinese writing system, and Taiwanese Southern Hokkien to understand and maintain her Taiwanese heritage.
Participant 5: David
David was born and raised in the United States. He has a Taiwanese father and an American White mother. He primarily spoke English in America with minimal exposure to Mandarin Chinese. He only heard Taiwanese Mandarin when his father spoke to his grandparents. David attended a Taiwanese-run community-based Chinese language school for one year when he was around eight years old. He did not attend it long enough to gain fluency in Taiwanese Mandarin or the traditional writing system. It was not until he attended college that he started to learn Mandarin Chinese again. To explain how the thematic analysis of David’s and the other participants’ data is presented, the following subsection describes the presentation of the study.
Presentation of the Findings
The presentation of the findings addressed the cause-and-effect relationship between the first and second research questions by creating three sets of themes. These three sets of themes are aligned with the questions about how the participants perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties and how these perceptions influenced their in-class Chinese language learning. For example, “Theme 1 (RQ1): Perceptions of Pronunciation, Vocabulary, and Style Differences versus the Perception of No Differences” led to “Theme 1 (RQ2): Adapting Linguistic Practices to Classroom, Familial, and Local Contexts.” Similarly, “Theme 2 (RQ1): “Preference for Taiwanese Mandarin for Cultural Identity and Family Communication” resulted in “Theme 2 (RQ2): Regret over Limited Taiwanese Mandarin Learning Due to Schoolwork Priorities and Class Arrangement.” Likewise, “Theme 3 (RQ1): Preference for Mainland Mandarin Due to Wider Use and Easier Learning” gave rise to “Theme 3 (RQ2): Learning Mainland Mandarin Due to Career Prospect and School Availability.” This thematic organization provided the structure for the data analysis and addressed the two research questions with a coherent and logical flow. The next subsection presents a structured thematic analysis accordingly.
Thematic Analysis
To answer the research questions, this subsection presents three sets of themes for each question. Each theme contains two to three subthemes. Themes and subthemes with detailed supporting quotes from the participants are presented in Tables 1 to 6.
Theme 1
Theme 1 (RQ1): Perceptions of Pronunciation, Vocabulary, and Style Differences versus the Perception of No Differences
Table 1
Theme 1 (RQ1): Perceptions of Pronunciation, Vocabulary, and Style Differences versus the Perception of No Differences to address the first research question on how the participants perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties (Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin).
Most college-level Chinese heritage language learner participants of Taiwanese ethnicity perceived significant differences between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin in terms of vocabulary, pronunciation, and style. For example, Michael observed differences in the vocabulary usage for “roommate.” His mother used the Taiwanese Mandarin phrase shìyǒu 室友 for “roommate.” By contrast, he learned the Mainland Mandarin equivalent tóngwū 同屋, from the Chinese language textbook. Moreover, Michael was confused by the different pronunciations of the word 衣服 yīfú in Taiwanese Mandarin and yīfū in Mainland Mandarin. In addition, Kevin noted stylistic differences because he perceived Mainland Mandarin as more formal and stricter compared to the more relaxed and natural tone of Taiwanese Mandarin. On the other hand, unlike the other participants, Lisa could not tell the stylistic, vocabulary, or pronunciation differences between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin when starting her college-level Chinese class. Although she lived in Taiwan between the ages of 7 to 10, she did not take any Chinese language courses until she went to college. Her case demonstrates that not all the participants of Taiwanese ethnicity perceived the linguistic differences between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin.
Theme 1 (RQ2): Adapting Linguistic Practices to Classroom, Familial, and Local Contexts
Table 2
Theme 1 (RQ2): Adapting Linguistic Practices to Classroom, Familial, and Local Contexts to address the second research question on how the participants’ perceptions of Mandarin Chinese varieties shaped their learning experiences in college-level Chinese language classes.
The participants’ linguistic perceptions of Mandarin Chinese varieties greatly informed their learning experiences in college-level Chinese language classes, particularly in how they adapted their Chinese language practices to classroom, familial, and local contexts.
