Assessing Language Vitality and Sustainability of Minor Chinese Dialects: A Case Study of Dapeng, a Hakka–Cantonese Mixed Dialect

Abstract

The Dapeng dialect is a unique Hakka–Cantonese mixed dialect spoken by several thousand speakers in the Dapeng peninsula in Shenzhen, Guangdong, and Manhattan, New York. This study reviews language vitality assessment frameworks for their applicability to Chinese languages and assesses the sustainability of the Dapeng dialect using the UNESCO Language Vitality and Endangerment scale. Despite some factors indicating low vitality, an overall assessment suggests a sustainable and vigorous use of the local dialect in the Dapeng community. This study shows that not all minor dialects in China are severely endangered. It sheds light on the complexities of language sustainability and vitality in multilingual societies, emphasizing the importance of using appropriate evaluative frameworks for an accurate view of language vitality in specific sociolinguistic ecologies. This study also contributes to discussions about language maintenance and policy in China, particularly under the tension between Putonghua and local dialects in the context of language sustainability.

1. Introduction

China has a complex linguistic landscape, characterized by a rich variety of languages and dialects. While Standard Mandarin Chinese (Putonghua) is the official language and extensively used in education, media, and government, many other languages and dialects are spoken by different ethnic groups and communities in other domains of language use. It has been reported in recent decades that many Chinese dialects are losing their vitality [1,2,3,4,5].

Minor Chinese dialects spoken in smaller communities experience a more severe vitality loss. Some examples include Chuanhua (“the Fishermen’s Speech”) in Zhejiang Province [6], Junhua (“the Army’s Speech”) in the Southeastern provinces [7], Shaoguan Tuhua (“the vernacular speech of Shaoguan”) in Guangdong Province [8,9], the Yan dialect in Zhejiang Province [10], the Kongfu dialect in Fujian Province [11], and many dialects in the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region [12]. All of these dialects are reported to face vitality loss to varying degrees, with some being severely endangered. For instance, Cao predicted that Chuanhua may disappear in less than two decades due to the influence of major dialects [6]. Efforts have been made to acknowledge and raise awareness of the endangered status of minor dialects. However, Ingebretson has pointed out that warnings about imminent dialect loss may not necessarily help preserve dialects. Instead, such rhetoric may even contribute to the demise of the dialect by presenting its extinction as an inevitable outcome [13].

Huang proposed four indicators of vitality loss in Chinese dialects: (1) a decreasing population of dialect speakers, (2) an aging population of dialect speakers, (3) increasingly restricted domains of use, and (4) the simplification of linguistic structure [7]. Wu added to this list, including additional indicators such as the interrupted intergenerational transmission of the local dialect and negative language ideology [14]. Based on the literature, most of the minor Chinese dialects exhibit these symptoms.

Another common feature among minor Chinese dialects is that their native speakers are often bilingual or multilingual. In addition to their local dialect, they typically also speak more prestigious dialects such as Putonghua or the regional lingua franca. For instance, Shaoguan Tuhua speakers also speak Cantonese or Hakka, if not both [8,9]. The growing influence of prestigious and more powerful dialects is believed to be an external but crucial factor that accelerates the vitality loss among local dialects [6,14,15].

The Dapeng dialect shares many similarities with other minor Chinese dialects studied in the literature, both in terms of overall linguistic ecology and bilingual or multilingual speakers. Given the resemblance, one would expect that the Dapeng dialect is losing its vitality. This unique Hakka–Cantonese mixed dialect is spoken by approximately 3000 people in the Dapeng peninsula of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, as well as in the United States where Dapeng immigrants have settled since 1919 when the Tai Pun (alternative translation of Dapeng) Residents Association was established in New York City’s Manhattan Chinatown [16,17]. Today, the number of registered members of the Association is approximately 3000, some still using the Dapeng dialect as either their native or heritage language [18]. The Chinatown variation of Dapeng is still under documentation.

