Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 當代越南華人的廣東話保存與族群認同
Cantonese Preservation and the Ethnic Identity of Contemporary Hoa people in Vietnam作者 鄧焯峰
Tang, Cheuk Fung Leo貢獻者 馬藹萱
Ma, Ai-hsuan S.
鄧焯峰
Tang, Cheuk Fung Leo關鍵詞 越南華人
廣東話
粵語
語言保存
語言傳承
族群
身份認同
Hoa People
Vietnamese Chinese
Cantonese
Ethnic language
Language preveration
Identity
Minority日期 2020 上傳時間 1-Jul-2020 13:54:46 (UTC+8) 摘要 華人在越南當地雖然紮根已久，但是至今仍然在日常生活中廣泛使用廣東話。廣東話在越南的華人社群中普遍被視為其族群語言，背後與廣東人的人數是華人五幫中最多、廣東人是最早集結越南的華人方言群、廣東人相對保守的性格及廣東話的工具性意義等因素有莫大的關係。作為越南社會中的一個少數族群，在當地的影響力及動員能力都較弱，在政策層面又處於不利的情況下，廣東話作為其族群語言仍然得以被成功保存及傳承，一定有其成功之道。本研究旨在探討影響越南華人廣東話保存的因素，以及語言使用及保存與族群身份認同建構之間的關連性。他們未來如何傳承族群語言，也是本研究所探討的重點。筆者以越南胡志明市為主要田野場域，於2018年夏天，透過對當地華人社群的深度訪談及參與觀察，並輔以問卷調查以進行資料蒐集。本研究共有24位受訪者，男女各半，年紀介於20至82歲。本研究發現，廣東話使用在當地存在區域性的差異；在胡志明市較多越南華人聚居的第五郡、第六郡、第十郡及第十一郡，廣東話被更廣泛地使用。此外，廣東話的使用也呈現明顯的年齡層差異：廣東話的水平隨著年齡層的下降而降低，語言流失及語碼混用的情形也隨著世代變遷變得愈加明顯。由於越南的社會變遷與政策演進，華文教育系統與華文媒體被瓦解或邊陲化，廣東話的工具性意義逐漸式微，影響了華人學習廣東話的機會與使用廣東話的能力，並形成年齡層間的差異化經驗，也進而影響了廣東話在不同時期的傳承及保存表現。由於複雜的歷史背景，越南華人建構出多個與族群及國家有關的身份認同。筆者利用問卷蒐集而來的統計資料發現，「越南華人」是最受認同的族群身份，其次是「越南人」，而族群身份的界定與轉變與通婚、社會體制及分別被內團體及外團體標籤化有關。另外，研究結果也顯示當地華人已逐漸形成在地的認同，不再強調「移民群體」的身份以及與原始移出國間的密切關連性，進一步支持了史書美（2017）與Chan（2018）等人所提出的「有時限的海外華人離散性」主張；離散框架已逐漸不再適用於解釋越南華人的身份認同。本研究證實廣東話保存與越南華人族群身份認同具有關連性；「越南華人」的身份認同無可置疑是越南華人使用及保存廣東話的動機之一，也彰顯了廣東話作為族群語言在其情感性意義上的重要性。普遍越南華人認為，認同自己屬於越南華人族群的一部分，使用及保存廣東話就是理所當然的。這個想法是基於他們認為廣東話是越南華人文化中重要的一部分、廣東話在越南代表著越南華人群體及可以加強族群內的團結性及認同感這三個因素。因此，越南華人主流將部分認同越南華人的身份但不會講廣東話的越南華人，視為「Mất Gốc（忘本）」。要讓廣東話可以在越南華人社群中傳承及保存下去，除了強調身份認同及族群語言能力間的關連外，更需要其他因素的配合才可以成功。在當代越南社會中，過去有利於越南華人進行語言保存及傳承的環境及渠道逐漸消失，透過歸納受訪者的想法及經驗，家中進行廣東話傳承及讓子女到華文中心接受正規的華文教育，是他們認為未來廣東話可以繼續保存及傳承的不二法門。
Vietnamese Chinese (Hoa people) has settled in Vietnam for generations, and yet Cantonese is still widely used in their daily life. Cantonese being the ethnic language of Vietnamese Chinese in Vietnam is the result of the following reasons: First, Cantonese is the largest dialect group in the Vietnamese Chinese community. Second, Cantonese was the first dialect group settled in Vietnam. Third, the ideology of Cantonese is more conserve than other dialect groups. Fourth, the instrumental value of Cantonese is higher than other Chinese dialects. Being an ethnic minority and at a disadvantage in government policies, the preservation of Cantonese among ethnic Chinese in Vietnam deserves attention. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors influencing the preservation of Cantonese among Vietnamese Chinese, examine the linkage between language preservation and ethnic identity, and look into the strategies Vietnamese Chinese may adopt to maintain their ethnic language in the future. Field study was conducted in Ho Chi Minh City during the summer of 2018. In-depth interviewing and participant observation were utilized as main data collecting methods, supplemented by a survey. A total of 24 interviewees participated in this study, in which half were male and half female, and the age range was between 20 to 82 years old.There is a geographic difference in the popularity of Cantonese in Ho Chi Minh City; the language is more widely used in Districts 5, 6, 10 and 11 of Ho Chi Minh City, where Vietnamese Chinese are highly concentrated. The proficiency in Cantonese of Vietnamese Chinese is in decline along with generation, and code mixing is a common practice among Vietnamese Chinese youths. The diminution in instrumental value of Cantonese was brought by the social transformation and policy development in Vietnam, the disruption of the Chinese education system, and the marginalization of local Chinese media. These factors influenced the opportunity for Vietnamese Chinese to learn Cantonese and their ability to use the language, formed the generational difference in the experiences of ethnic language learning and practice, and shaped the preservation of Cantonese.Due to the complex historical background, Vietnamese Chinese developed multiple identities. According to the survey data, “Vietnamese Chinese” is the most identified identity, followed by “Vietnamese.” The definition and transformation of ethnic identity of Vietnamese Chinese are affected by intermarriage, social institutions, as well as the labelling of in-group and outgroup. Overall, Vietnamese Chinese have gradually formed a localized identity. This result supports the perspective of Shih (2017) and Chan (2018) that, in the case of Vietnamese Chinese, the conceptual framework of Chinese diaspora is no longer applicable.Cantonese preservation is found to be positively related to the strength of identity of being Vietnamese