1 Laying the Foundation
1.1 Introduction
Identity is a concept integral to various disciplines, such as literature, sociolinguistics, sociology, anthropology, and political science. The Latin stem for the word “identity” is idem, meaning sameness (Edwards, 2009, p. 19), which in this case implies an unchanging human nature, namely the stable features that supersede age, biological sex at birth, and ethnicity. As one matures, identity comes to signify the continuity and connectedness of the “selves” at various stages of the life trajectory (Edwards, 2009, p. 19). It is the “dynamic and situated accomplishments enacted through talk, and changing from one occasion to the next” (Tracy, 2002, pp. 17–18), which we constantly build and negotiate “throughout our lives through our interaction with others” (Thornborrow, 2004). In this sense, identity is not stable and static; rather, it is dynamic, situated, and varies depending on the context and situation. The dynamic side is equally, if not more, important in that it is socially and situationally constructed. After all, humans are social beings.
During social interactions, people may be connected or disconnected by identity, meaning that those who share similar aspects of identity are attracted to each other, while those who don’t may feel indifferent about each other (of course, some people may be attracted to differences as well). In this sense, identity may also predict relationships between people and groups (Edwards, 2009, p. 20). Compared to identity at the personal or individual level, social or group identity is much more relevant to perceptions and attitudes about language. However, as Edwards (2009, p. 20) argues, the former is both a component and a reflection of particular social (or cultural) identities. Therefore, analysis of individual identity will also provide a window into understanding social identity.
An eternal tension exists between “who I am” and “who others think I am” based on one’s multiple identifications with others on the basis of social, cultural, and biological characteristics as well as shared values, personal histories, and interests (Buckingham, 2008, p. 1). Thus, identity is multifaceted, fluid, and complex. While “who I am” may seem relatively stable, this is not necessarily so in many cases, especially when we try to identify with different groups of people. As a Chinese individual, I can easily identify with other Chinese people when I am there. However, I can also identify with people of other ethnicities on different levels.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003344162-1
In the summer of 2016, I led a study abroad program in China for University of Connecticut students. While visiting South Gong and Drum Lane, a popular tourist destination in Beijing, I was holding a small UConn flag which attracted the attention of two American students who were fellow Huskies. This spark of recognition in a foreign place inspired them to come up and chat with us. At that moment, our shared identity brought all of us closer. So my Chinese identity and UConn professor identity came together in this instance.
1.2 Why Is Identity Important?
We do not live in isolation. Thus, during social interactions, who we are, with whom we identify, and how we would like others to perceive us are all are intertwined with identity construction and negotiation. We tend to be more connected with people who share many similarities with us, as illustrated in the Chinese proverb “When one townee meets another, both shed tears.” Why would they cry tears of joy when meeting in a faraway town? One simple answer is that they share so many similarities, such as the same dialect, traditions, food, local culture, and many other things. Finding such commonalities can be comforting in a new place. We must realize that similarity does not account for all that is related to identity as we may also wish to interact and identify with people who are different from us. This may happen more often in a multicultural society, such as the US, where ethnic minorities may strive to integrate even though they do not share the same cultural, historical, or racial background with the majority. In this case, ethnic minorities may have competing identities. For example, they might wish or are compelled by parents/grandparents to maintain their ethnic identity while at the same time wanting to embrace another totally different identity when interacting with others outside their family/community. In the best-case scenario, the two can coexist in harmony. However, more often than not, they may conflict with each other, even to the extent that one identity (i.e., usually the one associated with the mainstream society) becomes dominant, and the other gradually fades as time goes on, which usually begins with the attrition or loss of the heritage language, unfortunately.
1.3 Language and Dialects
1.3.1
What Is Language?
Saussure (1916, p. 649) defines language as “a product of the collective mind of linguistic groups”. It can also be seen as a social tool by which we communicate ideas to others in our own culture and with people from other cultures. Furthermore, written language enables us to pass down artistic, cultural, and literary heritage. Language is arbitrary in the sense that the meaning of a linguistic sign is not predictable from its word form, nor is its word form dictated by its meaning and function. For example, the phonological form [kæt] in English is conventionally paired with the meaning “a small animal with fur, four legs, a tail, and claws, usually kept as a pet or for catching mice”, namely a cat in English (from Cambridge
Dictionary), whereby the phonological form itself does not resemble what it refers to. However, language, as a system, does have regularity and rules in the form of grammar. Although these rules vary from one language to another, it must be noted that within a speech community, these rules are agreed upon, which guarantees comprehension and virtually infinite creativity (Morris, 1946, cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 53). In this sense, Morris (1946, as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 53) considers a language to be “a communication system composed of arbitrary elements which possess an agreed-upon significance within a community”.
In addition to serving as a tool for communication, language is also associated with “groupness”, due to its strong connections with history, culture and art. When people from the same linguistic background converse, they both talk and listen “between the lines”, such that the shared history, literature, and culture provide enough background for smooth communication. However, for non-native speakers, even if they have developed a high level of linguistic competency, it may be difficult for them to engage in interactions with native speakers on some occasions. This is particularly true when slang is used or when a certain literary character is mentioned, especially those that are not widely known to the outside world but are very familiar to those within the group. For example, the Monkey King is well known to Chinese, including Chinese children, but he may be unknown in other parts of the world. Steiner (1992, p. 243, as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 54) argues that languages enable groups to preserve the “inherited, singular springs of their identity”. Edwards (2009, p. 54) points out that the “concealment” function of a language, although seemingly contradictory to its communication function, highlights the fact that language is a “within-group” phenomenon, at least to some extent. While second-language learners are able to acquire the functional and communicative aspects of a language, that part which is concealed from the outside world may remain closed to them.
