臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

隨著現代科技、資訊及商業的發展，台灣人民因而受鼓勵使自己具備英語能力以增加其世界競爭力。在此潮流之下，另一波聲浪呼籲保存本土文化之必要性。本土語言為台灣文化中的重要元素，延續其存在成為本土化運動中的重心。面對「世界化」與「本土化」的兩難情境，台灣民眾對語言教育政策及第二官方語言之選擇持何種態度？英語較適當，亦或是本土語言較適當？伴隨著語言議題的則是台灣人民對其所屬之語族的忠誠度及族群間的關係，此兩個議題亦是本研究之重點。以下為本研究之四個研究問題：
1. 台灣人民對當前英語教育政策及相關議題所持之態度為何？
2. 台灣人民對當前母語教育政策及相關議題所持之態度為何？
3. 台灣人民對其所屬語言族群之忠誠度為何？
4. 台灣人民對國家語言及官方語言之選擇偏好為何？
本研究採問卷研究法。共發出一千多份問卷至台灣本島17個行政區。回收問卷中共計有947份有效問卷並加以統計。
本研究之主要發現摘要如下：
1. 大部分受訪者皆體認到英語在國際間所扮演的重要角色，並認為英語教育及其推展對個人及國家邁向國際化具有相當的重要性。再者，研究結果指出一個趨勢－－－一般群眾對於英語教育的量與英語教師的質具有相當程度的要求。 此外，目前英語教育依規定於國小五年級開始實施，然而研究結果顯示大部分的民眾傾向於支持英語教育於小學中的中低年級實施；然而某一部份的受訪者則擔心若英語、國語及本土語言教育在同一階段實施，則可能發生語言錯亂之現象。
2. 研究結果指出受訪者一般而言對家庭及學校領域中的母語延續採認可的態度，並且認為政府所提供之支持與資源對於母語是否能有效延續及推展具相當的必要性。此外，多於75%的受訪者認為母語教育的實施對於族群關係的增進有所助益。
3. 受訪者大體而言對族群關係具有較多程度的包容性而對其所屬族群之忠誠度具較少程度的堅持。當被問及和哪一語族的成員在一起時感到最自在時，約44%的受訪者表示與任一語族的人在一起都相當自在，由此可見和諧的族群關係的確存在。從族群內部的觀點而言，原住民族群表現出最強烈的族群忠誠度，閩南語族次之，外省族群的族群忠誠度則最弱。另一個發現則是大部分的受訪者對於其他的族群性皆能尊重。再者，多於40%的受訪者表示若是有機會選擇，他們願意成為任何一語族的人。
4.多於60%的受訪者認為國語適合被列為台灣的官方語言及國家語言。相較之下，贊成英語被列為官方語言的受訪者較低，約50%。此外，雖然個人的母語和他的族群屬性之間存在著具有象徵意義的情感依附，分析後的結果卻指出本土語族的成員並沒有表現出強烈的期望使其族內的語言成為官方或國家語言。

　　In the modern world of technology, information, and business, Taiwanese are encouraged to equip themselves with the competence of the English language so as to increase their competitive ability in the global stage. However, there has been a voice calling for attention to the need of preserving local cultures. Promotion of native languages, crucial elements of local cultures, is thus being the focus of nativistic campaigns. Facing the dilemma between ‘globalization’ and ‘localization,’ what kind of attitudes do Taiwanese hold toward both language educational policies and toward the issue of choosing Taiwan’s second official language, English or indigenous languages? Together with the language issues, the degree of Taiwanese’ solidarity with their own ethnolinguistic group and inter-group relationship are another two concerns of this study. Four Research Questions of this study are listed as follows:
1. What are Taiwanese attitudes toward the current English 　
　　educational policies and relevant issues?
2. What are Taiwanese attitudes toward the current mother-　　
　　tongue educational policies　and relevant issues?
3. What is the degree of Taiwanese solidarity with their own
　　ethnic-linguistic group?
4. What are Taiwanese preference of choosing a national
　　language and an official　language?
　　The instrument in this study was a questionnaire. More than one thousand copies were distributed to seventeen cities and counties of the island. Of the collected copies, 947 were effective and statistically analyzed.