First, Kevin’s linguistic perception of Mandarin Chinese varieties affected his in-class language learning experiences. He used a mixed language in classroom contexts. Although Kevin did not clearly perceive the distinction between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin usage, he received instructional support from his teacher to facilitate learning for him and other students. As mentioned earlier, Taiwanese Mandarin is a non-mainstream language variety in most U.S. K-16 Chinese language classes, so Kevin and his peers were expected to speak Mainland Mandarin in class. However, Kevin tended to mix Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin in his speech because he learned these Mandarin Chinese varieties from his Taiwanese mother and Chinese father. Consequently, he sometimes spoke Taiwanese Mandarin in class for literal translation from English to Chinese, which confused his peers who learned Mainland Mandarin. His teacher promptly clarified the confusion by translating his Taiwanese Mandarin into Mainland Mandarin for his peers without penalizing him. The teacher established a welcoming environment by aiding students who incorporated mainstream and non-mainstream language varieties in classroom settings. Thanks to this welcoming environment, Kevin’s unclear perception of the differences between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin pronunciation and usage did not adversely affect his learning experiences.
Secondly, David’s linguistic perception of the distinctions between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin shaped his language learning experiences in college-level Chinese language courses. He also applied what he learned to familial contexts. Although he learned Mainland Mandarin in class, he understood his family members’ Taiwanese Mandarin pronunciation and accent. His understanding enabled him to carry on the conversation with his family members. For instance, he perceived subtle differences in the pronunciation between the two Mandarin Chinese varieties, such as how his family members dropped the “h” sound in certain words by pronouncing the Mainland Mandarin word shuō 說 (say) as suō in a Taiwanese Mandarin accent. His perception allowed him to enhance his Chinese language proficiency by developing an awareness of cultural differences in his familial settings.
Finally, Lisa’s linguistic perception of Mandarin Chinese varieties influenced her in-class Chinese language learning experiences, with her intention to adapt what she learned to the local contexts of Taiwan. She found transitioning from the simplified Chinese writing system she had learned in class to the traditional writing system used in Taiwan to be quite challenging, as these two writing systems appeared significantly different to her. However, she planned to relearn the traditional Chinese writing system and Taiwanese Mandarin usage when she went back to Taiwan. To meet this goal, she would request language help from her parents and use tools like Google Translate to navigate through the linguistic landscape of Taiwan. Furthermore, she considered it natural for her to acquire the local mannerisms and slang of the community where she would stay, like Taiwan. Lisa’s willingness to re-learn Taiwanese Mandarin bridged her Chinese language learning in class and future immersion in Taiwan. The next subsection will describe how the participants perceived Taiwanese Mandarin in relation to their cultural identity and family communication and how these perceptions affected their learning experiences in college-level Chinese language courses.
Theme 2
Theme 2 (RQ1): Preference for Taiwanese Mandarin for Cultural Identity and Family Communication
Table 3
Theme 2 (RQ1): Preference for Taiwanese Mandarin for Cultural Identity and Family Communication to address the first research question on how the participants perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties (Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin).
Most participants perceived Taiwanese Mandarin as a language variety that mediates their cultural identity. For example, Michael implicitly associated Taiwanese Mandarin with his cultural identity because he showed a sentimental and aesthetic preference for the traditional Chinese writing script for Taiwanese Mandarin over the simplified Chinese writing system for Mainland Mandarin. Although he was born and raised in the United States rather than Taiwan, he shared the common Taiwanese sentiment that traditional Chinese characters are “more beautiful” and “hold a lot more meaning.” Michael illustrated this sentiment by comparing the traditional and simplified Chinese characters for “love” ài 愛/爱. He highlighted that the traditional Chinese character ài 愛 retains the heart radical 心 xīn. A radical is a component of a Chinese character. The radical often hints at the character’s meaning or pronunciation. In the case of the traditional Chinese character 愛 (ài, love), the heart radical 心 xīn signifies the emotional and heartfelt nature of the love concept. By contrast, this radical is omitted in the simplified counterpart 爱 (ài, love). He thought the omission diminished the character’s original nuance and visual symbolism. His thought displays that he preferred the cultural heritage embedded in the traditional Chinese script, which is the writing system associated with Taiwanese Mandarin. By extension, his perception of the traditional Chinese script as a symbolically and aesthetically favorable Mandarin Chinese written variety is linked to his cultural identity, which can be attributed to his Taiwanese heritage.