Chen found that the Dapeng dialect shares some linguistic features with both Cantonese and Hakka, particularly in all parts of the sound system: initials, finals, and tones [16]. Lau and Zhou confirmed this finding [19]. Overall, the Dapeng dialect’s lexicon and syntax are more similar to Cantonese, although it shows some syntactic structures that are more similar to Hakka, such as comparative constructions [20]. In terms of intergenerational variations, there are more variations in the Dapeng lexicon and syntax than in its sound system. Moreover, as age decreases, the direction of change tends to lean toward Cantonese (and sometimes toward Putonghua).

Chen also showed that Dapeng’s hybrid nature is likely the result of the constant contact between Hakka and Cantonese [16]. Hakka dialects are widely spoken in northern and eastern Guangdong, while Cantonese dialects are prevalent in western Guangdong as well as the central part of the province, including the Pearl River Delta. Shenzhen is located at the watershed that separates Hakka and Cantonese, where the two major Chinese dialect groups have been in close contact for centuries [21,22,23]. The constant contact with other dialects has also resulted in prevalent multilingualism in the local community of Dapeng. Most native speakers of the Dapeng dialect are fluent in Cantonese, the provincial lingua franca, and are also able to converse in Hakka to some extent. Many of them have also gained high proficiency in Putonghua through education and media.

Communication between Dapeng and the outside has historically been challenging due to both the geographic separation from the rest of Shenzhen and the hilly terrain on the Dapeng peninsula per se. Therefore, except for a few diaspora communities, such as Manhattan Chinatown, the Dapeng dialect is not spoken in any other place outside the peninsula.

This study presents an analysis of the vitality and sustainability of the Dapeng dialect within the broader context of the Chinese linguistic landscape, utilizing first-hand fieldwork data, historical records, and demographic information. The vitality loss of many minor dialects in China has been a prominent phenomenon. Given this situation, the research questions addressed in this study include:

• To what extent does the Dapeng dialect maintain vitality as a minor dialect spoken by a small community in Southern China?
• Is the Dapeng dialect endangered, similar to other Chinese local dialects spoken in small communities under the influence of major, more dominant Chinese dialects?
• What is the impact of linguistic and social factors, such as bilingualism, language policy, and attitude, on the maintenance and development of the Dapeng dialect?

In the unique sociolinguistic ecology of China, the use of appropriate evaluative frameworks is crucial to attaining a precise and comprehensive understanding of the vitality status of any given dialect. Thus, the subsequent section provides a review of the most influential frameworks proposed in the literature on language vitality assessment.

2. Methods: Language Vitality Assessment Frameworks

The development of frameworks to assess language vitality began in the early 1990s, with scholars proposing scales to classify languages based on their levels of vitality. These frameworks, such as those proposed by Schmidt [24], Krauss [25], and Wurm [26], primarily focused on the generational transmission of language, with limited attention given to other factors such as domains of language use and language policies. Moreover, these scales offered only four to five levels of vitality, with brief descriptions of symptoms on each level. A “profusion of terms”, as Florey [27] (p. 44) called it, including safe, healthy, weakening, endangered, moribund, dying, and extinct, were used to classify the levels of language vitality, but the nuances between them were not clearly specified.

However, the use of too few levels or categories when assessing language vitality could be problematic. For example, based on the 11th edition of Ethnologue, which was published in 1988, Krauss [25] evaluated the vitality of approximately 6000 languages and divided them into four categories: safe, endangered, moribund, and extinct or dead. He predicted that only 10% of these languages could be called “safe,” and he further stated that “I consider it a plausible calculation that—at the rate things are going—the coming century will see either the death or the doom of 90% of mankind’s languages” [25] (p. 7). However, Simons and Lewis [28] (pp. 8, 17) criticized Krauss’s analyses as “necessarily sketchy and impressionistic” and “overly pessimistic” due to the inadequate sources available at his time. They suggested that from the perspective of the 21st century, language loss to the degree Krauss estimated will most likely not happen in regions other than North America and Australia, where Krauss was most familiar.