Chinese. Most of the Vietnamese Chinese consider Cantonese as an important element of their ethnic culture. By practicing Cantonese, in-group solidarity and ethnic identity can be strengthened. Therefore, they take for granted that Vietnamese Chinese ought to use and preserve their ethnic language. However, there are some Vietnamese Chinese who identify themselves as Vietnamese Chinese but do not speak Cantonese. These people are called “Mất Gốc” by other members of the ethnic group.In contemporary Vietnam, the social conditions that favorable for using Cantonese and the channels to teach and learn have gradually disappeared. Therefore, to maintain and preserve Cantonese in the Vietnamese Chinese community is far more difficult than before. By summing up interviewees’ thoughts and experiences, performing language transmission at home and sending children to Chinese language centers for formal Chinese education are the most efficient ways to ensure that the future generations will still be capable of using Cantonese and avoid ethnic language attrition.參考文獻 中文文獻王宏仁，2004，〈他者論述, 管理實務與在地抵抗: 以越南台商工廠為例〉。《東南亞學刊》 1(2): 37-64。——，2019，《全球生產壓力鏈：越南台商、工人與國家》。 臺北市：臺大出版中心。古學斌、陳錦華、Sandhu, K. K，2005，〈「種族和諧」的面紗背後〉。頁3-36。收入夏曉鵑、陳信行、黃德北編，《跨界流離：全球化下的移民與移工》。臺北市，臺灣：臺灣社會研究雜誌社。史書美，2017，《反離散：華語語系研究論》。臺北：聯經。呂士朋，1958，《越南華僑史話》。臺北，臺灣：海外文庫出版社。吳英成，2010，〈新加坡雙語教育政策的沿革與新機遇〉。《臺灣語文研究》5(2): 63-80。吳靜宜，2010，《越南華人遷移史與客家話的使用—以胡志明市為例》。桃園：國立中央大學客家研究所碩士論文。李白茵，1990，《越南華僑與華人》。廣西：廣西師範大學。李勇，2012，〈語言·歷史·邊界：東南亞華人族群關係的變遷〉。頁122-159。收入丘進編，《華僑華人藍皮書：華僑華人研究報告2012》。中國：社會科學文獻出版社。何潔儀，2014，《越南胡志明市華人華文教學發展與現狀》。廣西：廣西大學漢語國際教育碩士論文。阮氏賢，2016，《胡志明市的華人語言使用情況調查分析》。廣西：廣西大學漢語國際教育碩士論文。林志忠，2012，〈中南半島華人華文教育發展之比較（1989－2011）〉。《中原華語文學報》(9): 71-98。——，2013，《越南教育探究與省思》。 臺南：復文圖書。吳鈞，1998，《越南歷史》。 臺北市：自由僑聲雜誌社。柯瓊芳、 張翰璧，2007，〈越南, 印尼與臺灣社會價值觀的比較研究〉。《臺灣東南亞學刊》 4(1): 91-111。洪振生、湯佩雯，2017，〈【越配人球】被騙嫁來台13年 外配最放不下的是她們〉。鏡週刊， 5月13日。https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20170512soc011/，取用日期︰2020年5月27日。陳大哲，1989 ，《越南華僑概況》。 臺北市：正中書局。陳鴻瑜，2007，《越南近現代史》。臺北市：國立編譯館。——，2019，《越南史：史記概要》。臺北市：臺灣商務印書館。陳鴻偉、林郁平，2018，〈阿公店裡 5國撈女笑看浮沉〉。自由時報， 7月22日。https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20180722000431-260106?chdtv，取用日期︰2020年5月27日。陳氏芳蓮，2011，《制度變動下的族群經濟：以越南胡志明市華人為例》。高雄：國立中山大學社會學研究所碩士論文。莊國土，2002，〈略論東南亞華族的族群認同及其發展趨勢〉。《廈門大學學報哲學社會科學版》(3): 63-71。莊國土、劉文正，2009，《東亞華人社會的形成和發展：華商網絡移民與一體化趨勢》。中國廈門：廈門大學出版社。張世豪，2008，〈越南胡志明市華人文化、華文教育變遷概況〉。論文發表於「海外華人之文化變遷與文物維護國際學術研討會」，台北，臺灣：中華民國僑務委員會、海華文教基金會、中央研究院 人文社會科學研究中心、中華民國海外華人研究學會，2008年12月13日。許文堂，2014，〈越南華人公民地位的變遷〉。頁147-172，收入陳鴻瑜編，《海外華人之公民地位與人權》。臺北市：華僑協會總會。——，2016，〈二次世界大戰以來北越華人社會之變貌〉。《亞太研究論壇》62: 5-32。華僑志編纂委員會，1958，《越南華僑志》。臺北市：華僑志編纂委員會。黃宣範，1995，《語言、社會與族群意識: 臺灣語言社會學的硏究》。臺北市：文鶴出版有限公司。黄滋生、温北炎，1999，《戰國後東南亞華人的經濟》。廣州：廣東人民出版社。黃宗鼎，2006，《第二次世界大戰後越南之華人政策（1945-2003）》。臺北：國立政治大學發展研究所碩士論文。黃志媛，2016，《革新開放后越南胡志明市華文學校教學現狀的調查》。廣西：廣西民族大學漢語國際教育碩士論文。僑務委員會，2019，中華民國 107 年僑務統計年報。https://www.ocac.gov.tw/OCAC/Pages/ashx/File.ashx?FilePath=~/File/Attach/313/File_167771.pdf，取用日期︰2020年1月14日。廖福特，2014，〈悠然居留或落地生根：從國際人權法討論海外華人之地位與人權〉。頁15-42，收入陳鴻瑜編，《海外華人之公民地位與人權》。臺北市：華僑協會總會。黎玉容，2010，《越南華人華文教育現狀考察--以胡志明市為例》。湖北：華中師範大學碩士論文。蔣為文，2013，〈越南的明鄉人與華人移民的族群認同與本土化差異〉。《臺灣國際研究季刊》9(4): 1-26。—— ，2015，〈越南會安古城當代明鄉人、華人及越南人之互動關係與文化接觸〉。《亞太研究論壇》61(4): 131-155。鄧思穎 ，2015，《粵語語法講義》。香港：商務印書館(香港)有限公司。劉為安，2016，《堤岸今昔》。胡志明市：文化—文藝出版社。鄭鴻達，2016，〈考證照創業》越配徐蕙珮 反身助姊妹〉自由時報， 1月27日。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/953103，取用日期︰2020年5月27日。劉金華等主編 ，2017，《西貢 — 堤岸華人同胞積極參加1968年戊申年春節總進攻與起義戰鬥》。胡志明市，越南：胡志明市文化文義出版社。蕭新煌等，2005，〈東南亞的客家會館：歷史與功能的探討〉。《亞太研究論壇》28(3): 185-219。藍韶昱、陳曦，2010，〈越南華人認同論〉。《廣西社會主義學院學報》21(3): 48-51。Nguyễn Thanh Nhan，2018，《越南華裔新生代文化認同研究》。中國，廣州：華南理工大學傳播學（漢語國際教育與傳播）碩士論文。英文文獻Alba, Richard et al. 2002. “Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants.” Demography 39(3): 467-484.Biernacki, P., and Waldorf, D. 1981. “Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling.” Sociological Methods & Research 10(2), 141-163.Bloch, Alice and Shirin Hirsch. 2016. “Second generation” refugees and multilingualism: identity, race and language transmission.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 40(14), 2444-2462.Chan, Y. W. 2013. “Hybrid diaspora and identity-laundering: a study of the return overseas Chinese Vietnamese in Vietnam.” Asian Ethnicity 14(4), 525-541.¬¬——. 2018. “‘Vietnam is my country land, China is my hometown’: Chinese communities in transition in the south of Vietnam.” Asian Ethnicity 19(2), 163-179.Central Population and Housing Census Steering Committee. 