Moreover, some participants perceived Taiwanese Mandarin as not only a potent symbol of cultural identity but also a crucial tool of family communication. For instance, Rachel affiliated Taiwanese Mandarin pronunciations and accents with her cultural identity. She noted that these pronunciations and accents were distinct enough for people to recognize that those using them were from Taiwan rather than Mainland China. Because of Taiwanese Mandarin’s distinction from Mainland Mandarin, she inferred that Taiwanese Mandarin would become a national symbol for the Taiwanese People if Taiwanese Southern Hokkien were to disappear. She further mentioned her desire to grasp Taiwanese Mandarin pronunciation to better communicate with her family members and strengthen family ties. In addition, Rachel demonstrated her keenness to master the traditional Chinese script prevalent in Taiwan to embrace her cultural roots and communicate with her Taiwanese grandmother through written Chinese. Although her grandmother moved away when she was approximately four years old, they still communicate in written Chinese through Line messages. Line is the most popular app among the Taiwanese People with its comprehensive features, including messaging, social networking, and a wide range of stickers (Liu & Ko, 2021). How traditional Chinese characters can be adopted in Line messages and how Taiwanese Mandarin pronunciations can be acquired for family oral communication for Rachel demonstrate her practical and cultural perceptions of Taiwanese Mandarin.
Theme 2 (RQ2): Regret over Limited Taiwanese Mandarin Learning Due to Schoolwork Priorities and Class Arrangement
Table 4
Theme 2 (RQ2): Regret over Limited Taiwanese Mandarin Learning Due to Schoolwork Priorities and Class Arrangement to address the second research question on how the participants’ perceptions of Mandarin Chinese varieties shaped their learning experiences in college-level Chinese language classes.
Most participants’ sentimental and cultural perceptions of Taiwanese Mandarin considerably influenced their college-level in-class Chinese language learning experiences. Specifically, some of them regretted not learning enough Taiwanese Mandarin because of their schoolwork priorities or class arrangement. For example, Michael’s perception of Taiwanese Mandarin as a symbol of his cultural identity and familial lineage saddened him because he had not dedicated sufficient time to studying it within or outside his Chinese language courses. Whenever he listened to Chinese songs or saw Chinese words, he always felt remorse about “not properly” learning Mandarin Chinese. His usage of “not properly” indicates that he expected himself to acquire Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese script, in addition to Mainland Mandarin and the simplified Chinese script in class. Not being able to meet this expectation means that Michael “owe[d] it [learning Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese writing system] to those [who] came before me [Michael].” In other words, he regarded acquiring Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese writing system as learning his profound family history. As a result, he stated that he would acquire Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese writing system at some point by going back to a Chinese language class. Still, he prioritized his major schoolwork over Taiwanese Mandarin learning at the time of the interview, which perturbed him with a poignant struggle between the considerations of academic coursework and the preservation of his linguistic and cultural heritage. Michael’s perception of Taiwanese Mandarin as integral to his linguistic and cultural heritage preservation led him to regret not learning enough of it in college-level Chinese language classes, with hopes of learning Taiwanese Mandarin in future classes.
