|
Featured Article: Preserving Cantonese Television & Film in Guangdong: Language as Cultural Heritage in South China's Bidialectal Landscape
The sheer number of distinct dialects present within the country has long complicated Chinese language standardization and language policy. Furthermore, China’s history with colonial powers throughout the past three centuries has led to a distinct divide between language standardization in Northern China and Southern China. Despite the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to promote Mandarin as the primary language of the People’s Republic of China, Cantonese has been one of several dialects that has experienced special allowances from the Chinese government due to the colonial economic and political history in South China. In particular, Guangdong Province’s motion picture industry has maintained strong historical ties to Hong Kong’s film sector, which has prompted the continued use of Cantonese in the private sphere. However, with Hong Kong’s return to Chinese control and China’s move into a new post-colonial trajectory, Cantonese’s economic significance has declined. The pressures for language homogenization and Mandarin-only media that other mainland Chinese provinces experienced in the 1950s-1960s has become apparent in Guangdong province in recent years, and Cantonese may be on the path to language death.
China possesses a linguistic history complicated by the diverse mix of ethnicities within the country’s borders, a situation that has been amplified in South China by the region’s long-term contact with colonial powers and the ensuing political-economic ramifications. Cantonese’s presence in Guangdong’s broadcasting media today is due in large part to the province’s history of unbroken commercial contact with foreign powers, a unique situation not replicated in other parts of mainland China. Guangdong Province’s history of trade relationships with Western colonial powers dates back to the Qing dynasty, during which Canton ports were known throughout the region as one of the major hubs for coastal trade.
The Guangdong region thus began developing a cultural identity tied closely with its use of Cantonese, a language of high economic utility at the time due to its unique trade status. Even after the People ’s Republic of China selected Mandarin, or Putonghua, as the official national language in 1956, Cantonese is currently the only non-standard Chinese dialect with state-mandated broadcasting time in mass media. In comparison, Shanghai, which was the center for all Chinese dialect films in the 1920s-1930s, became closed to foreign influences during the first few decades of the PRC’s rule and adhered closely to the policies of Mandarin standardization. In the mid-twentieth century, Shanghai residents focused on developing heavy industry to increase “national wealth” and limited dialect-based cultural products, since the arts invited a stigma of “bourgeois culture.” Similarly, in Singapore, the 1979 “Speak Mandarin” campaign used television and radio extensively to promote a “proper” attitude towards Mandarin at the expense of other Chinese dialects, which were spoken by more than 92% of Chinese-Singaporean families at the time.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), notorious for its propaganda campaigns and media controls for promoting state power consolidation, pushed for the development of strong Guangdong Cantonese television and film industries during the late twentieth century to compete commercially with Hong Kong’s Cantonese media market. Due to Deng Xiaoping’s reforms and opening up in the late 1970s, which reestablished strong Chinese export markets in coastal regions, Guangdong Province has seen economic advancements well in excess of other Chinese provinces.
Although individual adolescents may feel positively about Cantonese’s cultural value, more may choose to disengage if there is no public effort to protect dialect media in Guangdong. In the face of state power and national agendas, local linguistic pride often takes a secondary role.
The city of Shenzhen in Guandong province, home to at least 10 million speakers of Cantonese.
While Mandarin standardization in most regions of the world meant strictly controlling the presence of dialects in media, language policy in Guangdong made the province a unique exception. The combination of the public recognition of Cantonese legitimacy in state-owned television networks, private autonomy of entertainment choice in television in the family home, and legacy of overall economic superiority in the region has allowed for the continued prominence of Cantonese in Guangdong.
Since reclaiming Hong Kong in 1997 and Macau in 1999, the Cantonese media scene has consolidated economically from a fragmented regional industry into one controlled more centrally by the Chinese government. Thus, China’s economic trajectory in the region has increasingly turned to a new post-colonial objective: establishing a strong image of Chinese unity in order to take charge of today’s globalizing world. This ambitious goal has translated into a resurgence in language standardization practices in an effort to establish Mandarin as the language of highest socio-economic utility.