1.3.2
Dialects
A dialect is a variety of a language that is specific to a region or group. A given language may have several dialects. For example, Chinese can be classified into the following seven dialect groups (Yuan, 1989): Mandarin (guanhua) is spoken by over 90% of the total population; Wu is mainly spoken in Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang; Yue or Cantonese is prevalent in Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hong Kong and many traditional Chinatowns overseas; Min is mainly spoken in Fujian and Taiwan; Kejia (Hakka) is prevalent in parts of Guangdong, Fujian, Jiangxi, and other parts of China as well as Southeastern Asia; Xiang is spoken in Hunan; and Gan is spoken in Jiangxi. Dialects may have vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (Edwards, 2009, p. 63) that differ from the standard language and may not be mutually intelligible, as is the case in China. Very often, adjacent dialects of one language may be mutually intelligible, whereas those distant from each other may not be. Therefore, dialects of a language may fall on a continuum in terms of intelligibility. Such instances can be found throughout the world, such as varieties of Slovak, Czech, Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian (Edwards, 2009, p. 63). However,
in some cases, even adjacent dialects may be mutually unintelligible, such as the sub-dialects of Gan. Although people from various parts of Ji’an City in Jiangxi Province all speak the Gan dialect, its sub-dialects are often very different from each other, due to dialect contact derived from domestic migration over thousands of years, that people have resorted to using accented Mandarin to communicate, rather than their own dialects. 隔山不同音, 隔水不同调 “There may be different accents on either side of a mountain, just as there may be different tunes on either side of a river” is a very vivid but somewhat exaggerated Chinese saying that depicts this linguistic phenomenon; that is to say, geographical barrier may lead to the formation of dialects on either side of the barrier.
1.3.3 Language and Dialect Goodness
1.3.3.1 Language Goodness
Is one language better than another? This may be an odd question to ask in this day and age; however, such questions have indeed been asked throughout history. After the overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty in China in 1911, some foreign-educated Chinese intellectuals advocated for the abolition of the Chinese language as well as Confucianism, because they believed that “the average person’s childish, uncivilized, obstinate way of thinking” (Ramsey, 1987, p. 3) was related to the language they spoke. While such a proposition was not widely accepted, it did lead to language reform, namely the standardization of both spoken and written Chinese. When discussing the role of language in shaping human cognition and behavior, we often refer to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, which was developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir. Sapir claims that (1929, pp. 209–210, as cited in Simpson, 2019, p. 312)
human beings . . . are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of the language . . . the fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent built upon the language habits of the group. . . . We see, hear and otherwise experience the world as we do largely because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
Although many would not agree with Sapir’s statements earlier, many would agree with Whorf’s claim:
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds – and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we
do, largely because we are party to an agreement to organize it in this way –an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.
(Whorf, 1956, p. 214, as cited in Simpson, 2019, pp. 312–313).
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has a strong and a weak version. The former states that language determines the way we think and that linguistic categories limit and define cognitive categories, while the latter holds that linguistic categories and usage influence the way we think as well as certain kinds of nonlinguistic behavior. While later studies have discredited the strong version, the weak version of the hypothesis has been supported in several experimental studies (Kennison, 2013).
We cannot logically say that one language is superior or inferior to another. However, language does influence thought and behavior in many ways. For example, speakers of a language that abounds in honorific forms, such as Japanese, tend to be more humble and polite than speakers of a language without such honorifics. However, just as Joachim du Bellay stated in the 16th century, “All languages are of a like value . . . to each man his language can competently communicate every doctrine” (as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 58). So language differences reflect our diverse experiences, environments, and ways of approaching this communicative tool. One classic example of the interaction between language and environment is that the Inuit people (those in the Arctic regions, such as Alaska, part of Canada, and Greenland) have perhaps as many as 400 (as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 60) words for snow. This does not mean that Inuit people are more creative than others; it simply illustrates the relationship between language and environment. Due to its ubiquity in the Arctic region, residents must differentiate between the many types of snow. As Edwards (2009, p. 60) points out, some Inuit dictionaries only show two lexical roots of the hundreds of words for snow, meaning that they are all derived from these root words in one way or another. It is obvious that this abundance of descriptions is due to their environment. On the other hand, people living in tropical areas may have only one word for snow, since it is so rare.
Recent research has revealed something interesting about the relationship between language and human behavior. Keith Chen, a professor of economics at UCLA, studies the effect of language on economic behavior (i.e., saving rates, engaging in healthy behaviors, and managing retirement assets). He focuses on the linguistic feature of how and the extent to which the future tense is marked in different languages. For example, English has strong future-time reference (FTR), which is explicitly expressed by common phrases such as “will”, “shall”, “going to”, while Chinese has weak FTR, in that there is no explicit future-tense marking. For example, in Chinese, 我去听讲座 “I am going to listen to a talk” literally translates to “I go listen to a talk”. Chen’s (2013) linguistic-savings hypothesis states that being required to speak in this distinct way about future events leads speakers of strong FTR languages to take fewer future-oriented actions. Specifically, the speakers of strong FTR languages, such as English, are more likely to have high rates of obesity, smoking, drinking, debt, and poor pension management, while the speakers of weak FTR languages, such as Chinese, are more likely to have
good financial planning for retirement and sensible healthier habits. According to Chen (2013, p. 691), this hypothesis arises naturally if grammatically separating the future and the present leads speakers to disassociate the future from the present. This would make the future feel more distant, and since saving involves current costs for future rewards, it would make saving harder. On the other hand, speakers of some languages that grammatically equate the present and future would be more willing to save for a future which appears closer.