Due to these limitations, the earlier scales mentioned above are not further discussed in this study. Instead, this section focuses on three more comprehensive and mature frameworks, namely, Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scales (GIDS) [29], UNESCO’s framework of Language Vitality and Endangerment (UNESCO-LVE) [30], and Lewis and Simons’ Expanded GIDS [31].

2.1. Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scales (GIDS)

Fishman’s Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scales (GIDS) [29] were designed to assess the status of intergenerational transmission of a given language and consist of an 8-level scale. Safer languages are denoted by smaller numbers in his scheme. Levels 1~6 languages are regarded as safer overall, while the remaining 2 levels with bigger numbers, Levels 7 and 8, are considered more endangered. As the level increases, a language has less function and more restriction in its domains of use. As indicated in

Table 1. Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scales (GIDS).

Level		Description
Safe	1	The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government at the nationwide level.
	2	The language is used for local and regional mass media and governmental services.
↑	3	The language is used for local and regional work by both insiders and outsiders.
	4	Literacy in the language is transmitted through education.
↓	5	The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written form throughout the community.
	6	The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language.
Threatened	7	The child-bearing generation knows the language well enough to use it with their elders but is not transmitting it to their children.
	8	The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.

Adapted with permission from Lewis and Simons [31] (p. 105). 2010, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique.

, the GIDS provides a clear statement of the features of the speech community at each level in terms of how languages are transmitted and used in particular domains.

The primary purpose of introducing the GIDS model is to assess the degree of language shift versus language maintenance in a given community. This assessment is indexed by the intergenerational transmission situation in the society, which can be either continuous or disrupted. As such, the GIDS model provides a means of classifying a language on a continuum of intergenerational transmission, ranging from Level 1, where the language is fully used by most speakers, to Level 8, where it is used by few speakers. Furthermore, the GIDS model offers a tangible way to revitalize a language, regardless of its current level, by increasing its domain of use to meet the characteristics of the next, safer level. If a language is placed at Level X, language activists can work toward pushing its use toward Level (X − 1) to achieve the desired level of function and domain of use. This process, as Fishman’s book title suggests, is known as “reversing language shift”, which is the context and purpose of the GIDS model. Reversing language shift is also the ultimate goal of language revitalization.

Lewis and Simons identified several limitations of the GIDS model [31]. These limitations range from static terminology and incomplete descriptions of all possible levels to the underestimation of institutions’ role in language transmission and the lack of detailed categories at the lowest, unsafe level. Lewis also commented on the GIDS model’s failure to provide a comprehensive set of factors, apart from the descriptions for each level, to assess language vitality [32].

Nevertheless, the GIDS model remains a detailed and coherent framework that classifies language vitality levels among many other early assessment frameworks that emerged in the 1990s. These early classification schemes were generally rudimentary and sketchy, except for Fishman’s GIDS, which explains why the GIDS model is still the groundbreaking and most cited classification model for assessing the various stages of language vitality [31,33]. Moreover, the GIDS model has inspired subsequent research on language vitality assessment and revitalization, many of which have been conducted as revisions and improvements to the GIDS model [30,31,34,35,36,37].

2.2. UNESCO Language Vitality and Endangerment (LVE) Scale

The Language Vitality and Endangerment (LVE) scale was developed by the UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered Languages for the UNESCO Experts Meeting on Safeguarding Endangered Languages [30]. The framework consists of six factors that assess the vitality of a language, two factors that evaluate language attitudes and policies, and one factor that measures the urgency for documentation. Each factor aims to assess a separate aspect of a speech community using a 6-point scale, where the value of “5” represents the most favorable situation, while “0” represents the least favorable. The nine factors, which work together to determine the overall vitality of a language, are listed in

Table 2. UNESCO-LVE and Its Nine Factors.