2010. “The 2009 Vietnam Population and Housing Census: Complete result.” Hanoi: Statistical publishing house. http://portal.thongke.gov.vn/khodulieudanso2009/Tailieu/AnPham/KetQuaToanBo/3_Ketqua-toanbo.pdf (Date retrieved: June 10, 2018).Corfield, J. 2014. Historical Dictionary of Ho Chi Minh City. London: Anthem Press.Coughlin, Richard J. 1960. Double Identity: The Chinese in Modern Thailand. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Dolinski, Michael. 2004. “Identity Changes of the Chinese Community in Vietnam: A Survey of 20 Families in Cholon.” Asia Pacific 26, 192-208.Edwards, John R. 1985. Language, society and identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Engelbert, J. T. 2000. “The Chinese in Vietnam (Hoa). Data Sources and Historical Overview.” Pp365-409 in Quantitative Economic History of Vietnam 1900-1990. An International Workshop, edited by Bassino, J. P et al. Tokyo: Institute of Economic Research, Hitosubashi University.Fillmore, Lily. 2000. “Loss of Family Languages: Should Educators Be Concerned?” Theory Into Practice - THEORY PRACT 39, 203-210.Fishman, J. 1972. “Domain and the relationship between micro- and macrosocioliguistics.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. H. Hymes, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.——. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon, England: Mutilingual Matters.Greenberg, Joseph H. 1965. “Urbanism, migration, and language.” Urbanization and migration in West Africa, 50-59.Gupta, A. F. and Siew, P. Y. 1995. “Language Shift in a SingaporeFamily.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16(4),301-314.Kawulich, B. B. 2005. “Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(2).Khemlani-David, Maya. 1998. “Language shift, cultural maintenance, and ethnic identity; a study of a minority community: the Sindhis of Malaysia.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 130(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1998.130.67King, V. T. 2008. The Sociology of Southeast Asia: Transformations in a Developing Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS press.Kravin, Hanne. 1992. “Erosion of a language in bilingual development.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13(4): 307-325.Kuhn, Philip A. 2009. Chinese Among Others: Emigration in Modern Times. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield.Lii, D. T. 1998. “A colonized empire: Reflections on the expansion of Hong Kong films in Asian countries” Pp. 107-126 in Trajectories: Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, edited by C. K. Hsing, London: Routledge.Marsot, A. G. 1993. The Chinese Community in Vietnam Under the French. San Francisco, USA: EmText.Morita, Liang. 2007. “Discussing assimilation and language shift among the Chinese in Thailand.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2007: 43-58.Murray, Douglas P. 1964. “Chinese Education in South-East Asia.” The China Quarterly 20: 67-95.Nesteruk, Olena. 2010. “Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31(3), 271-286.Nguyen, Van Chinh. 2013. “Recent Chinese Migration to Vietnam.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 22(1), 7–30.——. 2017. “The Rise and Revitalization of Ethnic Chinese Business in Vietnam.” Pp. 257-276 in Chinese Capitalism in Southeast Asia, edited by Yos Santasombat. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.Pak, Helen R. 2003. “When MT is L2: The Korean church school as a context for cultural identity.” Pp. 269-290 in Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for education policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings, edited by Nancy Hornberger. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Park, Seong Man and Mela Sarkar. 2007. “Parents’ Attitudes Toward Heritage Language Maintenance for Their Children and Their Efforts to Help Their Children Maintain the Heritage Language: A Case Study of Korean-Canadian Immigrants.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 20(3), 223-235.Phinney, Jean S et al. 2001. “The Role of Language, Parents, and Peers in Ethnic Identity Among Adolescents in Immigrant Families.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30(2): 135-153.Pilar , Macrohon. 2013. “Senate declares Chinese New Year as special working holiday”. http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2013/0121_prib1.asp (Date visited: Jan 14, 2020)Portes, A. and Rumbaut R. G. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.——. 2014. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Rex, J. 1980. “The Theory of Race Relations - A Weberian Approach.” Pp. 14-39 in The Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M. Cross. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Richmond, Anthony H. 1988. Immigration and Ethnic Conflict. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Rigg, J. 2003. “Exclusion and embeddedness: the Chinese in Thailand and Vietnam.” Pp. 97-116 in The Chinese Diaspora: Space, place, mobility, and identity, edited by Laurence J. C. Ma and Carolyn L. Cartier. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.Skeldon, Ronald. 2003. “The Chinese diaspora or the migration of Chinese peoples?” Pp.51-66 in The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Mobility, and Identity, edited by by Laurence J. C. Ma and Carolyn L. Cartier. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.Skinner, G. W. 1957. “Chinese Assimilation and Thai Politics.” The Journal of Asian Studies 16(2): 237-250.——. 1959. “Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 321: 136-147.Spolsky, Bernard. 1986. “Teaching Hebrew in the diaspora: Rationales and goals.” Jewish Education 54(3): 11-20.Stern, L. M. 1985. “The Overseas Chinese in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 1979-82.” Asian Survey 25(5): 521-536.Suryadinata, L. 2013. “Southeast Asian policies toward the ethnic Chinese.” Pp. 274-289 in Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora, edited by Chee-Beng Tan. London, New York: Routledge.Taylor, C. 1995. Philosophical arguments. USA: Harvard University Press.Tannenbaum, Michal and Pauline Howie. 2002. “The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia.” Journal of multilingual and multicultural development 23(5): 408-424.Ton, V. T. 2015. “Chinese identity negotiation by Chinese Vietnamese women in Cho Lon Community, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam through the use of Chinese at home.” Journal of Mekong Societies 11(1): 55-87.Trần, Khanh. 1993. The Ethnic Chinese and Economic Development in Vietnam. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Indochina Unit.——. 1997. “Ethnic Chinese in Vietnam and Their Identity.” Pp. 267-292 in Ethnic Chinese as Southeast Asian, edited by Leo Suryadinata. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asia Studies.Ungar, E. S. 1987. “The Struggle Over the Chinese Community in Vietnam, 1946-1986.” Pacific Affairs 60(4): 596-614.Unger, L. 1944. “The Chinese in Southeast Asia.” Geographical Review 34(2): 196-217.Veltman, C.J. 1983. Language Shift in the United States. Berlin: Mouton.Wang, Gungwu and Chin-Keong Ng. 2004. “Maritime China in Transition 1750-1850.” Pp.3-16 in South China and maritime Asia, edited by Wang, Gungwu and Chin-Keong Ng. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.Wee, Lionel. 2003. “Linguistic Instrumentalism in Singapore.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24(3): 211-224.Whitmore, John K. 1997. “Chinese from Southeast Asia.” Pp.223-243 in Case Studies in Diversity: Refugees in America in the 1990s, edited by D. W. Haines. United State of America: Praeger.Yılmaz, Gülsen. 2013. Bilingual Language Development among the First Generation Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Denmark. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
社會學系
105254020資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105254020 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 馬藹萱 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Ma, Ai-hsuan S. en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 鄧焯峰 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tang, Cheuk Fung Leo en_US dc.creator (作者) 鄧焯峰 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Tang, Cheuk Fung Leo en_US dc.date (日期) 2020 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2020 13:54:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2020 13:54:46 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2020 13:54:46 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105254020 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130612 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 社會學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 105254020 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 華人在越南當地雖然紮根已久，但是至今仍然在日常生活中廣泛使用廣東話。廣東話在越南的華人社群中普遍被視為其族群語言，背後與廣東人的人數是華人五幫中最多、廣東人是最早集結越南的華人方言群、廣東人相對保守的性格及廣東話的工具性意義等因素有莫大的關係。作為越南社會中的一個少數族群，在當地的影響力及動員能力都較弱，在政策層面又處於不利的情況下，廣東話作為其族群語言仍然得以被成功保存及傳承，一定有其成功之道。本研究旨在探討影響越南華人廣東話保存的因素，以及語言使用及保存與族群身份認同建構之間的關連性。他們未來如何傳承族群語言，也是本研究所探討的重點。筆者以越南胡志明市為主要田野場域，於2018年夏天，透過對當地華人社群的深度訪談及參與觀察，並輔以問卷調查以進行資料蒐集。本研究共有24位受訪者，男女各半，年紀介於20至82歲。本研究發現，廣東話使用在當地存在區域性的差異；在胡志明市較多越南華人聚居的第五郡、第六郡、第十郡及第十一郡，廣東話被更廣泛地使用。此外，廣東話的使用也呈現明顯的年齡層差異：廣東話的水平隨著年齡層的下降而降低，語言流失及語碼混用的情形也隨著世代變遷變得愈加明顯。