Interestingly, Chen’s findings largely support his hypothesis that languages with strong future-time reference lead their speakers to engage in less future-oriented behaviors. In terms of savings, the evidence is consistent on multiple levels from an individual’s propensity to save, to the long-term effects on retirement wealth, and to national savings rates. Even more interesting, these findings extend to speakers’ propensity to engage in behaviors related to well-being, ranging from smoking to condom use, as well as maintaining long-term health. As for the hypothesis that language may not cause but just reflect deeper differences that drive savings behaviors, Chen (2013) argues that his findings show that while both language and cultural values appear to affect savings behaviors, these two aspects do not appear to interact with each other in any predictable ways if they are both markers of some common causal factor. Meanwhile, Chen (2013) points out that differences in the use of FTR do not seem to correspond to cognitive or developmental differences in the acquisition of language. Therefore, he argues that the effect of language occurs through a channel that is independent of either cultural or cognitive differences between linguistic groups. He even proposes that his hypothesis can be thought of as an example of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, and his study may be the first to connect language structure and decision-making. This study is both inspiring and thought-provoking due to its scale and the strong correlation found between language and human behaviors. More importantly, it seems to show that the powerful influence of language goes beyond communication and cultural aspects and may even extend to our decision-making regarding savings and health. Of course, not everyone agrees with Chen’s hypothesis and arguments, so more studies in the future are warranted to help us better understand the interconnections of language, thought, mind, and human behavior.
It is worth pointing out that whether or not language determines or shapes our behavior as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Chen’s (2013) findings suggest, one cannot claim that one language is better than another, since all languages serve the speakers equally well in terms of both oral and written communication.
1.3.3.2
Dialect Goodness
Can we say one dialect of a language is better than another? Generally, the term dialect carries an implication of inferiority to the standard version of the language. For example, a speaker of standard Mandarin may be perceived as better educated, more friendly, and even more attractive than one who speakers a dialect, although the opposite may be true. How does a particular dialect become the standard? The lofty position of one dialect over another is usually linked to the prestige and power of its speakers. The reason why Putonghua became the standard language of China
is due to its status and long history as well as a compromise reached between its speakers of norther Mandarin and those of other dialect areas, especially those in Guangdong, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. Even today, Cantonese and Shanghainese still enjoy very high status due to the economic strength of these two cities.
In the US, some so-called low-status dialects or varieties spoken by the working class may have “covert prestige”, such as the association of masculinity with the African American Vernacular English (AAVE) speakers.
Therefore, no dialect is better than another, although one may be perceived as more prestigious due to the higher socioeconomic status of the people who speak it. Not only do dialects serve as a communication tool for ethnic groups, they also represent the historical and cultural heritage of their speakers. For example, many Cantonese, Zhejiang, and Henan operas are sung in regional dialects which have preserved the local culture and customs for thousands of years. In this sense, the conservation of dialects is as important as that of languages.
1.4 Language and Identity
Since identity and language are both on the personal and social levels, these aspects are mutually shaping, just as interaction between language and the social world. We use language to communicate, to convey meaning or a message, to represent who we are and who we want others to perceive us to be. In this sense, it is a marker of personal identity. Each and every one of us has our own idiolect, meaning that each person has his or her unique vocabulary, speech rate, intonation, and paralinguistic features (i.e., eye contact, body language). However, Edwards (2009, p. 21) argues that even idiolectal usage is a social phenomenon, because most language is communication-oriented.
Language and identity are related at the national and/or regional levels, ethnic, social class, and/or rank as well as the individual level of profession, gender, and age. For example, the language a person speaks may index his or her specific identity. A widely researched example is African American Vernacular English (AAVE) (Labov, 1972), which has often been associated with those of lower economic status due to the history of racism in the United States. However, such identities may change over time. AAVE has also become associated with masculinity or urban culture owing to the great influence of hip-hop. Furthermore, since immigrants from all over the world have settled in the US, heritage language, namely the ancestral language of immigrants, has also been widely researched. How heritage language speakers preserve and maintain their linguistic and cultural traditions reveals so much about the relationship between language and identity. Some immigrants may maintain near-native-speaker proficiency of their heritage language, while others may know only a few words. Steiner (1992, p. 243) argues that the loss of one’s heritage language equates the abandonment of one’s cultural identity and associations. At the gender level, men and women have different ways of speaking, such as pitch level, intonation, and vocabulary. In addition, recent studies have found that gay men and lesbians talk differently (see Kulick, 2000, for a critical review on this topic).
We constantly build and negotiate our identities through everyday interactions, and language use indexes identity construction. A case in point is the linguistic phenomenon of style changing, which Edwards (2009, p. 28) defines as “the speech variations that reflect one’s assessment of the social context and of what is or is not appropriate”. Interestingly, both are more often than not done unconsciously. Imagine how you talk to your parents, professors, your friends, boy/girlfriend, your cousin, or your baby nephew/niece. Very likely the formality, wording, speech rate, and even intonation (in the case of talking to a baby) change when you interact with different people. Style changing is the constant constructing and reconstructing of language use, which is a defining characteristic of an individual’s many social identities. Put simply, most of the time, we change our speaking styles depending on context.