In addition, Rachel’s cultural and practical perception of Taiwanese Mandarin as essential for her cultural identity and family communication affected her language learning experiences in college-level Chinese language classes. Particularly, she regretted not learning more Taiwanese Mandarin or the traditional Chinese script in class. She attributed this regret to the class arrangement with an almost exclusive focus on the simplified Chinese writing system. Initially, Rachel followed the class arrangement without knowing the great differences between the traditional and simplified Chinese characters. It was not until one month after the start of the class that the instructor from Mainland China told Rachel and the other students that they could write traditional Chinese characters for assignments. It became too late for Rachel to switch to the traditional Chinese script, although she considered acquiring this script more beneficial for her to connect with her Taiwanese heritage. Furthermore, Rachel noted that this Chinese language class’s course materials focused on Beijing-accented Mainland Mandarin, like érhuà yīn兒化音 (a distinctive feature of Beijing-accented Mandarin), without providing resources or support for Taiwanese Mandarin. By contrast, she appreciated occasional exposure to Taiwanese Mandarin provided by a Chinese language instructor from Taiwan because this instructor attempted to balance the Mainland-Mandarin-centric curriculum with Taiwanese Mandarin pronunciation and usage. She expressed this appreciation because she preferred acquiring Taiwanese Mandarin for the purpose of communicating with her family members. In other words, she desired a more inclusive approach to support her cultural identity and practical family communication. Rachel’s cultural and practical perceptions of Taiwanese Mandarin informed her college-level Chinese language learning experiences with a critique of the Mainland-Mandarin-centric curriculum. This critique can be addressed by a more inclusive environment to support those who want to learn Taiwanese Mandarin and the traditional Chinese writing system. The following subsection will discuss how the participants perceived Mainland Mandarin and how these perceptions shaped their college-level Chinese language learning experiences.
Theme 3
Theme 3 (RQ1): Preference for Mainland Mandarin Due to Wider Use and Easier Learning
Table 5
Theme 3 (RQ1): Preference for Mainland Mandarin Due to Wider Use and Easier Learning to address the first research question on how the participants perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties (Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin).
Although most participants acknowledged their cultural connections with Taiwanese Mandarin, they perceived Mainland Mandarin as a favorable variety for learning because of its wider use and simpler learning. These practical perceptions of Mainland Mandarin can be seen in the cases of Michael, Lisa, and Kevin. For instance, Michael considered learning the simplified Chinese writing system associated with Mainland Mandarin a rational choice. He explained that his decision was not because simplified characters had fewer strokes compared to traditional Chinese characters. Instead, he chose to learn simplified characters because they were more “propagated” and “cosmopolitan.” In other words, he preferred learning the simplified Chinese script because it was more universally recognized worldwide than traditional Chinese characters. In a similar vein, Kevin perceived traditional Chinese characters as less essential for international communication and learning because they were not widely used beyond Taiwan. Consequently, Kevin prioritized learning simplified Chinese characters because they could be used more broadly for global Chinese language communication. Kevin’s and Michael’s reference for the simplified Chinese writing system demonstrated their view of Mainland Mandarin as a more globally accessible and widely used variety of Mandarin Chinese compared to Taiwanese Mandarin.
In addition, Lisa perceived simplified Chinese characters associated with Mainland Mandarin as a preferred Mandarin Chinese variety for learning due to its easier learning process. She regarded traditional Chinese characters associated with Taiwanese Mandarin as a more challenging variety for her to write or recall because these characters often have more strokes. By contrast, she found simplified Chinese characters more manageable for her to write and memorize because these characters often have fewer strokes. Lisa perceived the simplified Chinese writing system as less intimidating because she had difficulty mastering the intricate details of Chinese characters and (re)learning a language.
Theme 3 (RQ2): Learning Mainland Mandarin Due to Career Prospect and School Availability
Table 6
Theme 3 (RQ2): Learning Mainland Mandarin Due to Career Prospect and School Availability to address the second research question on how the participants’ perceptions of Mandarin Chinese varieties shaped their learning experiences in college-level Chinese language classes.
Most participants perceived simplified Chinese associated with Mainland Mandarin as preferable due to its wider use and easier learning. This perception greatly influenced their experiences in college-level Chinese language classes, leading them to choose simplified Chinese characters based on career prospects and availability in schools. For example, Lisa’s practical perception of simplified Chinese characters as a favorable variety for learning because of its simpler acquisition process led her to follow the school’s Mainland-Mandarin-centric curriculum without requesting support or resources for traditional Chinese characters. Although she acknowledged her Taiwanese heritage, she did not receive enough education to tell the cultural distinctions between traditional and simplified Chinese characters. Therefore, she was fine with learning simplified Chinese characters. Her practical perception of Chinese language learning motivated her to choose the simplified Chinese writing system in line with the course materials rather than her cultural identity.