Additionally, Cantonese’s history as Guangdong’s “provincial-city speech” (省城话) meant that the dialect’s prominence centered on the province’s urban landscape. In recent years, Guangdong’s growing urban migrant worker population and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) changing stance towards Mandarin imposition in South Chinese film and television has created challenges for Cantonese preservation. One branch of the CCP’s efforts for language standardization has thereby led to a push to reduce Cantonese in Guangdong television and film. The social upheavals and CCP responses following recent announcements to the removal of Cantonese television and film from broadcasting media highlight the macro-micro tensions in promoting a standard language’s economic utility over its dialect counterpart’s emotional value.
Greater China, the region including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, holds more than 2,000 distinct dialects and subdialects, making it difficult for the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to govern efficiently without some baseline for shared communications between provinces. China’s enormous population, topping 1.3 billion people, only exacerbates the need for the central government to promote a national language that standardizes seven mutually unintelligible dialects of Hanyu, the language of the largest ethnic group in the county.
The complicated linguistic situation has led to a delicate balance between the promotion of Mandarin as the national standard and the preservation of regional dialects’ cultural importance. Moreover, the language standardization policy has also been designed to send a strong political message. In Western linguistic analysis, two languages with mutually unintelligible phonology are regarded as subsets of a single language family, but in Chinese policy, all Han dialects are considered part of the same Chinese language due to shared political affiliation and orthography. Specifically, the Chinese Language Law of 2001 took a two-pronged approach to uniting Chinese language: in writing for businesses, public administration, and education, as well as in standardizing pronunciation to achieve interregional mutual intelligibility.
Therefore, the emphasis of the Chinese language policy has been to promote a sense of pride in an overarching Chinese identity based on shared history such that regional dialectal differences do not undermine political authority and social stability. Hence, at the same time that Putonghua was being promoted as the national language in the 1950s, the PRC also maintained that the goal was not to “wipe out dialects artificially.”Although the adoption of a single standard language helped the CCP achieve political-economic unity over China’s many ethnic groups, the challenge was to do so without alienating those speakers who took pride in their regional dialects and would create social unrest over language tension.
China’s policies have produced a unique diglossia situation, where two languages vie for primacy in the public and private spheres, in South China where Mandarin is the state-sanctioned public language, while Cantonese is the primary language for cultural products. Mandarin and Cantonese’s shared orthography means that dialect hierarchy for Guangdong, Macau, and Hong Kong’s seventy million Cantonese speakers manifests in speech—centered around community life and media—rather than in literature. When China began pursuing policies for economic reopening in earnest in the 1980s, Hong Kong, a mere river channel away from the mainland, had already become a cosmopolitan metropolis of six million residents under British rule.
Most notably, major Guangdong televisions had, until recent years, been run almost exclusively in Cantonese. When China began pursuing its policies for economic reopening in earnest in the 1980s, Hong Kong, a mere river channel away from Guangdong and the mainland, had become a cosmopolitan metropolis of six million residents under British rule. Having never been under the laws of Mandarin standardization until its return to the PRC in 1997, Hong Kong’s historically Cantonese-speaking population was both an asset and threat to South China’s entertainment industry. Hong Kong was both a potential consumer base for the mainland’s South Chinese cultural products and home to robust television and film sectors that competed for Guangdong’s Cantonese consumers. In the 1980s, the CCP encouraged Guangdong broadcasting institutions to use both Cantonese and Mandarin, which helped the province maintain a financial foothold in the Cantonese motion picture industry.
The public aspects of the television and film industries have legitimized Cantonese’s usage, cultural value, and prestige in the Guangdong, as the dialect’s cultural products were able to successfully pass through the CCP’s media censorship and to willing consumers. With the plethora of widely consumed Cantonese pop songs, motion picture offerings, and radio broadcasting that came from decades of competing with Hong Kong’s strong media market, old and young Cantonese residents alike have formed a consistent market for the province’s traditionally weakly regulated Cantonese television industry. Although the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film, and Television controlled all media outlets, Cantonese television became financially independent from the government in the post-Mao Economic Reform era and began focusing on producing commercially successful shows.