A prominent sociolinguistic theory, Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT), was proposed by Howard Giles in the 1970s to interpret the ways in which a speaker varies his/her speech according to context. In other words, the social-psychological setting determines linguistic choice, which, in turn, affects interpersonal communication. One underlying motivation for speech accommodation is to create similarity between the speech of the listener and speaker, thus establishing a sense of solidarity, because our experience informs us that similarity often leads to approval. However, as Edwards (2009, p. 158) points out, accommodation usually costs something; thus, the speaker must weigh the pros and cons, and only when a good cost-benefit ratio can be achieved will the speaker modify or disguise his/ her identity to make it more acceptable to the listener. Speech accommodation does not only refer to convergence (becoming similar to the listener’s speech). It also includes divergence, in which the speaker chooses a language or speech style that is different from that of the listener. For example, people from an area associated with a prestigious dialect may intentionally use this variety when talking to people from other dialect areas to create a sense of social and psychological superiority. It should be noted that convergence and divergence may not always lead to approval. Edwards (2009, p. 31) cites an example of unsuccessful convergence from a study by Giles and Powesland (1975). In this example, an English-speaking European addressed an East African official in Swahili, which was interpreted as condescending or that the latter did not sufficiently understand English. Social interaction involves so many spontaneous context-based decisions that there is no guarantee that all communicative attempts will lead to desirable results.
Coupland (2001) discusses the interesting linguistic practices of passing, crossing, styling, and stylization, each of which can serve as a useful construct for interpreting language use. Each of these practices can be viewed as ways to express alignment with one’s identity and language use. Passing and styling practices are at one end of the spectrum from straightforward, natural expression of the self to crossing and stylization that involve “putting on the voice” in a performative and self-conscious way (Coupland, 2001, as cited in Cutler, 2014, pp. 150–151). Language passing often refers to the ability to be accepted as a member of a social category (ethnic, racial, gender) other than one’s own (Piller, 2002). For example, if an L2 English speaker is very fluent and almost accent-free, he or she can pass for
a native speaker. Passing is often a temporary, context-specific phenomenon rather than a stable, enduring practice (Piller, 2002). However, styling leads to a more straightforward and stable relationship between language use and identity in that speakers adapt their personalities by using variables linked to identity categories to construct social meanings, social categories, and identity (Eckert, 2008, as cited in Cutler, 2014, p. 151). Stylization involves “the knowing deployment of culturally familiar styles and identities that are marked as deviating from those predictably associated with the current speaking context” (Coupland, 2001, p. 345, Cutler, 2014, p. 151). The stylized resources or linguistic variables often have social meanings that may be associated with a particular group (Cutler, 2014, p. 151). For example, stand-up comedians may stylize their speech by shifting into an indexed stereotypical Italian-American mobster accent that the audience will recognize. Language crossing is closely related to stylization; however, it denotes “a stronger sense of social or ethnic boundary transgression and the variants being used are more likely to be seen as anomalously ‘other’ for the speaker, leading to questions of legitimacy and entitlement” (Rampton, 2009, p. 149, as cited in Cutler, 2014, p. 151). That is to say, this phenomenon occurs when the speaker uses language which is generally thought not to “belong” to him/her. As mentioned earlier, AAVE is often associated with hip-hop culture. Cutler (1999) reports such a case. Mike lives in a wealthy New York City neighborhood and attends a private school. Even though he and most of his friends are white, at around age 13, he began to identify strongly with the hip-hop culture and style. He wore baggy jeans, a backward baseball cap, and designer sneakers. At around the same time, he began to change the way he spoke, “crossing” into AAVE. His family members said he “sounded like a street kid or hooligan”. Subsequently is an example of his speech:
You ever hear of Frank Frazetta? Dis is some phat shit, yo. Yo, when the dude dies, this book will probably be worth like a thousand dollars. Yo tell me that shit is not phat!
(Cutler, 1999, p. 432)
Unlike speaking styles, one’s dialect or accent is relatively difficult to change, although not impossible. As mentioned earlier, these may be associated with different levels of prestige or social status, such as standard Mandarin and received pronunciation in British English. However, such dialect/accent boundaries can be overcome by training, just as one can learn another language. For example, the 1964 American musical My Fair Lady tells the story of how a Cockney flowerselling girl was taught to pass as an upper-class lady by changing her speech and manner.
Another example that showcases the interaction of language and identity is Eckert’s (1989) classic ethnographic study (a research method involving detailed observation) focusing on the linguistic style used by students in a high school in Detroit. This approach enabled her to associate linguistic variables with the speakers’ demographic information (i.e., age, gender, ethnicity, and social class). She proposed the concept of community of practice and defined groups in terms of
their social practices. Her study revealed two diametrically opposed groups, the jocks and the burnouts, each made up of individuals from a mix of social classes (parental occupation, housing, etc.). The jocks actively engaged in activities and enjoyed school life and were a school-oriented community of practice embodying middle-class culture, whereas the burnouts were uninvolved in the goings-on of the school and frequently engaged in rebellious behavior and were a locally oriented community of practice embodying working-class culture. Eckert found that people tend to speak more like their friends – those who participate in social practices together – than others who are not in their demographic category, that is, social class. By comparing the values of the jocks and burnouts and how they relate to economics, the job market, and social psychology, Eckert tells a fascinating story of the self-expression of emerging adults.