In addition, Michael and Kevin perceived Mainland Mandarin as a favorable variety for acquisition because its wider use motivated them to learn Mainland Mandarin taught in college-level Chinese courses for their career prospect, communication, convenience, and standardization. For Kevin, the “ubiquity” of simplified Chinese characters associated with Mainland Mandarin led him to focus on learning them because he regarded this prioritization as beneficial to his career prospects. Likewise, Michael focused on acquiring Mainland Mandarin because he considered it the standardized version of Mandarin Chinese. He thought acquiring Mainland Mandarin would enable him to communicate across diverse Chinese contexts. With this thought, he adopted phonological features like érhuà yīn 兒化音, commonly associated with Beijing-accented standard Mainland Mandarin. Michael’s and Kevin’s practical perceptions of Mainland Mandarin as aids to their career prospect and broader communication aligned them with the standard Mainland Mandarin taught in most U.S. college-level Chinese language courses, despite their Taiwanese heritage.
The next section briefly interprets a case from research findings through Silverstein’s language ideology framework to lay the groundwork for the suggestions provided to Chinese language educators and curriculum developers.
Discussion
This section employs Silverstein’s (2013) metacommentary approach to language ideology to interpret the case of Michael’s perception of Mandarin Chinese varieties. This interpretation is meant to exemplify how normative judgments and cultural values were interwoven into the participants’ perceptions of Mandarin Chinese varieties. In the field of language ideology, normative judgments refer to implicit or explicit evaluations about, but not limited to, how language should be used, which language varieties are considered correct or prestigious, and which language varieties are regarded as inferior or less appropriate. For instance, Michael’s perception of traditional Chinese script associated with Taiwanese Mandarin as a “more beautiful” written variety that “holds more meanings” can be seen as a comment that integrates his normative judgments and cultural values. The metacommentary analysis of Michael’s comment reflects his normative judgment, perceiving the traditional Chinese writing system as a more aesthetically and historically prestigious written variety compared to the simplified Chinese writing system. Moreover, this comment demonstrates that his cultural values were similar to most Taiwanese People’s. Therefore, Silverstein’s metacommentary approach to language ideology can be employed to examine how the participants perceived Mandarin Chinese varieties. This can be done by analyzing the interplay of the participants’ normative judgments and cultural values without taking their language preferences or practices for granted.
The following section discusses how Chinese language educators and curriculum developers can consider their heritage language learner’s normative judgments and cultural values to create a more inclusive learning environment.
Implications and Conclusion
This section will discuss the implications for Chinese language educators, suggestions for Chinese language curriculum developers, the promotion of equity and inclusivity, and implications for future research. First, Chinese language educators should attempt to create an inclusive learning environment where heritage language learner students can navigate their diverse language and cultural backgrounds without being forced to acquire Mainland Mandarin. As the research findings show, most Chinese heritage language learner participants of Taiwanese ethnicity had distinct perceptions of Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin. Oftentimes, these perceptions of Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin can be attributed to the participants’ cultural identity and practical considerations. Educators can show sensitivity to students’ identity and consideration by recognizing the distinctions between Mandarin Chinese varieties and integrating both varieties into the course materials. For example, students can be given agency to decide whether they want to write traditional or simplified Chinese characters in their classroom tasks, homework, and exams. Educators can also explain the significance and evolution of both traditional and simplified Chinese scripts, thereby connecting students with their heritage language varieties. Additionally, educators should be ready to assist students who may blend Taiwanese and Mainland Mandarin varieties in their speech to support Taiwanese Mandarin learners without confusing Mainland Mandarin learners.