Provincial television outlets sought to satisfy local consumers by mainly focusing on Cantonese cultural content, which was permitted under the PRC’s communist media regulations. Up until 2007, four channels in Guangdong TV, four channels in Southern Television, and many provincial-based television channels such as Guangzhou Television’s channels, chose Cantonese-only broadcasting. Popular Cantonese-dubbed versions of Mandarin dramas and home-grown sitcoms such as Guangdong Television’s Local Husbands and Migrant Wives, which has aired over 1,000 episodes since its debut showing in 2000, provided the financial backbone for many television stations. The show, centered on the struggles of South Chinese in a globalizing economic climate, demonstrates how Cantonese television offers a common cultural identity for Cantonese speakers who struggle to contextualize their unique language heritage within the broader scheme of Chinese development as a global export powerhouse.Continued on Next Page »
Blachford, Dongyan Ru. “Language Spread Versus Language Maintenance: Policy Making and Implementation Process.” In Language Policy in the PRC: Theory and Practice since 1949, edited by Minglan Zhou and Hongkai Sun, 99-122. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
Chen, Litong. “The Imposition of Cantonese on Mandarin in the City of Guangzhou.” From the Proceedings of the 23rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-23) Volume 2, 93-104, Eugene, Oregon, 2011.
Chen, Min, Aqing Hao, Dan Wei, Qi Wang, Yingchuan Zhang, Hong Yu, Yan Zhang, and Daojuan Zhou. “An Update on the Use and Management of Standard Spoken and Written Chinese.” In Language Policies and Practices in China Vol. 2, edited by Yuming Li and Wei Li, 3-14. Boston: Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 2014.
Chiu, Rosaline Kwan-wai. Language Contact and Language Planning in China (1900-1967). Québec: Les Presses de L’université Laval, 1970.
Gao, Xuesong. “‘Cantonese is Not a Dialect:’ Chinese Netizens’ Defence of Cantonese as a Regional Lingua Franca.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33, no. 5 (2012): 449-464.
Guo, Longsheng. “The Relationship between Putonghua and Chinese dialects.” In Language Policy in the PRC: Theory and Practice since 1949, edited by Minglan Zhou and Hongkai Sun, 45-54. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
Gvozdanović, Jadranka. “Understanding the Essence of Diglossia.” In Divided Languages? Diglossia, Translation and the Rise of Modernity in Japan, China, and the Slavic World, edited by Judit Árokay, Jadranka Gvozdanović, and Darja Miyajima, 3-20. New York: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2014.
Han, Yanli. “National Defence Cinema: A Window on Early Cantonese Cinema and Political Upheaval in Mainland China.” In The Hong Kong-Guangdong Film Connection, edited by Ain-ling Wong, 68-79. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Film Archive, 2005.
Jie, Dong. “The Enregisterment of Putonghua in Practice.” Language & Communication 30 (2010): 265-275. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2010.03.001.
Kuo, Eddie C. Y. “Mass Media and Language Planning: Singapore’s “Speak Mandarin” Campaign.” Journal of Communication (1984): 24-35.
“Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language.” People’s Republic of China Database of Laws and Regulations. Published October 31, 2000. Accessed October 19, 2015. http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/Law/2007-12/11/content_1383540.htm.
Li, Christopher Wen-Chao. “Conflicting Notions of Language Purity: the Interplay of Archaising, Ethnographic, Reformist, Elitist, and Xenophobic Purism in the Perception of Standard Chinese.” Language & Communication 24 (2004): 97-133. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2003.09.002.
Li, Zixi (黎紫曦). “Chinese Communist Party Increases Ideology Unity? Guangdong Television Station ‘Push Putonghua Discard Yue’ (中共加强思想统战？广东电视‘推普废 粤’).” Vision Times. Last modified July 15, 2014. http://m.secretchina.com/node/546994.
Liang, Sihua. Language Attitudes and Identities in Multilingual China: A Linguistic Ethnography. New York: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2015.
Liang, Sihua. “Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guangzhou in the Era of Multilingualism and Superdiversity.” In Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation: Sociolinguistic Issues, edited by Martin Solly and Edith Esch, 153-168. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014.