1.5 Attitudes About Various Languages
Language attitudes are the feelings that people have about their own language variety or varieties of others. Since all of us speak in a unique way, it is inevitable that others will have positive or negative opinions about our style. At the group level, people’s attitudes about a dialect or a regional language variety will spill over as a judgment about the group’s personal qualities, career prospects, and socioeconomic status. Of course, such attitudes are very biased and even destructive. For example, the speakers of Northeastern Mandarin in China have fallen victim to such prejudice and are more likely to be viewed as uneducated, vulgar, and having low status, although they are often considered to be more humorous (Yang, 2014). In this sense, Northeastern Mandarin is perceived as a low variety of Mandarin, whereas PTH is considered and enregistered as the elevated variety.
As mentioned earlier, people’s attitudes regarding languages are not static over time, because they are conditioned by various social and political changes. Mandarin does not enjoy a high level of prestige in Shanghai, an international economically developed metropolis, as its economic status elevates the prestige of Shanghainese and renders it more respected than PTH. In recent years, due to the promotion of PTH all over China, people are changing their attitudes about it, and it is becoming more and more prestigious in Shanghai.
Another aspect of language attitudes that must be considered is overt and covert prestige. The standard variety of a language, such as PTH in China, has overt prestige, whereas the vernacular is covertly revered because it expresses the group’s identity and solidarity. Take Shanghainese for example. While PTH has become more prestigious because it has achieved standard language status, Shanghainese is still perceived as higher status due to the covert prestige among its speakers.
There are usually several paradigms for conducting research on language attitudes. One commonly utilized method is the so-called matched guise approach (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), in which a speaker produces two or more audio-recorded versions of the same text, for example one in PTH and one in the Xiang dialect. Respondents are then asked to use a five- or seven-point Likert scale to rate the personal traits of the speakers, such as pleasant, attractive, self-confident, likable, fluent, reliable,
sincere, ambitious, friendly, intelligent, humorous, having leadership skills, welleducated, professional, and so on. In the matched-guise method, the two recordings are well controlled for because they are produced by the same person and only differ in the language/dialect spoken; in this case, if the ratings of the two recordings differ in some social or personal aspects, it is due only to the factor of language. In this sense, it is clear that the matched guise technique can reveal more private, emotional, and conceptual reactions toward an accent and its speakers. One limitation of this paradigm is that, while a speaker is permitted to read in his or her native language or dialect, the other recording may not be viewed as a legitimate representation of the other language/dialect. Also, there are cases in which listeners may recognize the speakers as the same person. To solve these issues, many researchers have used the verbal guise paradigm, in which different speakers read the same passage. However, this is problematic as well because it is difficult to control for the idiosyncrasies of different speakers, such as speech rate, intonation, and voice quality (Tsalikis et al., 1991). One way to avoid this issue would be to divide the listeners into two groups and have each group listen to only a single guise. In this case, it would also be necessary to include identical filler materials to determine if the two groups rate identical passages similarly (Stefanowitsch, 2005).
The other less often used technique in such research is the direct approach, namely to ask/survey people about their attitudes about a language/dialect. This approach is flawed because participants may not wish to reveal their actual opinions about a language, especially when they are negative or the languages being investigated are spoken by the researchers.
Intriguingly, there is evidence that attitudes about a language can change the way it sounds in the sense that people may choose to imitate the features of a language variety that is associated with higher social status/prestige. Such changes may permeate a speech community and lead to gradual long-term alterations.
1.6 Concluding Remarks
We have briefly discussed identity, language and their inter-relatedness, as well as attitudes about language in this chapter. Identity is a multifaceted concept. As language is an essential marker for one one’s identity, these aspects are mutually shaping. Language is the vital tool for handing down culture and civilization. Although the more than 7,000 languages spoken in the world, including dialects, are intrinsically equal, unfortunately, they acquire different statuses or prestige due to social, historical, and economic reasons. People’s perceptions and attitudes about a language may influence social interaction and even lead to language change. Many issues that were introduced in this chapter will be examined in depth throughout the book. With this background, we will begin an exploration of language and identity in Greater China. Prior to embarking on our journey, we will provide an overview of Chinese languages in Chapter 2, including an analysis of the standardization of the Chinese languages and the simplification of Chinese scripts as well as the promotion of PTH, which have had significant ramifications for the linguistic landscape of China today.
Discussion questions
1. Please discuss the following response from Queen Elizabeth I to a French ambassador.
“Though the sex to which I belong is considered weak . . . you will nevertheless find me a rock that bends to no wind.”
2. The United States is a country of immgrants from all over the world. How do people from different ethnic backgrounds maintain their heritage (and their heritage languages)? What issues and challenges do they face?
3. What do you think about the “associated language” or heritage language, the one that group members no longer use or even know but continues to be part of their heritage?
4. According to George Steiner (1975/1992, p. 31), “We possess civilization because we have learnt to translate out of time.” What does this mean?
5. 隔山不同音, 隔水不同调 “There may be different accents on either side of a mountain, just as there may be different tunes on either side of a river”. What do you think may cause major divisions of language in adjacent regions?
6. Watch Keith Chen’s Ted Talk on language and savings. What do you think about his study and findings? Do you agree or disagree with his argument? (www.ted.com/talks/keith_chen_could_your_language_affect_your_ability_ to_save_money)
7. How do you feel about Mike’s language crossing in Section 1.4?
8. Why do people utilize various linguistic practices, such as passing, crossing, styling, and stylization? Please name one or two examples of each linguistic practice and discuss their implications.