Factor 1	Intergenerational Language Transmission (0–5)
Factor 2	Absolute Number of Speakers
Factor 3	Proportion of Speakers within the Total Population (0–5)
Factor 4	Trends in Existing Language Domains (0–5)
Factor 5	Response to New Domains and Media (0–5)
Factor 6	Materials for Language Education and Literacy (0–5)
Factor 7	Governmental and Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies, including Official Status and Use (0–5)
Factor 8	Community Members’ Attitudes toward Their Own Language (0–5)
Factor 9	Amount and Quality of Documentation (0–5)

.

The UNESCO-LVE framework, like many other frameworks, places significant emphasis on the factor of intergenerational transmission. It establishes a continuum of language vitality ranging from “Safe” to “Extinct”, with four levels of vitality status in between: “Unsafe”, “Definitely endangered”, “Severely endangered”, and “Critically endangered”. However, as noted by Lewis and Simons, the UNESCO-LVE framework has a different focus on intergenerational transmission compared to Fishman’s GIDS [31]. The GIDS is more detailed on the “safe” end and less so on the “threatened” end, with six levels for the former and only two for the latter; in contrast, the UNESCO-LVE framework puts more emphasis on the “threatened” end, as it identifies five levels at the “threatened” end but contains only one level for the status of “safe”.

In addition to intergenerational transmission, the UNESCO-LVE framework also highlights the importance of considering the other eight factors. The framework recognizes the complexity and diversity of languages and their speakers and emphasizes the need to assess each speech community’s specific situation by considering all factors collectively. As the UNESCO official guide states [30] (pp. 7, 17), with italic and bold in original:

“No single factor alone can be used to assess a language’s vitality or its need for documentation.”

“The vitality of languages varies widely depending on the different situations of speech communities. The needs for documentation also differ under varying conditions. Languages cannot be assessed simply by adding the numbers; we therefore suggest such simple addition not be done. Instead, the language vitality factors given above may be examined according to the purpose of the assessment.

“The Factor descriptions … are offered as guidelines. Each user should adapt these guidelines to the local context and to the specific purpose sought.”

The UNESCO-LVE framework is regarded as a comprehensive model for assessing language vitality. Its main strength lies in its emphasis on the consideration of all nine factors together, instead of focusing only on intergenerational transmission, even though this factor is a central index of language vitality. The UNESCO-LVE framework recognizes that intergenerational transmission is closely related to other factors. While intergenerational transmission indicates where a given language is in the vitality continuum, the other factors help explain both why it is there and how it functions at that level of vitality.

Compared with Fishman’s GIDS, the UNESCO-LVE framework covers more aspects that contribute to language vitality maintenance or loss than its forerunner. For each factor, the UNESCO-LVE framework provides a detailed description of each of the six scales, which allows evaluators to apply the framework to a wide range of languages. This comprehensive official guide also clarifies the terminology used in factor and scale names. As a result, this framework has been applied globally since its publication in 2003.

For instance, Lewis assessed the vitality statuses of 100 languages from around the world based on the UNESCO-LVE framework, concluding that it is “an admirable effort to bring together the ‘state of the art’ in terms of language endangerment and represents a reasonable and feasible approach to the issues with suggestions regarding appropriate responses” which “provides not only a clear framework for assessment but also delineates a very useful research agenda for investigators of the world’s languages that is based on a sound theoretical orientation to language maintenance and shift” [38] (p. 28). In a more recent study, De Cia also referred to this framework to assess the vitality of Friulian, one of the spoken vernaculars in Italy, and found that despite the official status and institutional support, Friulian is shifting to Italian due to the scarcity of young native speakers and increasingly limited usage of the language [39].