　　The major findings are summarized as follows:
1. Most of the respondents recognized the dominant linguistic
role that English plays internationally, and also they
realized the importance of English education and promotion
for the entire nation and individuals in an era of
globalization. Moreover, the statistical results indicate
a tendency: the general public showed demanding attitudes
toward the quantity of English education and the
qualifications of English teachers. In addition, the
results suggested that most of the respondents was
inclined to support English education to be implemented in
an earlier stage of the elementary school. Nevertheless,
to some extent, some respondents were worried about the
possible language interference when English, Mandarin, and
the indigenous language are simultaneously instructed.
2. The results of data analysis indicated that the respondents
generally expressed an affirmative attitude toward mother-
tongue maintenance in both family and school domains.
Besides, resources and supports of the government, local or
central, were regarded necessary for the success of mother
tongue promotion and maintenance. Furthermore, the
implementation of mother-tongue education was considered by
more than 75% of them to be beneficial for enhancing inter- group relations.
3. The respondent in general expressed more degree of
generosity in inter-group relations and less degree of
insistence on ethnic solidarity. When asked about which
ethnic group of members they felt more comfortable to get
along, about 44% of them replied that they felt easy to be
with members of any ethnic groups. Harmonious inter-group
relationship was thus proved. From the intra-group
perspective, the A/A group showed the strongest degree of
solidarity, the SM/SM group was reported to be second to
the A/A group, while the M/M demonstrated the weakest
degree. Another pleasant finding was that ethnic
identities of different groups were respected by t
he majority of the respondents. Furthermore, the result
showed that if the respondents could have a choice, more
than 40% of them expressed that they would accept any of
the four ethnic identities.
4. The results revealed that Mandarin was considered, by more
than 60 % of the rspondnets, suitable to be listed as the
official and the national language. However, the
percentage of the respondents supporting English to be
listed as the official language was about 50%, not as high
as that of supporting Mandarin. In addition, although
there is a symbolic or sentimental connection between one''s
mother-tongue and his/her ethnicity, the data showed that
members of each ethnolinguistic group did not express
intensive intention of listing their ethnic marking
language as the official or national language.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements i
English Abstract ii
Chinese Abstract v
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.1.1 Sociolinguistic Settings of Taiwan from 1
1895 to the 1970s
1.1.2 Social Changes in Taiwan in the Late 1980s 6
1.1.3 Controversy Between Localization and 8
Globalization---Debates in the Early 2002 1.1.4 Signs of Reconciliation Between
Ethnolinguistic Groups 12
1.2 Motivation 13
1.3 Statements of the Problems 15
1.4 Purposes of the Study 15
1.5 Research Questions 16
1.6 Significance of the Study 17
1.7 Definition of Terms 17 1.8 Limitation of the Study 19
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 20
2.1 Communication Speech Accommodation Theory 20
2.2 Language Attitude Studies 23
2.3 Language and Educational Policy 27
2.4 Factors Beneficial to Intergroup Relations 30
2.5 Social Categorization and Intergroup Contact 32
2.6 Previous Social-linguistic Studies of Taiwan 38
2.6.1 A Survey Conducted by Lu, L. J. about
Language Attitudes, Language Use and Ethnic
Identity in Taiwan.
2.6.2 A Survey Conducted by Hsieh, T. S. about the Needs for the Education of Native Languages in Taiwan 40
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 43
3.1 Subjects 43
3.2 The Instrument 46
3.3 Procedures 47
3.4 Data Analyses 49
3.4.1 Respondents’ Background Information 49
3.4.2 Attitudes Toward the Current English Education Policies and Relevant Issues 53
3.4.3 Attitude Toward the Current Mother-tongue Education Policies and Relevant Issues 55
3.4.4 Degree of Solidarity with One’s Own Ethnolinguistic Group 56
3.4.5 People’s Opinions About the Choice of the National and Official Language 56
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 57
4.1 Respondents’ Mother tongue and Language Use in the Family Domain . 57
4.2 Taiwanese’s Attitudes Toward the Current Language Education Policies and Relevant Issues 68
4.2.1 Research Question 1: What Are Taiwanese’s Attitudes Toward the Current English Education Policies and Relevant Issues? 69
4.2.2 Research Question 2: What Are Taiwanese’s Attitudes Toward the Current Mother-tongue Education Policies and Relevant Issues? 85
4.2.3 Research Question 3: What’s the Degree of Taiwanese’s Solidarity with Their Own Ethniclinguistic Group? 93
4.2.4 Research Question 4: What Are Taiwanese’s Preference of Choosing a National Language and an Official Language? 109
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 115
5.1 Summary of Research Questions and Findings 115
5.2 Implications 118
5.3 Suggestions for Future Research 120
REFERENCES 122
APPENDIX
Appendix A Questionnaire: The Chinese Version 129
Appendix B Questionnaire: The English Version 134
Appendix C The Raw Data for the Three Parts of the Questionnare 141

Agheyisi, R. and J. Fishman. (1970). Language attitude studies: A brief survey of methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics, 12(5): 137-57.