9. Watch an excerpt of the movie My Fair Lady on YouTube (www.youtube.com/ watch?v=jhninL_G3Fg) and answer the following questions: 1) How does the professor recognize where people are from? 2) Is the girl aware of the commonly held negative attitude/perception of Cockney English? 3) How can one or more language features be associated with a social class? Do you know of other similar examples? What are your thoughts?
10. What do you think of Eckert’s study? Have you observed similar cases of the mutual shaping of language and identity?
11. Watch Mike Sui’s video on YouTube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=HENo GStC6As) and answer the following questions: 1) What are some examples of English dialects? 2) What language attitudes are conveyed in the video? 3) Why do you think such attitudes exist?
References and Further Readings
Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. Youth, identity, and digital media. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation series on digital media and learning. The MIT Press.
Chen, K. (2013). The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets. The American Economic Review, 103(2), 690–731. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.2.690
Coupland, N. (2001). Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society, 30, 345–375.
Cutler, C. (2014). Accentedness, “passing” and crossing. In J. Levis & A. Moyer (Eds.), Social dynamics in second language accent (pp. 145–167). De Gruyter Mouton.
Cutler, C. A. (1999). Yorkville crossing: White teens, hip hop, and African American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4), 428–442.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. Teachers College Press.
Edwards, J. (2009). Language and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Gardner, R. G., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in a second-language learning. Newbury House.
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. Academic Press.
Kennison, S. (2013). Introduction to language development. SAGE.
Kulick, D. (2000). Gay and lesbian language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29(1), 243–285.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Piller, I. (2002). Passing for a native speaker: Identity and success in second language learning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(2), 179–206.
Rampton, B. (2009). Interaction ritual and not just artful performance in crossing and stylization. Language in Society, 38, 149–176.
Saussure, F. (1916). Course in general linguistics. Duckworth. Stefanowitsch, A. (2005). Empirical methods in linguistics: The matched guise technique. Retrieved October 13, 2023, from http://socialperspectives.pbworks.com/f/exp_matchedguise.pdf.
Steiner, G. (1992). After Babel. Aspects of language and translation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1975)
Thornborrow, J. (2004). Language and identity. In S. Thomas, S. Wareing, I. Singh, J. S. Peccel, J. Thornborrow, & J. Jones (Eds.), Language, society, and power: An introduction (pp. 135–149). Routledge.
Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. The Guilford Press.
Tsalikis, J., DeShields, O. W., Jr., & LaTour, M. S. (1991). The role of accent on the credibility and effectiveness of the international business person: The case of Guatemala. The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(1), 31–41.
Yang, C. (2014). Language attitude toward Northeastern Mandarin and PTH by young professionals. Chinese Language and Discourse, 5(2), 211–230.
Yuan, J. (1989). Hanyu fangyan gaiyao “An introduction of Chinese dialects”. Weizi Gaige Chubanshe.
Past, Present, and Future
2.1 Languages and Dialects
in China
The term China 中国 Zhōngguó was used as early as in the Spring-Autumn Period (770–476 BC), referring to an area in the North China Plain located at the center of many warring states (Sun, 2006, p. 4). That is why sinologists often translate 中国 as “Middle Kingdom” or “Central States”. Although the short name for the People’s Republic of China (中国人民共和国) is also 中国, it underwent many changes from the Spring-Autumn Period to the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, such as its geographical boundaries, the makeup of the population, and linguistic aspects.
Today, China is a multiethnic society of approximately 1.41 billion people (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=CN) and 56 ethnic groups, including the Han, Zhuang, Uygur, Hui, Yi, Tibetan, Miao, Manchu, Mongol, Buyi, and Korean (Sun, 2009, p. 2). The Han makes up 92% of the population, followed by the Zhuang (Sun, 2006, p. 2).
This expansive country is also multilingual, belonging to the Sinitic subgroup of the Sino-Tibetan languages in Asia. There are seven Chinese dialect groups: Mandarin (guanhua, the “official language”) (i.e., the northern family, that makes up over 90% of the total population), Wu (mostly spoken in Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang), Yue or Cantonese (mostly spoken in Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hong Kong as well as many Chinatowns located overseas), Min (mostly spoken in part of Fujian, Guangdong, and Taiwan), Kejia (or Hakka) (spoken in parts of Guangdong, Fujian, and Jiangxi, and other parts of China as well as Southeastern Asia), Xiang (mostly spoken in Hunan), and Gan (mostly spoken in Jiangxi) (Yuan, 1989). These dialects, including Mandarin, consist of a group of sub-dialects. For example, Mandarin has four sub-dialects, including northern, northwestern, southwestern, and Jiang-huai (Chen,1999, p. 3), each of which may encompass different vernaculars and accents (Chen, 1999, p. 3). The Wu dialect has several sub-dialects which are spoken in Shanghai, Suzhou, Ningbo, Wenzhou, Hangzhou, Shaoxing, Jinhua, and others. Among the 56 ethnic groups in China, the non-Han group only account for 8% of the total population yet inhabit nearly 60% of the country’s total land. It must be noted that all these minority groups have their specific spoken languages, and 23 of them possess written languages of their own (Sun, 2006, p. 2).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003344162-2
As mentioned in Chapter 1, mutual intelligibility as a criterion for dialects may not be applicable to this case in that although the hundreds of dialects are mutually unintelligible, they are still considered to be dialects of Chinese, due to “the unity of Chinese culture that has been transmitted in an unbroken line beginning from the third millennium BC and continuing down to the present day” and the shared written language of Chinese as “the most powerful symbols of this cultural unity” (Norman, 1988, p. 1; Ramsey, 1987, p. 17).