Secondly, Chinese language curriculum developers should cater to the needs of Taiwanese Mandarin learners by acknowledging the cultural and linguistic richness of Mandarin Chinese. As the research findings demonstrate, the curriculum almost entirely focused on Mainland Mandarin without serving all Taiwanese Mandarin learners. Curriculum developers should strive to balance the two Mandarin Chinese varieties by cultivating students’ sensitivity to their differences. To meet this goal, curriculum developers can blend Taiwanese Mandarin materials and Mainland Mandarin resources, including texts, and audio, and video clips. Curriculum developers can also create historical and cultural notes on the structure of traditional and simplified Chinese script, along with the pronunciation, vocabulary, and style differences between Taiwanese Mandarin and Mainland Mandarin. This approach will assist students in achieving a more holistic understanding of both Mandarin Chinese varieties.
Thirdly, Chinese language educators and curriculum developers should take an equitable and inclusive approach by engaging themselves in ongoing dialogues with students to understand students’ backgrounds and preferences. With this understanding, educators and curriculum developers can tailor class curriculum and course materials to suit students’ needs. To achieve this purpose, educators and curriculum developers may employ Silverstein’s metacommentary approach to language ideology during the dialogues with students. As the discussion of the study indicates, this approach can enable educators and curriculum developers to understand how students’ normative judgments and cultural values shape their perception of Mandarin Chinese varieties. Reflecting on students’ comments on language use and structure can enable educators and curriculum developers to consider students’ perceptions of Mandarin Chinese varieties without assuming that Mainland Mandarin represents the only standard variety. This equitable and inclusive approach can be adopted to accommodate the needs of Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity and, by extension, Chinese heritage language learners of other non-mainstream language varieties.
Finally, to extend the study’s equitable and inclusive approach, I propose the following topics for future research. These topics include, but are not limited to:
How do Chinese heritage language learners of other non-mainstream language varieties, like Taiwanese Southern Hokkien, Taiwanese Hakka, Cantonese, Shanghainese, and Teochew, perceive the differences between their heritage language variety and Mainland Mandarin? How do these perceptions influence their Chinese language learning experiences?
How does the intergenerational interaction between Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity and their parents and grandparents shape their language ideologies and language use?
How do the language ideologies for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity (re)construct their ethnic and cultural identities?
How do Chinese language educators adopt critical language pedagogy, multicultural pedagogy, culturally responsive teaching, or any other teaching approach to promote equity and inclusivity for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity?
How do Taiwanese-run community-based weekend Chinese schools shape the language ideologies and language learning experiences for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity?
How do the Chinese language learning experiences and language ideologies for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity inform world language education for other heritage language learners of non-mainstream language varieties (e.g., Mexican Spanish and Quebec French)?
How does their stay in and visit to Taiwan (re)shape the language ideologies and cultural identities for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity?
The research on these proposed topics will enhance equity and inclusivity for Chinese heritage language learners of Taiwanese ethnicity and other heritage language learners of non-mainstream language varieties by providing sociolinguistic insights, pedagogical suggestions, and theoretical implications.
References
Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting issues and revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher, 34(7), 24-31.
Allard, E., Mortimer, K., Gallo, S., Link, H., & Wortham, S. (2014). Immigrant Spanish as liability or asset? Generational diversity in language ideologies at school. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13(5), 335-353.
Arrigo, L. G. (2006). Patterns of Personal and Political Life among Taiwanese Americans. Taiwan Inquiry, 13, 16-42.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2014). What can “thematic analysis” offer health and wellbeing researchers? International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1), 26152.
Budiman, A., & Ruiz, N. G. (2021, April 29). Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/04/29/key-facts-about-asian-americans/
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (2021, September 8). Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education®. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu
Chang, S. (2020). Raciolinguistic ideology in first-year university (non) heritage Chinese classes. Language Learning in Higher Education, 10(2), 491-509.
Chao, T. H. (1997). Chinese Heritage Community Language Schools in the United States. ERIC Digest. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED409744.pdf
Cheng, R. L. (1985). A comparison of Taiwanese, Taiwan Mandarin, and Peking Mandarin. Language, 352-377.