The UNESCO-LVE framework also has some flaws of oversimplification. As Obiero pointed out, most of the nine factors are somewhat problematic and require revision [33]. For example, the exact meaning of “speakers” in Factor 3 is ambiguous as it does not specify whether they are L1 or L2 speakers, and Factor 8 is difficult to evaluate since language attitudes are rarely held uniformly throughout an entire population. Despite these inadequacies, Obiero still acknowledged that most of these factors raise and respond to fundamental questions about language vitality.

2.3. Expanded GIDS

The GIDS and UNESCO-LVE frameworks have distinct focuses. While the former is detailed in distinguishing levels on the “safe” end, the latter focuses on the “threatened” end. To create a more comprehensive, balanced framework, Lewis and Simons combined GIDS and UNESCO-LVE to form the “Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scales”, or Expanded GIDS, which aligns both frameworks and expands upon the former [31]. Based on the 16th edition of the Ethnologue, which was published in 2009 [35], Lewis and Simons categorized the global languages using the 13-level Expanded GIDS framework. The Expanded GIDS presents a comprehensive range of language vitality across the world with generational transmission remaining the central criterion for classification. The upper levels (Levels 0 through 6a) classify languages with uninterrupted generational transmission based on different situations of language use and institutional support, while the lower levels (from Level 6b to Level 10) classify languages that are not fully transmitted from one generation to another. According to Canvin and Tucker, languages falling within the Expanded GIDS levels 6b–8b are considered endangered [40].

Table 3. Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale.

Level	Label	Description	UNESCO
0	International	The language is widely used between nations in trade, knowledge exchange, and international policy.	Safe
1	National	The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government at the nationwide level.	Safe
2	Provincial	The language is used in education, work, mass media, and government within official administrative subdivisions of a nation.	Safe
3	Wider Communication	The language is widely used in work and mass media without official status to transcend language differences across a region.	Safe
4	Educational	The language is in vigorous oral use and this is reinforced by sustainable transmission of literacy in the language in formal education.	Safe
5	Developing	The language is vigorous and is being used in written form in parts of the community though literacy is not yet sustainable.	Safe
6a	Vigorous	The language is used orally by all generations and the situation is sustainable.	Safe
6b	Threatened	The language is still used orally within all generations but there is a significant threat to sustainability because at least one of the conditions for sustainable oral use is lacking.	Vulnerable
7	Shifting	The child-bearing generation can use the language among themselves but they do not normally transmit it to their children.	Definitely Endangered
8a	Moribund	The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.	Severely Endangered
8b	Nearly Extinct	The only remaining speakers of the language are elderly and have little opportunity to use the language.	Critically Endangered
9	Dormant	There are no fully proficient speakers, but some symbolic use remains as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community.	Extinct
10	Extinct	No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated with the language, even for symbolic purposes.	Extinct

Adapted with permission from Lewis and Simons [31] (p. 110). 2010, Revue Roumaine de Linguistique.

shows the full scale.

With more levels available and clearly named, the Expanded GIDS provides a comprehensive and accurate framework for assessing the vitality status of languages worldwide. It presents a more precise and unambiguous method for coding language vitality status, allowing for better capture of language vitality status. Applying this framework, Eberhard et al. found that 42–43% of all human languages worldwide, 3045 out of 7168, are at or above Level 6a, the critical level of “safely maintaining in everyday oral use in their communities”, while approximately 50% are at or below Level 6b, the safety line, and, thus, are at various levels of vitality loss [41]. The remaining approximately 7% are classified as “institutional languages”, which are employed by organizations, institutions, and governments for official functions such as education, law, administration, and communication. These languages are typically standardized and hold official status in a specific country or region, such as English in the United States and Mandarin in China.

Overall, the Expanded GIDS is a comprehensive framework that enables scholars to assess the vitality status of languages with various profiles, both on the safe and threatened ends of the vitality continuum. Simons and Lewis saw the Expanded GIDS as a tool that is “feasible to use on a global scale and that provides a better level of granularity and precision than other options that have been developed to date” [28] (pp. 8–9). This framework was also applied in a few recent studies of Chinese dialect vitality assessment outside of China, such as Hokkien and Hakka in Malaysia [42,43].