Meanwhile, although no dialect is inherently better than another, one may become more prestigious than another due to historical and socioeconomic factors. In the next section, we will discuss how Mandarin was chosen from the myriad of dialects as the standard language in China.
2.2 Language Standardization in China
Unlike alphabetic writing systems, Chinese characters do not represent specific sounds, although the phonetic components of the phonetic-semantic compound characters do give a hint as to the pronunciation of the characters involved. Therefore, although this writing system can be traced back to 甲骨文 jiǎgǔwén, the “oral bones script” in the Shang Dynasty between 1324 and 1066 BC (Chen, 1999, p. 1), the history of the spoken language is not as clear-cut. It is generally held that 雅言 Yǎyán, the “elegant language”, mentioned in the Confucian Analects in the Zhou Dynasty (approximately 1046–256 BC) (Chen, 1999, pp. 2–3), may be the earliest standard spoken language in China, which was associated with the officials in the court and the intellectuals in Central China near what is presently Henan Province (Chen, 1999, p. 8). Guo and Gao (2003) even argue that Yǎyán was the language used by Confucius himself. Later, it spread to both North and South China and became the standard in these areas as well (Chen, 1999, p. 9). Yan Zhitui (ca.531–90, as cited in Chen, 1999, p. 9) observed that the Luoyang dialect in the north and that of Jinling (today’s Nanjing) in the south is the standard pronunciation, showing the shared standard between the south and north. Later, 科举 kējǔ, “the imperial examination system” administered by the imperial court, was used to select officials of all levels and helped codify and promulgate the standard pronunciation of Yǎyán. This caused a greater linguistic divide between the north and the south. The northern variety, or Mandarin, a term established by European missionaries referring to the literate ruling class (Coblin, 2000), appeared at this time. Since it was believed to be the language of the officials, it became the standard language, in the Yuan (1260–1368 AD), Ming (1368–1644 AD), and Qing (1644–1912 AD) Dynasties (Dong, 2010). While it was a common belief at that time that Mandarin was similar to, or at least based on, the regional vernacular of Beijing, studies have showed that the standard version had little to do with that dialect (Coblin, 2000) and that Nanjing-based pronunciation was considered to be the standard form of Mandarin until the late 18th century (Chen, 1999; Coblin, 2000).
In addition to these historical complications, the coexistence of so many dialects in China added to the difficulty in choosing the national standard language in the early 20th century. After the collapse of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, the new leaders
of China took the opportunity to reform and transform China into a modern society. Many foreign-educated Chinese intellectuals at that time believed that China’s future depended on abandoning the old traditions, including Confucianism, and establishing a nation based on democracy and science. For example, Chen Duxiu (1879–1942), one of the leaders of the New Culture Movement, strongly advocated for the abolition of Confucianism. An even more extreme advocate for abandoning the old Chinese conventions was Qian Xuantong (1887–1939), a famous philologist and another pioneer in the New Culture Movement. He wrote to Chen Duxiu that he backed his endorsement of the abolition of Confucianism and argued for replacing the Chinese language with Esperanto. Qian Xuantong believed that the Chinese language had resulted in “the average person’s childish, uncivilized, obstinate way of thinking” (as cited in Ramsey, 1987, p. 3). In addition, Lu Xun (1881–1936), a leading figure of modern Chinese literature, shared Qian’s opinion about the Chinese language’s (more exactly, the Chinese characters) harmful effects and supported the Latinization of the Chinese writing system. This proposal was even endorsed by Chairman Mao Zedong, who, in 1936, told the American journalist Edgar Snow, “We will have to abandon characters altogether if we are to create a new social culture in which the masses fully participate”.
Although attempts at abolishing Chinese characters did not gain wide support, many intellectuals and the new leaders agreed that the “New China” should be founded on a uniform national standard language (Ramsey,1987, pp. 3–4). On February 15th, 1913, the Ministry of Education of the Republic of China held the first meeting to establish standard pronunciations of characters and phonetic symbols to represent basic sounds in Chinese. Although the delegates from the north and the south spoke Mandarin, ironically, they disagreed as to which dialect should be adopted as the standard language. Those from the north argued for its adoption of the Mandarin pronunciation, because Mandarin had been serving as a lingua franca throughout China for centuries. However, those from the south argued that Mandarin was not suitable, because many of their cherished linguistic distinctions had not been preserved, such as the fifth tone or checking tone, which were essential to many southern dialects. Finally, after it was decided that each province would have one vote, Mandarin did win out due to the high number of Mandarin-speaking provinces. The standard pronunciation was called guoyu, “the national language”, which shared many elements of Mandarin; however, some additional features, such as the fifth tone, were included as a gesture to appease the delegates from the south. The next step was to promulgate the standard pronunciation all over the country by distributing recordings of the official language to all schools. However, because it was an artificial language with no native speakers, everyone needed to learn it. After the Beijing native speakers failed to record the new language, YuenRen Chao, a Wu dialect speaker and an American-trained linguist famous for picking up Chinese dialects quickly, was asked to take over this challenging recording task. As predicted, it was doomed to failure from the very beginning. Many people were confused and even doubtful about whether there should be or even could be standard pronunciation. This artificial standard language existed for 13 years, but in name only. It was not until 1932 that the National Language Unification
Commission decreed that the national language must be formulated on the natural speech of one single dialect instead of a mixture of two or more. Finally, the pronunciation of Beijing dialect was chosen as the spoken standard for the official national language, but ironically, it was introduced “with no fanfare and without official notification of any change” (Ramsey, 1987, p. 10).