Liu, Jin. “The Use of Chinese Dialects on the Internet: Youth Language and Local Youth Identity in Urban China.” In Chinese Under Globalization: Emerging Trends in Language Use in China, edited by Jin Liu, 59-78. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2012.
Mao, Yu-Han and Hugo Lee. “Strong and Weak Dialects of China: How Cantonese Succeeded Whereas Shaan’Xi Failed with the help of Media.” Asian Social Science 10, no. 15 (2014): 23-36. doi: 10.5539/ass.v10n15p23.
Miao, Ruiqin and Jiaxuan Li. “Urban Migration and Functional Bilingualism in Guangdong Province, China.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 16, no. 2 (2006): 237-257.
Ng, Dana Funywe and Juanjuan Zhao. “Investigating Cantonese Speakers’ Language Attitudes in Mainland China.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 36, no. 4 (2015): 357-371. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2014.925906.
O’Brien, Kevin J. “Rightful Resistance Revisited.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 40 no. 6 (2013): 1051-1062.
Page, Alexander Gamst. “Language Relations in Guangzhou: The Intimate and Official Dimension of Linguistic Codes in Urban China.” Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2011.
Qian, Junxi, Liyun Qian, and Hong Zhu. “Representing the Imagined City: Place and the Politics of Difference during Guangzhou’s 2010 Language Conflict.” Geoforum 43 (2012): 905- 915.
Rohsenow, John S. “Fifty Years of Script and Written Language Reform in the P.R.C.: The Genesis of the Language Law of 2001.” In Language Policy in the PRC: Theory and Practice since 1949, edited by Minglan Zhou and Hongkai Sun, 21-44. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
Siu, Helen. “Cultural Identity and the Politics of Differentiation in South China.” Daedalus 122, no. 2 (1993): 19-43.
Snow, Donald B. Cantonese as written language: the growth of a written Chinese vernacular. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004.
Su, Jinzhi. “Diglossia in China: Past and Present.” In Divided Languages? Diglossia, Translation and the Rise of Modernity in Japan, China, and the Slavic World, edited by Judit Árokay, Jadranka Gvozdanović, and Darja Miyajima, 55-64. New York: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2014.
Tan, Jia. “Provincializing the Chinese Mediascape: Cantonese Digital Activism in Southern China.” In China’s iGeneration: Cinema and Moving Image Culture for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Matthew D. Johnson, Keith B. Wagner, Tianqi Yu, and Luke Vulpiani, 197-211. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc., 2014.
Tanner, Murray Scot. “China Rethinks Unrest.” The Washington Quarterly 27, no. 3 (2004): 137-156.
Wang, Limei and Hans J. Ladegaard. “Language Attitudes and Gender in China: Perceptions and Reported Use of Putonghua and Cantonese in the Southern Province of Guangdong.” Language Awareness 17, no. 1 (2008): 57-77. doi: 10.2167/la425.0.
Wang, Wilfred Yang. “Remaking Guangzhou: Political Engagement and Place-making on Sina Weibo.” Transcription of Presentation at the Conference for Democracy & Open Government Asia, Hong Kong, December 4-6, 2014, 43-52.
Wu, Meili (邬美丽). “Review of Language Planning in China since the 1980s (20世纪80年代 以来中国语言规划研究述评).” Journal of Beihua University (Social Sciences) (北华大 学学报（社会科学版）) 9, no. 6 (2008): 66-71.
Yan, Jing. “Social Variation of Vernacular Written Cantonese in Guangzhou (Canton City), China.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 2008.
Yang, Congrong (杨聪荣). “Language and Language Policy in Hong Kong (香港的语言问题与 语言政策).” Shenzhen University Hong Kong-Aomen Law Analysis (深圳大学港澳基本 法研究中心专题库) (2007): 1-25.
Yang, Fan (杨帆). “Guangdong Foshan’s Proposed Ban on Cantonese Traditional Writing Leads to Disputes (广东佛山拟禁粤语繁体字引发争议).” Beijingspring.com. Last modified July 15, 2014. http://beijingspring.com/c7/xw/zgbd/20140715171032.htm.