2.4. Applicability of Expanded GIDS and UNESCO-LVE to Chinese Languages

The application of the Expanded GIDS framework to dialects used in China presents two significant challenges. The first challenge is the definitions of Levels 4 and 5 of the spectrum, as outlined by Lewis and Simons [31]. Level 4, labeled as “Educational”, denotes languages that are “in vigorous use, with standardization and literature being sustained through a widespread system of institutionally supported education”, while Level 5, labeled as “Developing”, refers to languages “in vigorous use, with literature in a standardized form being used by some though this is not yet widespread or sustainable” (italics added). According to the Expanded GIDS criteria, languages that do not meet these standards should not be classified as at or higher than Level 4 or 5. Consequently, in mainland China, no dialects other than Putonghua can be classified as at or higher than these two levels due to the general absence of both “institutionally supported education” and “literature in a standardized form being used”.

The Ethnologue editors also recognized the challenges of applying the framework to Chinese languages as they labeled the vitality status for each dialect based on the Expanded GIDS framework. For instance, the vitality status of “Yue Cantonese” is labeled as Level 2 (Provincial), with additional comments stating that it is a “de facto provincial language in Guangdong Province”. Similarly, Hakka is labeled as Level 5 (Developing). However, according to the descriptions of each level, these two Chinese dialects should not be placed at a level higher than 6a due to the lack of institutional support and literature/orthographies. Such inconsistency in level assignment suggests that the Expanded GIDS framework may not be the most applicable model for the non-Mandarin Chinese dialects, given the institutional support and literature/orthographies issues in the mainland Chinese context.

In comparison, the UNESCO experts do not explicitly pinpoint the vitality status of each language. The UNESCO-LVE framework aims to provide a comprehensive description of factors addressing various aspects of language use, rather than to offer a conclusion of specific vitality status. The interpretation of vitality status must be made based on all factors collectively, and the local context and research purpose need to be considered as well while assessing language vitality.

Additionally, the nine factors in the UNESCO-LVE framework are guidelines, not rules. Even the pivotal factor “generational transmission,” which may alone decide the vitality status in other assessment frameworks, is only one of many factors and is unable to define the vitality status in the UNESCO-LVE framework. Therefore, the UNESCO-LVE framework is by definition more conservative, less risky, and, thus, more explanatory in complicated situations, such as those in the context of Chinese languages.

The UNESCO-LVE framework allows for cross-linguistic comparison and has been applied in various language contexts. For example, the official guide of the framework compares three Venezuelan indigenous languages side-by-side based on the UNESCO-LVE framework, as shown in

Table 4. The vitality of three Venezuelan Indigenous Languages.

Factors	Languages
	Mapoyo	Kari’ña	Sanima
1. Intergenerational Language Transmission	0	2	5
2. Absolute Number of Speakers	(7)	650	2500
3. Proportion of Speakers within the Total Population	1	2	5
4. Trends in Existing Language Domains	0	2	5
5. Response to New Domains and Media	0	1	---
6. Materials for Language Education and Literacy	1	3	0
7. Governmental & Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies including Official Status and Use	5	5	5
8. Community Members’ Attitudes toward Their Own Language	2	3	5
9. Amount and Quality of Documentation	1	3	1

Adapted with permission from the UNESCO Experts Meeting on Safeguarding Endangered Languages [30] (p. 23). 2003, UNESCO.

[30].

This form of comparison suggests that the accumulation of fieldwork data, if evaluated by the same model, will make it possible to compare a number of languages in juxtaposition. In the context of Chinese languages, moreover, the UNESCO-LVE framework has another advantage. Some of the factors, especially those related to school education and orthography, may have a similar influence on non-Mandarin dialects, as those dialects rarely receive institutional support or have an orthographic system.