由於越南的社會變遷與政策演進，華文教育系統與華文媒體被瓦解或邊陲化，廣東話的工具性意義逐漸式微，影響了華人學習廣東話的機會與使用廣東話的能力，並形成年齡層間的差異化經驗，也進而影響了廣東話在不同時期的傳承及保存表現。由於複雜的歷史背景，越南華人建構出多個與族群及國家有關的身份認同。筆者利用問卷蒐集而來的統計資料發現，「越南華人」是最受認同的族群身份，其次是「越南人」，而族群身份的界定與轉變與通婚、社會體制及分別被內團體及外團體標籤化有關。另外，研究結果也顯示當地華人已逐漸形成在地的認同，不再強調「移民群體」的身份以及與原始移出國間的密切關連性，進一步支持了史書美（2017）與Chan（2018）等人所提出的「有時限的海外華人離散性」主張；離散框架已逐漸不再適用於解釋越南華人的身份認同。本研究證實廣東話保存與越南華人族群身份認同具有關連性；「越南華人」的身份認同無可置疑是越南華人使用及保存廣東話的動機之一，也彰顯了廣東話作為族群語言在其情感性意義上的重要性。普遍越南華人認為，認同自己屬於越南華人族群的一部分，使用及保存廣東話就是理所當然的。這個想法是基於他們認為廣東話是越南華人文化中重要的一部分、廣東話在越南代表著越南華人群體及可以加強族群內的團結性及認同感這三個因素。因此，越南華人主流將部分認同越南華人的身份但不會講廣東話的越南華人，視為「Mất Gốc（忘本）」。要讓廣東話可以在越南華人社群中傳承及保存下去，除了強調身份認同及族群語言能力間的關連外，更需要其他因素的配合才可以成功。在當代越南社會中，過去有利於越南華人進行語言保存及傳承的環境及渠道逐漸消失，透過歸納受訪者的想法及經驗，家中進行廣東話傳承及讓子女到華文中心接受正規的華文教育，是他們認為未來廣東話可以繼續保存及傳承的不二法門。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Vietnamese Chinese (Hoa people) has settled in Vietnam for generations, and yet Cantonese is still widely used in their daily life. Cantonese being the ethnic language of Vietnamese Chinese in Vietnam is the result of the following reasons: First, Cantonese is the largest dialect group in the Vietnamese Chinese community. Second, Cantonese was the first dialect group settled in Vietnam. Third, the ideology of Cantonese is more conserve than other dialect groups. Fourth, the instrumental value of Cantonese is higher than other Chinese dialects. Being an ethnic minority and at a disadvantage in government policies, the preservation of Cantonese among ethnic Chinese in Vietnam deserves attention. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors influencing the preservation of Cantonese among Vietnamese Chinese, examine the linkage between language preservation and ethnic identity, and look into the strategies Vietnamese Chinese may adopt to maintain their ethnic language in the future. Field study was conducted in Ho Chi Minh City during the summer of 2018. In-depth interviewing and participant observation were utilized as main data collecting methods, supplemented by a survey. A total of 24 interviewees participated in this study, in which half were male and half female, and the age range was between 20 to 82 years old.There is a geographic difference in the popularity of Cantonese in Ho Chi Minh City; the language is more widely used in Districts 5, 6, 10 and 11 of Ho Chi Minh City, where Vietnamese Chinese are highly concentrated. The proficiency in Cantonese of Vietnamese Chinese is in decline along with generation, and code mixing is a common practice among Vietnamese Chinese youths. The diminution in instrumental value of Cantonese was brought by the social transformation and policy development in Vietnam, the disruption of the Chinese education system, and the marginalization of local Chinese media. These factors influenced the opportunity for Vietnamese Chinese to learn Cantonese and their ability to use the language, formed the generational difference in the experiences of ethnic language learning and practice, and shaped the preservation of Cantonese.Due to the complex historical background, Vietnamese Chinese developed multiple identities. According to the survey data, “Vietnamese Chinese” is the most identified identity, followed by “Vietnamese.” The definition and transformation of ethnic identity of Vietnamese Chinese are affected by intermarriage, social institutions, as well as the labelling of in-group and outgroup. Overall, Vietnamese Chinese have gradually formed a localized identity. This result supports the perspective of Shih (2017) and Chan (2018) that, in the case of Vietnamese Chinese, the conceptual framework of Chinese diaspora is no longer applicable.Cantonese preservation is found to be positively related to the strength of identity of being Vietnamese Chinese. Most of the Vietnamese Chinese consider Cantonese as an important element of their ethnic culture. By practicing Cantonese, in-group solidarity and ethnic identity can be strengthened. Therefore, they take for granted that Vietnamese Chinese ought to use and preserve their ethnic language. However, there are some Vietnamese Chinese who identify themselves as Vietnamese Chinese but do not speak Cantonese. These people are called “Mất Gốc” by other members of the ethnic group.In contemporary Vietnam, the social conditions that favorable for using Cantonese and the channels to teach and learn have gradually disappeared. Therefore, to maintain and preserve Cantonese in the Vietnamese Chinese community is far more difficult than before. By summing up interviewees’ thoughts and experiences, performing language transmission at home and sending children to Chinese language centers for formal Chinese education are the most efficient ways to ensure that the future generations will still be capable of using Cantonese and avoid ethnic language attrition. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 前言 1第二節 研究動機及問題 2第三節 研究目的與貢獻 3第四節 概念性定義 5第二章 文獻回顧 7第一節 語言傳承與保存 7第二節 語言的意義與移民 8第三節 越南華人的歷史與近況 11第四節 越南華人的認同及語言 17第五節 小結 20第三章 研究設計與方法 22第一節 研究設計 22第二節 田野場域 22第三節 研究方法 23第四節 研究倫理 27第五節 受訪者的基本概況 28第四章 廣東話在越南的歷史性發展 29第一節 「唐話」的定義 29第二節 廣東話普遍性的歷史因素 30第三節 小結 36第五章 廣東話在越南的狀況與困境 37第一節 使用廣東話的地區及場域 37第二節 廣東話使用的狀況及保存的困難 38第三節 華文教育政策與廣東話學習 48第四節 影響未來廣東話在當地保存的其他因素 51第五節 小結 55第六章 廣東話與越南華人的身份認同 56第一節 越南華人的族群身份認同 56第二節 族群身份認同與廣東話保存 66第三節 族群語言的傳承方法 70第四節 小結 72第七章 結論 73第一節 廣東話是越南華人的族群語言 73第二節 廣東話使用有明顯的區域性分佈及年齡層差異 74第三節 影響越南華人的廣東話傳承及保存的因素 75第四節 越南華人的身份認同 79第五節 越南華人的族群身份認同與廣東話保存 81第六節 未來進行語言保存的方法 83第七節 家庭的影響力 83第八節 研究限制 84第九節 研究反思 85附錄一 問卷 86附錄二 受訪同意書（中文版本） 91附錄三 受訪同意書（英文版本） 92附錄四 訪談大綱 93附錄五 訪談大綱（英文版） 95參考文獻 97 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3029549 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105254020 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 越南華人 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 廣東話 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 粵語 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言保存 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言傳承 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 族群 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 身份認同 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Hoa People en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Vietnamese Chinese en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cantonese en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Ethnic language en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Language preveration en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Identity en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Minority en_US dc.title (題名) 當代越南華人的廣東話保存與族群認同 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Cantonese Preservation and the Ethnic Identity of Contemporary Hoa people in Vietnam en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻王宏仁，2004，〈他者論述, 管理實務與在地抵抗: 以越南台商工廠為例〉。《東南亞學刊》 1(2): 37-64。——，2019，《全球生產壓力鏈：越南台商、工人與國家》。 臺北市：臺大出版中心。古學斌、陳錦華、Sandhu, K. K，2005，〈「種族和諧」的面紗背後〉。頁3-36。收入夏曉鵑、陳信行、黃德北編，《跨界流離：全球化下的移民與移工》。臺北市，臺灣：臺灣社會研究雜誌社。史書美，2017，《反離散：華語語系研究論》。臺北：聯經。呂士朋，1958，《越南華僑史話》。臺北，臺灣：海外文庫出版社。吳英成，2010，〈新加坡雙語教育政策的沿革與新機遇〉。《臺灣語文研究》5(2): 63-80。吳靜宜，2010，《越南華人遷移史與客家話的使用—以胡志明市為例》。桃園：國立中央大學客家研究所碩士論文。李白茵，1990，《越南華僑與華人》。廣西：廣西師範大學。李勇，2012，〈語言·歷史·邊界：東南亞華人族群關係的變遷〉。頁122-159。收入丘進編，《華僑華人藍皮書：華僑華人研究報告2012》。中國：社會科學文獻出版社。何潔儀，2014，《越南胡志明市華人華文教學發展與現狀》。廣西：廣西大學漢語國際教育碩士論文。阮氏賢，2016，《胡志明市的華人語言使用情況調查分析》。廣西：廣西大學漢語國際教育碩士論文。林志忠，2012，〈中南半島華人華文教育發展之比較（1989－2011）〉。《中原華語文學報》(9): 71-98。——，2013，《越南教育探究與省思》。 臺南：復文圖書。吳鈞，1998，《越南歷史》。 臺北市：自由僑聲雜誌社。柯瓊芳、 張翰璧，2007，〈越南, 印尼與臺灣社會價值觀的比較研究〉。《臺灣東南亞學刊》 4(1): 91-111。洪振生、湯佩雯，2017，〈【越配人球】被騙嫁來台13年 外配最放不下的是她們〉。鏡週刊， 5月13日。https://www.mirrormedia.mg/story/20170512soc011/，取用日期︰2020年5月27日。陳大哲，1989 ，《越南華僑概況》。 臺北市：正中書局。陳鴻瑜，2007，《越南近現代史》。臺北市：國立編譯館。——，2019，《越南史：史記概要》。臺北市：臺灣商務印書館。陳鴻偉、林郁平，2018，〈阿公店裡 5國撈女笑看浮沉〉。自由時報， 7月22日。https://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20180722000431-260106?chdtv，取用日期︰2020年5月27日。陳氏芳蓮，2011，《制度變動下的族群經濟：以越南胡志明市華人為例》。高雄：國立中山大學社會學研究所碩士論文。莊國土，2002，〈略論東南亞華族的族群認同及其發展趨勢〉。《廈門大學學報哲學社會科學版》(3): 63-71。莊國土、劉文正，2009，《東亞華人社會的形成和發展：華商網絡移民與一體化趨勢》。中國廈門：廈門大學出版社。張世豪，2008，〈越南胡志明市華人文化、華文教育變遷概況〉。論文發表於「海外華人之文化變遷與文物維護國際學術研討會」，台北，臺灣：中華民國僑務委員會、海華文教基金會、中央研究院 人文社會科學研究中心、中華民國海外華人研究學會，2008年12月13日。許文堂，2014，〈越南華人公民地位的變遷〉。頁147-172，收入陳鴻瑜編，《海外華人之公民地位與人權》。臺北市：華僑協會總會。——，2016，〈二次世界大戰以來北越華人社會之變貌〉。《亞太研究論壇》62: 5-32。華僑志編纂委員會，1958，《越南華僑志》。臺北市：華僑志編纂委員會。黃宣範，1995，《語言、社會與族群意識: 臺灣語言社會學的硏究》。臺北市：文鶴出版有限公司。黄滋生、温北炎，1999，《戰國後東南亞華人的經濟》。廣州：廣東人民出版社。黃宗鼎，2006，《第二次世界大戰後越南之華人政策（1945-2003）》。臺北：國立政治大學發展研究所碩士論文。黃志媛，2016，《革新開放后越南胡志明市華文學校教學現狀的調查》。廣西：廣西民族大學漢語國際教育碩士論文。僑務委員會，2019，中華民國 107 年僑務統計年報。https://www.ocac.gov.tw/OCAC/Pages/ashx/File.ashx?FilePath=~/File/Attach/313/File_167771.pdf，取用日期︰2020年1月14日。廖福特，2014，〈悠然居留或落地生根：從國際人權法討論海外華人之地位與人權〉。頁15-42，收入陳鴻瑜編，《海外華人之公民地位與人權》。臺北市：華僑協會總會。黎玉容，2010，《越南華人華文教育現狀考察--以胡志明市為例》。湖北：華中師範大學碩士論文。蔣為文，2013，〈越南的明鄉人與華人移民的族群認同與本土化差異〉。《臺灣國際研究季刊》9(4): 1-26。—— ，2015，〈越南會安古城當代明鄉人、華人及越南人之互動關係與文化接觸〉。《亞太研究論壇》61(4): 131-155。鄧思穎 ，2015，《粵語語法講義》。香港：商務印書館(香港)有限公司。劉為安，2016，《堤岸今昔》。胡志明市：文化—文藝出版社。鄭鴻達，2016，〈考證照創業》越配徐蕙珮 反身助姊妹〉自由時報， 1月27日。https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/local/paper/953103，取用日期︰2020年5月27日。劉金華等主編 ，2017，《西貢 — 堤岸華人同胞積極參加1968年戊申年春節總進攻與起義戰鬥》。胡志明市，越南：胡志明市文化文義出版社。