Yang, Mayfair Mei-hui. “Mass Media and Transnational Subjectivity in Shanghai: Notes on (Re) Cosmopolitanism in a Chinese Metropolis.” In Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism, edited by Aihua Ong and Donald M. Nonini, 287-322. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Yi, Zhongtian (易中天). Northwest Wind, Southeast Rain: Dialects and Culture (西北风东南雨: 方言与文化). Shanghai: Shanghai Culture Publishing (上海文化出版社), 2002.
Yuan, Elaine. “Audience Duplication and its Determinants: A Study in the Multichannel and Multiculture Television Market in Guangzhou, China.” Asian Journal of Communication 20, no. 3 (2010): 354-366. doi: 10.1080/01292981003802200.
Zhang, Jijia (张积家), Zhuohua Yang (杨卓华), and Shimin Zhu (朱诗敏). “Study into the Impressions of Putonghua and Guangdong Dialect in Guangdong University Students’ Eyes (广东大学生对普通话和粤语的印象).” Psychological Exploration (心理学探新) 23, no. 1 (2003): 51-54.
Zhang, Jingwei (张璟玮) and Daming Xu (徐大明). “Population Movement and the Popularization of Putonghua (人口流动与普通话普及).” Applied Linguistics (语言文字 应用) no. 3 (2008): 43-52.
Zhou, Chengren. “Ebb and Flow: Early Guangzhou and Hong Kong Film Industries.” In The Hong Kong-Guangdong Film Connection, edited by Ain-ling Wong, 16-29. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Film Archive, 2005.
Zhou, Minglan. “The Spread of Putonghua and language attitude changes in Shanghai and Guangzhou, China.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 11, no. 2 (2001): 231-253.
Endnotes
- Xuesong Gao, “‘Cantonese is Not a Dialect:’ Chinese Netizens’ Defence of Cantonese as a Regional Lingua Franca,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33, no. 5 (2012): 451.
- Jia Tan, “Provincializing the Chinese Mediascape: Cantonese Digital Activism in Southern China,” in China’s iGeneration: Cinema and Moving Image Culture for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Matthew D. Johnson, Keith B. Wagner, Tianqi Yu, and Luke Vulpiani (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Inc., 2014), 202.
- Mayfair Mei-hui Yang,“Mass Media and Transnational Subjectivity in Shanghai: Notes on (Re) Cosmopolitanism in a Chinese Metropolis,” in Ungrounded Empires: The Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism, edited by Aihua Ong and Donald M. Nonini (New York: Routledge, 1997), 289-290.
- Ibid.
- Eddie C. Y. Kuo, “Mass Media and Language Planning: Singapore’s “Speak Mandarin” Campaign,” Journal of Communication (1984): 25-26.
- Limei Wang and Hans J. Ladegaard, “Language Attitudes and Gender in China: Perceptions and Reported Use of Putonghua and Cantonese in the Southern Province of Guangdong,” Language Awareness 17, no. 1 (2008): 59.
- Congrong Yang (杨聪荣), “Language and Language Policy in Hong Kong (香港的语言问题与语言政策),” Shenzhen University Hong Kong-Aomen Law Analysis (深圳大学港澳基本法研究中心专题库) (2007): 14.
- Gao, “‘Cantonese is Not a Dialect,’” 451
- Dana Funywe Ng and Juanjuan Zhao, “Investigating Cantonese Speakers’ Language Attitudes in Mainland China,” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 36, no. 4 (2015): 358.
- Christopher Wen-Chao Li, “Conflicting Notions of Language Purity: the Interplay of Archaising, Ethnographic, Reformist, Elitist, and Xenophobic Purism in the Perception of Standard Chinese,” Language & Communication 24 (2004): 111-112.
- John S. Rohsenow, “Fifty years of Script and Written Language Reform in the P.R.C.: The Genesis of the Language Law of 2001,” in Language Policy in the PRC: Theory and Practice since 1949, edited by Minglan Zhou and Hongkai Sun (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004), 21.
- Ibid.
- Yu-Han Mao and Hugo Lee, “Strong and Weak Dialects of China: How Cantonese Succeeded Whereas Shaan’Xi Failed with the help of Media,” Asian Social Science 10, no. 15 (2014): 26.