For example, a small local dialect may be assigned a score of 0 (“no orthography available to the community”) on Factor 6. Although this score reflects low vitality and is undesirable, it is common across most Chinese dialects and therefore constitutes a shared and redundant value that need not be a source of concern for cross-dialectal comparison. In such cases, evaluators may concentrate on other factors while comparing these dialects. Given that the UNESCO-LVE framework has not been widely used in vitality studies of dialects in Mainland China, this study represents an early attempt to utilize this framework in the Chinese context.

2.5. Assessment Data Collection

This study utilized first-hand fieldwork data, historical records, and demographic information. The fieldwork in Dapeng involved interacting with dozens of local Dapeng residents. Over a two-month period, a total of 20 native speakers of Dapeng, comprising 12 males and 8 females, participated in a variety of reading and speaking tasks. The participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 84, with at least 3 individuals recruited for each 10-year age group except the 80–90 age group.

The reading tasks elicited the pronunciation of commonly used Chinese morphemes, which are represented by Chinese characters and categorized according to sound categories in Middle Chinese. Roughly 2700 morphemes were recorded. Reading tasks also recorded the readings of a segment of the renowned ancient Chinese text, Three Character Classic (sānzì jīng, written in the 13th century), and a portion of the well-known modern Chinese essay, Tribute to the White Poplar (báiyáng lǐzàn, written by Mao Dun in 1941). These tasks facilitated the identification of phonological connections between the Dapeng dialect and Middle Chinese, based on the historical phonological categories at the literary layer, that is, in formal reading.

The speaking tasks included eliciting storytelling as the participants read or narrated from three materials: a picture book (Frog, Where Are You?) [44], a short silent film (The Pear Film) [45], and a famous Aesop’s fable (The North Wind and the Sun). Additionally, spontaneous narrations on various topics, such as Spring Festival celebrations, TV programs, Dapeng history, among others, were recorded, along with local people’s casual conversations among themselves.

A series of formal and informal interviews were also conducted with all participants. During the interview sessions, they were queried on their biographical and linguistic backgrounds, language use in diverse social contexts, as well as language attitudes toward the Dapeng dialect in relation to Putonghua, Cantonese, and Hakka, the three more prevalent Chinese dialects they would encounter in daily life.

3. Results: Assessing Language Vitality of the Dapeng Dialect under the UNESCO-LVE Framework

The vitality of the Dapeng dialect will be assessed using the UNESCO-LVE framework in this section. The assessment will follow the nine factors specified in the framework. Each factor will be discussed in relation to the Dapeng dialect and community, and a 6-degree scale ranging from 0 to 5 will be utilized. A score of “5” will denote the most positive situation, while “0” will represent the least favorable situation. The original UNESCO official guide includes a brief description of all six degrees of the scale for each factor [30]. The category to which Dapeng belongs will be highlighted in bold. Once all nine grades have been determined, they will be compiled and summarized in an evaluation report. Section 3.1 will examine the six key factors that pertain to language use, while Section 3.2 will address the two factors that evaluate language attitudes and policies, as well as the final factor that assesses the urgency for documentation.

3.1. Major Factors of Language Use

3.1.1. Intergenerational Language Transmission

The most crucial factor for language vitality is “Intergenerational Language Transmission”, which measures the effectiveness of the transmission of a language from one generation to the next.

Table 5. Factor 1: Intergenerational Language Transmission.

Degree of Endangerment	Grade	Speaker Population
Safe	5	The language is used by all ages, from children up.
Unsafe	4	The language is used by some children in all domains; it is used by all children in limited domains.
Definitively endangered	3	The language is used mostly by the parental generation and up.
Severely endangered	2	The language is used mostly by the grandparental generation and up.
Critically endangered	1	The language is used mostly by very few speakers, of the great-grandparental generation.
Extinct	0	There exists no speaker.

displays the scale for this factor, with Dapeng’s category highlighted in bold.