The standardization of written language was much more straightforward. Hu Shih (1891–1962), an American-trained philosopher and a literary critic, advocated for a vernacular style of writing based on Mandarin, or baihua, as the written standard. Baihua had been used in many popular novels for centuries, such as Dream of the Red Mansion, but was considered to be vulgar compared to the “tersely elegant phrasing of Classical Chinese” (Ramsey, 1987, p. 10). It seems that with the collapse of the old imperial political system, people began to appreciate the previously marginalized writing style, so baihua easily became the standard written language of China.
2.3 The Simplification of Chinese Scripts
As mentioned earlier, some Chinese intellectuals, such as Qian Xuantong, Lu Xun, and Qu Qiubai, felt that Chinese characters were partially responsible for the cultural separation of China from the outside world since they were so much more complicated than other writing systems. They believed that the Chinese writing system had prevented the people from understanding the exploitation they had suffered and the complex issues facing this country. From a linguistic perspective, although such a view was untenable, it was widely embraced and was even endorsed by Chairman Mao Zedong, who advocated ladinghua or the “Latinization” of Chinese scripts. This plan did not succeed due to the Japanese invasion. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Mao announced three new directives regarding language reforms: 1) Develop a new alphabetic scheme that was “national in form”; 2) Promote Putonghua as the exclusive national standard; and 3) Place primary emphasis on the simplification of characters. The first directive in 1958 led to the emergence of the now well-known pinyin, an attempt to Romanize the Chinese system by introducing a Latin alphabet to signify phonetics. The goal of Chinese script simplification was to increase literacy. It must be noted that script simplification was not initiated by P. R. China; rather, such efforts began in the last years of the Qing Dynasty in order to unify the many different ways of writing a character and to make handwriting and printing similar to one another (Zhou, 2003, p. 7). In 1956, the PRC. government published the Scheme for Simplifying Characters (汉字简化方案) and began to heavily promote this new system. The scheme included 515 simplified characters and 54 simplified radicals, which were expanded later to become the General List of Simplified Characters (简化字 总表) (Zhou, 2003, p. 8). Sixty years later, although the debate on whether to simplify Chinese scripts still persists, the simplification does seem to have been instrumental in improving the literacy rate. However, it is worth pointing out that there may not be a causal relationship between these two factors. The counterarguments against the Chinese script simplification include the loss of aesthetic values and
the separation of history and culture. Although simplified characters retain many semantic radicals, some were removed or streamlined in the interest of reducing the number of strokes, such as when the speech radical was changed from 言 to 讠. Opponents claimed that since all the texts before the 1950s were written in traditional characters, switching to the simplified version would inevitably prevent people from accessing these historic works. Admittedly, some simplified characters do not possess the beauty of tradition characters, such as 龙 vs 龍, 马 vs 馬, 爱 vs 愛, “love”. The traditional written form of “love” has a top-middle-bottom component and 心 a “heart” in the middle, while the simplified character doesn’t have this romantic component. Many second-language learners complain to their instructors about the simplified versions. For example, an American student asked me how one can love without a “heart” (心 in the middle of the traditional Chinese character 愛). However, not every traditional character is more aesthetically pleasing than its simplified counterpart. While typing has made the writing of traditional characters much easier, handwriting of traditional characters is much more complex and time-consuming, such as 彙 vs 汇 and 優 vs 优. More importantly, in most cases, a Chinese native speaker proficient in simplified characters usually does not have any difficulty with reading traditional characters, and vice versa, especially with the help of context.
Today, simplified characters are used in Mainland China and Singapore, while traditional characters are still common in Macao, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and some overseas communities. As for the argument that simplified characters harm traditional culture, Zhou (2003, p. 8) points out that they are not a completely modern or contemporary convenience but have been often used in Chinese calligraphy. Chinese script has a history of simplification from the seal style (篆书 zhuànshū) to the clerical style (隶书 lìshū), and from the running style (行书 xíngshū) to the cursive style (草书 cǎoshū). Many calligraphers use simplified characters in their calligraphy works. For example, one-third of Wang Xizhi’s (ca. 321–379) Preface of the Orchard Pavilion (兰亭序 Lántíng xù) is written in simplified characters. In this sense, the argument for using traditional rather than simplified characters based on traditional culture does not seem plausible.
2.4 The Promotion of Putonghua in P. R. China
As mentioned in Section 2.2, Mandarin was selected as the standard for spoken Chinese, a language that has existed since the Qing Dynasty. At that time, this variety was different from many topolects (i.e., a speech pattern found in one place); thus, Mandarin served as a lingua franca, especially in the business field (Zhou, 2003, p. 23). The definition of standard Mandarin or Putonghua is “a common language of the Han ethnic group based on the northern secondary toplect, which adopts Beijing dialect as its standard pronunciation. Its grammatical rules are based on the models of modern vernacular Chinese writings” (Zhou, 2003, p. 23). While Putonghua or PTH is based on the phonetics and phonology of Beijing’s dialect, it differs in two ways: 1) While some of the words from the Beijing dialect have two or more pronunciations, only one was chosen for PTH; 2) Only commonly
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