蕭新煌等，2005，〈東南亞的客家會館：歷史與功能的探討〉。《亞太研究論壇》28(3): 185-219。藍韶昱、陳曦，2010，〈越南華人認同論〉。《廣西社會主義學院學報》21(3): 48-51。Nguyễn Thanh Nhan，2018，《越南華裔新生代文化認同研究》。中國，廣州：華南理工大學傳播學（漢語國際教育與傳播）碩士論文。英文文獻Alba, Richard et al. 2002. “Only English by the third generation? Loss and preservation of the mother tongue among the grandchildren of contemporary immigrants.” Demography 39(3): 467-484.Biernacki, P., and Waldorf, D. 1981. “Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling.” Sociological Methods & Research 10(2), 141-163.Bloch, Alice and Shirin Hirsch. 2016. “Second generation” refugees and multilingualism: identity, race and language transmission.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 40(14), 2444-2462.Chan, Y. W. 2013. “Hybrid diaspora and identity-laundering: a study of the return overseas Chinese Vietnamese in Vietnam.” Asian Ethnicity 14(4), 525-541.¬¬——. 2018. “‘Vietnam is my country land, China is my hometown’: Chinese communities in transition in the south of Vietnam.” Asian Ethnicity 19(2), 163-179.Central Population and Housing Census Steering Committee. 2010. “The 2009 Vietnam Population and Housing Census: Complete result.” Hanoi: Statistical publishing house. http://portal.thongke.gov.vn/khodulieudanso2009/Tailieu/AnPham/KetQuaToanBo/3_Ketqua-toanbo.pdf (Date retrieved: June 10, 2018).Corfield, J. 2014. Historical Dictionary of Ho Chi Minh City. London: Anthem Press.Coughlin, Richard J. 1960. Double Identity: The Chinese in Modern Thailand. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Dolinski, Michael. 2004. “Identity Changes of the Chinese Community in Vietnam: A Survey of 20 Families in Cholon.” Asia Pacific 26, 192-208.Edwards, John R. 1985. Language, society and identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Engelbert, J. T. 2000. “The Chinese in Vietnam (Hoa). Data Sources and Historical Overview.” Pp365-409 in Quantitative Economic History of Vietnam 1900-1990. An International Workshop, edited by Bassino, J. P et al. Tokyo: Institute of Economic Research, Hitosubashi University.Fillmore, Lily. 2000. “Loss of Family Languages: Should Educators Be Concerned?” Theory Into Practice - THEORY PRACT 39, 203-210.Fishman, J. 1972. “Domain and the relationship between micro- and macrosocioliguistics.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics, edited by J. J. Gumperz and D. H. Hymes, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.——. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon, England: Mutilingual Matters.Greenberg, Joseph H. 1965. “Urbanism, migration, and language.” Urbanization and migration in West Africa, 50-59.Gupta, A. F. and Siew, P. Y. 1995. “Language Shift in a SingaporeFamily.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16(4),301-314.Kawulich, B. B. 2005. “Participant Observation as a Data Collection Method.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(2).Khemlani-David, Maya. 1998. “Language shift, cultural maintenance, and ethnic identity; a study of a minority community: the Sindhis of Malaysia.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 130(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1998.130.67King, V. T. 2008. The Sociology of Southeast Asia: Transformations in a Developing Region. Copenhagen, Denmark: NIAS press.Kravin, Hanne. 1992. “Erosion of a language in bilingual development.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13(4): 307-325.Kuhn, Philip A. 2009. Chinese Among Others: Emigration in Modern Times. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield.Lii, D. T. 1998. “A colonized empire: Reflections on the expansion of Hong Kong films in Asian countries” Pp. 107-126 in Trajectories: Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, edited by C. K. Hsing, London: Routledge.Marsot, A. G. 1993. The Chinese Community in Vietnam Under the French. San Francisco, USA: EmText.Morita, Liang. 2007. “Discussing assimilation and language shift among the Chinese in Thailand.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2007: 43-58.Murray, Douglas P. 1964. “Chinese Education in South-East Asia.” The China Quarterly 20: 67-95.Nesteruk, Olena. 2010. “Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in the USA.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31(3), 271-286.Nguyen, Van Chinh. 2013. “Recent Chinese Migration to Vietnam.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 22(1), 7–30.——. 2017. “The Rise and Revitalization of Ethnic Chinese Business in Vietnam.” Pp. 257-276 in Chinese Capitalism in Southeast Asia, edited by Yos Santasombat. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.Pak, Helen R. 2003. “When MT is L2: The Korean church school as a context for cultural identity.” Pp. 269-290 in Continua of biliteracy: An ecological framework for education policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings, edited by Nancy Hornberger. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Park, Seong Man and Mela Sarkar. 2007. “Parents’ Attitudes Toward Heritage Language Maintenance for Their Children and Their Efforts to Help Their Children Maintain the Heritage Language: A Case Study of Korean-Canadian Immigrants.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 20(3), 223-235.Phinney, Jean S et al. 2001. “The Role of Language, Parents, and Peers in Ethnic Identity Among Adolescents in Immigrant Families.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30(2): 135-153.Pilar , Macrohon. 2013. “Senate declares Chinese New Year as special working holiday”. http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2013/0121_prib1.asp (Date visited: Jan 14, 2020)Portes, A. and Rumbaut R. G. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.——. 2014. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Rex, J. 1980. “The Theory of Race Relations - A Weberian Approach.” Pp. 14-39 in The Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M. Cross. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Richmond, Anthony H. 1988. Immigration and Ethnic Conflict. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Rigg, J. 2003. “Exclusion and embeddedness: the Chinese in Thailand and Vietnam.” Pp. 97-116 in The Chinese Diaspora: Space, place, mobility, and identity, edited by Laurence J. C. Ma and Carolyn L. Cartier. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.Skeldon, Ronald. 2003. “The Chinese diaspora or the migration of Chinese peoples?” Pp.51-66 in The Chinese Diaspora: Space, Mobility, and Identity, edited by by Laurence J. C. Ma and Carolyn L. Cartier. USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publisher, Inc.Skinner, G. W. 1957. “Chinese Assimilation and Thai Politics.” The Journal of Asian Studies 16(2): 237-250.——. 1959. “Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 321: 136-147.Spolsky, Bernard. 1986. “Teaching Hebrew in the diaspora: Rationales and goals.” Jewish Education 54(3): 11-20.Stern, L. M. 1985. “The Overseas Chinese in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 1979-82.” Asian Survey 25(5): 521-536.Suryadinata, L. 2013. “Southeast Asian policies toward the ethnic Chinese.” Pp. 274-289 in Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora, edited by Chee-Beng Tan. London, New York: Routledge.Taylor, C. 1995. Philosophical arguments. USA: Harvard University Press.Tannenbaum, Michal and Pauline Howie. 2002. “The association between language maintenance and family relations: Chinese immigrant children in Australia.” Journal of multilingual and multicultural development 23(5): 408-424.Ton, V. T. 2015. “Chinese identity negotiation by Chinese Vietnamese women in Cho Lon Community, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam through the use of Chinese at home.” Journal of Mekong Societies 11(1): 55-87.Trần, Khanh. 1993. The Ethnic Chinese and Economic Development in Vietnam. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Indochina Unit.——. 1997. “Ethnic Chinese in Vietnam and Their Identity.” Pp. 267-292 in Ethnic Chinese as Southeast Asian, edited by Leo Suryadinata. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asia Studies.Ungar, E. S. 1987. “The Struggle Over the Chinese Community in Vietnam, 1946-1986.” Pacific Affairs 60(4): 596-614.Unger, L. 1944. “The Chinese in Southeast Asia.” Geographical Review 34(2): 196-217.Veltman, C.J. 1983. Language Shift in the United States. Berlin: Mouton.Wang, Gungwu and Chin-Keong Ng. 2004. “Maritime China in Transition 1750-1850.” Pp.3-16 in South China and maritime Asia, edited by Wang, Gungwu and Chin-Keong Ng. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.Wee, Lionel. 2003. “Linguistic Instrumentalism in Singapore.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24(3): 211-224.Whitmore, John K. 1997. “Chinese from Southeast Asia.” Pp.223-243 in Case Studies in Diversity: Refugees in America in the 1990s, edited by D. W. Haines. United State of America: Praeger.Yılmaz, Gülsen. 2013. Bilingual Language Development among the First Generation Turkish Immigrants in the Netherlands, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen, Denmark. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202000568 en_US