- Helen, Siu, “Cultural Identity and the Politics of Differentiation in South China,” Daedalus 122, no. 2 (1993): 30.
- Ruiqin Miao and Jiaxuan Li, “Urban Migration and Functional Bilingualism in Guangdong Province, China,” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 16, no. 2 (2006): 238.
- Helen, Siu, “Cultural Identity and the Politics of Differentiation in South China,” Daedalus 122, no. 2 (1993): 30.
- Jia Tan, “Provincializing the Chinese Mediascape,” 202.
- Tan, “Provincializing the Chinese Mediascape,” 201.
- Ibid., 202.
- Ibid.
- Siu, “Cultural Identity,” 29-30.
- Yanli Han, “National Defence Cinema: A Window on Early Cantonese Cinema and Political Upheaval in Mainland China,” in The Hong Kong-Guangdong Film Connection, edited by Ain-ling Wong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Film Archive, 2005), 70.
- Ibid.
- Han, “National Defence Cinema” 71
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 73
- Ibid., 73-74.
- Chengren Zhou,“Ebb and Flow: Early Guangzhou and Hong Kong Film Industries,” in The Hong Kong-Guangdong Film Connection, edited by Ain-ling Wong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Film Archive, 2005), 26.
- Ibid., 27
- Zhou, “Ebb and Flow,” 27
- Ibid.
- Litong Chen,“The Imposition of Cantonese on Mandarin in the City of Guangzhou,” from the Proceedings of the 23rd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-23) Volume 2, Eugene, Oregon, 2011, 94.
- Elaine Yuan, “Audience Duplication and its Determinants: A Study in the Multichannel and Multiculture Television Market in Guangzhou, China,” Asian Journal of Communication 20, no. 3 (2010): 357.
- Yuan, “Audience duplication,” 357.
- Ibid., 357-358
- Ibid., 357
- Jijia Zhang (张积家), Zhuohua Yang (杨卓华), and Shimin Zhu (朱诗敏), “Study into the Impressions of Putonghua and Guangdong Dialect in Guangdong University Students’ Eyes (广东大学生对普通话和粤语的印象),” Psychological Exploration (心理学探新) 23, no. 1 (2003): 52.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ng and Zhao, “Investigating Cantonese speakers,’” 363
- Ibid.
- Zhang, et. al, “Study into the Impressions,” 52.
- Ng and Zhao, “Investigating Cantonese Speakers,’” 365-366.
- Ng and Zhao, “Investigating Cantonese Speakers,’” 365.
- Wilfred Yang Wang, “Remaking Guangzhou: Political Engagement and Place-making on Sina Weibo,” transcription of Presentation at the Conference for Democracy & Open Government Asia, Hong Kong, December 4-6, 2014, 44-45.
- Junxi Qian, Liyun Qian, and Hong Zhu, “Representing the Imagined City: Place and the Politics of Difference During Guangzhou’s 2010 Language Conflict,” Geoforum 43 (2012): 907.
- Gao, “Cantonese is Not a Dialect,” 450.
- Qian, et. al., “Representing the Imagined City,” 907.
- Ng and Zhao, “Investigating Cantonese Speakers,’” 364.
- Qian, et. al., “Representing the Imagined City,” 907.
- Sihua Liang, Language Attitudes and Identities in Multilingual China: A Linguistic Ethnography, (New York: Springer International Publishing Switzerland, 2015), 91.
- Sihua Liang, “Problematizing Monolingual Identities and Competence in Guangzhou in the Era of Multilingualism and Superdiversity,” in Language Education and the Challenges of Globalisation: Sociolinguistic Issues, edited by Martin Solly and Edith Esch (Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 154.
- Ibid., 153-154.
- Miao and Li, “Urban Migration,” 238.
- Liang, Language Attitudes and Identites, 96.
- Ibid.
- Liang, Language Attitudes and Identites, 95.
- Qian, et. al., “Representing the Imagined City,” 908.