Fang, J. Y. (2015). To cultivate our children to be of East and West: Contesting ethnic heritage language in suburban Chinese schools. Journal of American Ethnic History, 34(2), 54-82.
Fei, X. (2017). The formation and development of the Chinese nation with multi-ethnic groups. International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, 1, 1-31.
Fon, J., & Chiang, W. (1999). What does Chao have to say about tones? -a case study of Taiwan Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 27(1), 13-37.
Fon, J., & Hsu, H. (2007). Positional and phonotactic effects on the realization of dipping tones in Taiwan Mandarin. Phonology and Phonetics, Tones and Tunes, 2, 239-269.
García, O. (2011). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
Hsu, H., & Tse, J. K. (2009). The tonal leveling of Taiwan Mandarin: A study in Taipei. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 35(2), 225-244.
Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2021). The language gap: Normalizing deficit ideologies. Routledge.
Kang, Y., & Yang, K. C. (2011). The rhetoric of ethnic identity construction among Taiwanese immigrants in the United States. The Howard Journal of Communications, 22(2), 163-182.
Kelleher, A. (2010). Who is a heritage language learner. Heritage Briefs, 1-3.
Kroskrity, P. V. (2004). Language ideologies. In Alessandro Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 496–517). John Wiley & Sons.
Li, D. C. (2006). Chinese as a lingua franca in greater China. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 149-176.
Liu, G., & Ko, C. (2021). Effects of social media and design thinking on corporate identity design course in Taiwan. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(3), 251-268.
McBride-Chang, C., Chow, B. W., Zhong, Y., Burgess, S., & Hayward, W. G. (2005). Chinese character acquisition and visual skills in two Chinese scripts. Reading and Writing, 18, 99-128.
Milroy, L. (2002). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. Routledge. Norman, J. (1988). Chinese. Cambridge University Press.
Pak, C., & Stallings, L. (2023). Culturally relevant community-based learning for heritage students of Spanish: A virtual collaboration with dual language immersion schools. Connections: A Journal for Foreign Language Educators, 11, 152-173.
Passel, J. (2021, September 8). How many Taiwanese live in the U.S.? it’s not an easy question to answer. Medium. https://medium.com/pew research-center-decoded/how-many-taiwanese-live-in-the-u-s-its-not-an-easy-question-to-answer-315c042839dc
Plumb, C. (2016). On the Possibility of Mandarin Chinese as a “Lingua Franca.” Journal of Educational Issues, 2(2), 48-59.
Sanders, R. M. (1992). The expression of modality in Peking and Taipei Mandarin. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 20(2), 289-314.
Silverstein, M. (2013). Language and the culture of gender: At the intersection of structure, usage, and ideology. In E. Mertz (Ed.), Semiotic mediation: Sociocultural and psychological perspective (pp. 219-259). Elsevier.
Simon, S. (2010). Negotiating power: Elections and the constitution of indigenous Taiwan. American Ethnologist, 37(4), 726-740.
Wang, B., & Zhou, M. (2021). Understanding intraethnic diversity: The formation of a Taiwanese American identity. Journal of Chinese Overseas, 17(1), 58-83.
Wang, W., Huang, T., Huang, S., & Wang, L. (2009). Internet Use, Group Identity, and Political Participation among Taiwanese Americans. China Media Research, 5(4), 47-62.
Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2021). An introduction to sociolinguistics. John Wiley & Sons.
Wiley, T. G. (2017). Chinese “Dialect” Speakers as Heritage Language Learners: A Case Study 1. In D. M. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage language education (pp. 91-106). Routledge.
Wong, K. F., & Xiao, Y. (2010). Diversity and difference: Identity issues of Chinese heritage language learners from dialect backgrounds. Heritage Language Journal, 7(2), 314-348.
Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.). Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, 3-48. Oxford University Press.
Zhang, S. (2021). A systematic review of pedagogical research on teaching Chinese as a foreign language in the United States–from 1960 to 2020. Chinese as a Second Language Research, 10(2), 207-238.
Zhou, M. (2003). Multilingualism in China: The politics of writing reforms for minority languages, 1949-2002. Walter de Gruyter