Albrecht, S., Thomas, D. and Chadwick, B. (1980). Social Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Apple, R. and Muysken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism. pp. 23-24. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Beebe, L. M. (Ed.). (1988). Issues in Second Language Acquisition: Multiple perspectives. MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their sociopsychological implications. In N. Miller and M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact: The psychology of desegregation, pp. 11-27. NY: Academic Press.
Bishop, G. D. (1979). Perceived similarity in interracial attitudes and behaviors: The effects of belief and dialect style. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9(5), 446-465.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-82.
Brewer, M. B. and Miller N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoreticalperspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller and M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact: The psychology of desegregation, pp. 281-302. NY: Academic Press.
Brewer, M. B. and Miller N. (1996). Intergroup Relations. CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Brewer, M. B. and Schneider, S. (1990). Social identity and social dilemmas: A double-edged sword. In D. Abrams and M. Hogg (Eds.), Social Identity Theory; Constructive and Critical Advances, pp. 161-84. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Chang, S. H. (1999). A Hakka view of language matters. (1999, December, 4). The Taipei Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.taipeitimes.com
Chen, M. J. (1998). 台灣語言教育政策之回顧與展望 [A Study In Taiwan’s Language Education After Japanese Jurisdiction Over Taiwan Terminated]. Kaohsiung: Fu-wen.
Choosing English over Hokkein. (2000, March, 30). The Taipei Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.taipeitimes.com
Christ, H. (1997). Language attitudes and educational policy. In R. Wodak and D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 1. Boston: Kluwer academic publishers.
Cohen, E, G. (1984). The desegregated school: Problems in status power and interethnic climate. In N. Miller and M. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in Contact: The psychology of desegregation, pp. 77-96. NY: Academic Press.
Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452-60.
Controversy brewing over English. (2000, March, 26). The Taipei Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.taipeitimes.com
Cooper, R. (1989). Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Coulmas, F. (1988). What us a national language good for? In F. Coulmas (Ed.) With Forked Tongues: What Are National Language Good For? pp.1-24. Singapore:Karoma.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deumert, A. (2000). Language planning and language policy. In R. Mesthrie, J. Swann, A. Deumert, and W. L. Leap (Eds.), Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Education ministry dodges issue of language policy. (2002, March, 26). The Taipei Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.taipeitimes.com
Edward, J. (1985). Language, Society, and Identity. NY: Basil Blackwell.
English to be made official. (2002, May, 1). The Taipei Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.taipeitimes.com
Fasold, P. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society: Introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Feifel, K.E. (1994). Language Attitudes in Taiwan: A social evaluation of language in social change. Taipei: Crane.
Freenstra, H. J. and Gardner, R. C. (1968). Aptitude and Motivation in Second-language Acquisition. Ontario: Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario.
Fishman, J. (1972). Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry: Revisited. Language in Sociocultural Change, pp. 76-134. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second-language Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Gardner, R. C. and Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A. and Dovidio, J. (1989).Reducing intergroup bias: the benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239-49.
Giles, H., & Smith, P. M. (1979). Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles and R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hewstone, M. and Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “contact hypothesis.” In M. Hewstone and R. Brown (Eds.), Contatc and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, pp. 1-44. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hoffman, J. (1977). Language attitudes in Rhodesia. In J. Fishman, R. Cooper and A. Conrad (Eds.), Spread of English, pp. 277-301. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Hoffman, J. and Cais, J. (1984). Children’s attitudes to language maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 50, 147-153.
Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Hsiau, A. C. (1997). Language ideology in Taiwan: The KMT’s language policy, the Tai-yu language movement, and ethnic politics. Journal of Multilingual and Multicutural Development, 18(4), 302-312.
Hsieh, T. S. (1994). A study of the needs for the education of native languages in Taiwan. Master’s thesis, Fu Jen University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, H. F. (1993). 語言、社會與族群意識 [ Language, Society, and Ethnicity Awareness] Taipei: Crane.
Jacobs, J. B. (1990). Taiwanese and the Chinese Nationalist, 1937-1945: The origins of Taiwan’s ‘Half-mountain people’ (Banshan ren). Modern China, 16(1), 84-118.
Jones, E. E., & Davis K. E. (1965). From acts to disposition: The attribution process in perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Social Psychology, Vol. 2. New York and London: Academic Press.
Kedourie, E. (1961). Nationalism. London: Hutchinson.
Kelman, H. C. (1969). Patterns of personal involvement in the national system: A social-psychological analysis of political legitimacy. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), International Politics and Foreign Policy (2nd ed.), pp. 276-288. New York: Free.
Language requirements for Taiwan’s students to increase. (2000, September, 22). The China Post. Retrieved from http://www.chinapost.com
Lewis, E. G. (1975). Attitudes to language among bilingual children and adults in Wales. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 4, 103-125.
Liebkind, K. (1982). The Awedish-speakung Finns: A case study of ethnolinguistic identity. In H. Tajfel (Ed.) Social Identity And Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Lin, J. P. (1995). Mother tongue and cultural transmission. In R. K. Li and Y. Lin (Eds.) Collection of Papers on the Austronesian Languages in Taiwan, pp. 203-222. Council on Educational Research Ministry of Education.
Lu, L. J. (1987). A survey of Language Attitudes, Language Use and Ethnic Identity in Taiwan. Master’s thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Li, C. A (1996). Language policies and the independence of Taiwan [語言政策與台灣獨立]. In Language Politics and Policies [語言政治與政策]. Taipei: Qi-wei.
Macnamara, J. (1973). Attitudes and learning a second language. In R. W. Shuy and R. W. Fasold (Eds.), Language Attitudes: Current trends and prospects, pp. 36-40. Washongton, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Nadkarni, M. V. (1983). Cultural Pluralism as a National Resource: Strategies for language education. In C. Kennedy (Ed), Language Planning and Language Education. London: George Allen and Unwin Publishers.
Off the beat. (2000, January, 9). The Taipei Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.taipeitimes.com
Pinderhughes, E. (1989), Understanding Race,Ethnicity, and Power: The key to
efficacy in clinical practice. New York: Free Press.
Rabbie, J. M., Schot, J. C., and Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioural interaction model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 171-202.
Sachdev, I. and Bourhis, R. Y. (2001). Multilingual communication. In W. Peter Robinson and Howard Giles (Eds.), The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, pp. 407-28. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Skutnabb-kanas, T. (1997). Human rights and language policy in education. In R. Wodak and D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 1. Bostin: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in intergroup behavior. London: Academic Press.
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality. New York: Longman.
Trudgill, P. (1981). Linguistic accommodation: Sociolinguistic bservations on a sociopsychological theory. In Paper from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tsao, F. F. (1999). The language planning situation in Taiwan. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 20, 328-375.
TSU attempts to make Taiwanese island’s second official language. (2002, March, 10). The Taipei Times Online. Retrieved from http://www.taipeitimes.com
Tulasiewicz and Adams. (1998). Teaching the Mother Tongue in a Multilingual Europe. NY: Wellington House.
Van den berg, M. E. (1986). Language Planning and Language Use in Taiwan: A study of language choice behavior in public settings. Taipei: Crane.
Wilder, D. A. (1978). Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the outgroup. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1361-74.
Wodak, R. and Corson, D. (Eds.). (1997). Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. Boston : Kluwer.
Worchel, S. (1986). The role of cooperation in reducing intergroup conflict. In S. Worcehl and W. Austin (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp.288-304. Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
Yin, H. K. (1966). 中國文化的展望 [Perspectives of Chinese Culture]. Taipei: Wen-xing.
Young, R. (1989). Language Maintenance and Language Shift Among the Chinese on Taiwan. Taipei: Crane.