- Fan Yang (杨帆), “Guangdong Foshan’s Proposed Ban on Cantonese Traditional Writing Leads to Disputes (广东佛山拟禁粤语繁体字引发争议),” Beijingspring.com, last modified July 15, 2014, http://beijingspring.com/c7/xw/zgbd/20140715171032.htm.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Zixi Li (黎紫曦), “Chinese Communist Party Increases Ideology Unity? Guangdong Television Station ‘Push Putonghua Discard Yue’ (中共加强思想统战？广东电视‘推普废粤’),” Vision Times, last modified July 15, 2014, http://m.secretchina.com/node/546994.
Save Citation » (Works with EndNote, ProCite, & Reference Manager)
APA 6th
Ji, R. Y. (2016). "Preserving Cantonese Television & Film in Guangdong: Language as Cultural Heritage in South China's Bidialectal Landscape." Inquiries Journal, 8(12). Retrieved from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1506
MLA
Ji, Rona Y. "Preserving Cantonese Television & Film in Guangdong: Language as Cultural Heritage in South China's Bidialectal Landscape." Inquiries Journal 8.12 (2016). <http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1506>
Chicago 16th
Ji, Rona Y. 2016. Preserving Cantonese Television & Film in Guangdong: Language as Cultural Heritage in South China's Bidialectal Landscape. Inquiries Journal 8 (12), http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1506
Harvard
JI, R. Y. 2016. Preserving Cantonese Television & Film in Guangdong: Language as Cultural Heritage in South China's Bidialectal Landscape. Inquiries Journal [Online], 8. Available: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1506
Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal
Hong Kong is standing at a crucial social and political juncture in its history. A former British colony, it has retained its unique legal system, electoral system, and political democracy. These systems have worked together to create a society in which residents are entitled to their rights with a strong and equal rule of law that... MORE»
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese Communist Party has used publicly displayed propaganda art as a means of maintaining power. During the early years of the PRC, propaganda posters played a large role in establishing a cult of personality around Mao Zedong. Today's propaganda art seeks primarily... MORE»
The relationship between the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Holy See appears to be an uneasy association between opposites. With over 1 billion people, the PRC is "the world's most populous state," while the Holy See is housed in tiny Vatican City.2 In addition to its status as a sovereign political entity,3 the Holy See... MORE»
On the nineteenth of February Deng Xiaoping, the dominant figure of Chinese politics for 19 years, died and left behind him a booming China, and a nation with many unresolved questions. The British media proclaimed the passing away of ‘the last red titan’ and it certainly seemed the end of an era for a country that... MORE»
Latest in Anthropology
2021, Vol. 13 No. 04
While the history of ethnography in Russia dates back to the Kievan Rus era, modern ethnographic production in Russia developed in the 17th century and expanded during the late 18th and early 19th centuries as interest in folktales and in the lives... Read Article »
2020, Vol. 12 No. 11
This paper explores the spatial expression of the female gender in early Mesopotamian cities from c. 2334-1595 B.C.E. Gender in Mesopotamia has been widely studied socially but not spatially, and here I aim to provide a consideration of gender through... Read Article »
2020, Vol. 12 No. 11
Many natural history museums use the categories of “cultural” and “natural” as a means of separating exhibition content. This article challenges this practice and the inherent paradigm that supports it. By dismissing the... Read Article »
2020, Vol. 12 No. 09
Since the European invasion of Latin America in the sixteenth century, the concept of indigeneity has been inherently political. In what can only be described as an ongoing ethnocide, colonial powers did everything they could to stomp out the rich... Read Article »
2020, Vol. 12 No. 02
On November 20th, 2018, a federal judge in Michigan ruled that the Female Genital Mutilation Act 1996, which federally prohibits female genital mutilation (FGM/C) in the United States, was unconstitutional within the context of a case that has presented... Read Article »
2019, Vol. 11 No. 02
The issue of “comfort women,” sex slaves utilized by the Japanese army during World War II, is treated in this paper as a collective memory in the consciousness of South Koreans. Differing narratives of this historical event, and the... Read Article »
2018, Vol. 10 No. 12
The study of DNA and genetics has always been a large mystery to many scientists. The current Ancient DNA (aDNA) research on human history is more complex than what can be inferred from modern DNA research. Scientists and researchers are constantly... Read Article »
|