In the case of the Dapeng dialect, the choice is either Level 5 or Level 4, as the dialect is being used by all ages in the community, including children. During a visit to a local informant’s home, the informant’s twins (about 4 or 5 years old) were heard speaking the Dapeng dialect to each other throughout the visit. Other informants confirmed that their children or grandchildren also spoke the Dapeng dialect, except in cases where one parent was not a local person, and the children spoke another dialect or Putonghua. The Dapeng dialect was consistently one of the primary choices.

According to observations and interviews with native speakers, the Dapeng dialect is used by all ages, from children up, which matches the description of Level 5. However, the Dapeng dialect cannot be assigned Level 5. This is because children’s use of the local dialect does not cover the full range of domains, especially not the domain of school education. Putonghua has been promoted as the official language for over half a century, and it is now used in the school setting in Dapeng, with the local dialect no longer being used.

The pervasiveness of Putonghua is also due to immigration. With several large factories in the area, the Dapeng K-12 system has enrolled a significant number of migrant workers’ children. The local children, regardless of how much Dapeng dialect they speak at home or in the local community, need to speak Putonghua with their peers in and after class. Therefore, the local dialect is not used by all children in all domains. Ultimately, the Dapeng dialect was assigned Level 4 (Unsafe) in terms of intergenerational language transmission.

The degree table includes an extra category called “Stable yet threatened” in its accompanying explanation. This category is rated as (5-) and is placed between the “Safe” and “Unsafe” categories in Table 5. The (5-) Level is described as follows: “The language is spoken in most contexts by all generations with unbroken intergenerational transmission, yet multilingualism in the native language and one or more dominant language(s) has usurped certain important communication contexts. Note that multilingualism alone is not necessarily a threat to languages”. This seems to be a more accurate representation of the situation in Dapeng. Nevertheless, to ensure consistency with the other factors in the 6-point scale, a Level 4 was ultimately assigned to the Dapeng dialect.

3.1.2. Absolute Number of Speakers

“Absolute Number of Speakers” is the only factor among the nine that does not employ a scale. This factor reflects the actual number of speakers in a community, and no detailed descriptions are provided with respect to the degrees of endangerment. An unpublished census document from 2013 reveals the presence of 630 permanent households comprising a total of 1828 residents in the local community in Dapeng. In addition, another group of people numbering 3775, registered as having Hong Kong, Macau, or sometimes some other citizenship, are also documented. The members of this group are not Chinese citizens and not counted as permanent residents; they are seasonal residents with a greater degree of mobility [16].

Therefore, ascertaining the exact number of individuals speaking the Dapeng dialect proves to be a difficult task, given that the dialect is spoken by both these groups. An estimate provided by a local government employee suggests that the population of Dapeng dialect speakers residing in Dapeng stands at around 3000.

According to the UNESCO official guide, a small population is more susceptible to change and thus more vulnerable than a larger one [30]. Therefore, despite the lack of scales for the Absolute Number of Speakers criterion, it can be inferred that the restricted number of individuals speaking the Dapeng dialect, on its own, cannot ensure the perpetuation of the local dialect in a stable and continuous manner in the long term. Nevertheless, other factors also merit consideration.

3.1.3. Proportion of Speakers within the Total Population

This factor considers the proportion of speakers who speak the target language in relation to the total population. The scale of this factor is shown in

Table 6. Factor 3: Proportion of Speakers within the Total Population.

Degree of Endangerment	Grade	Proportion of Speakers
Safe	5	All speak the language.
Unsafe	4	Nearly all speak the language.
Definitively endangered	3	A majority speak the language.
Severely endangered	2	A minority speak the language.
Critically endangered	1	Very few speak the language.
Extinct	0	None speak the language.

.

The definitions of Levels 4 and 3, “nearly all” versus “a majority”, may cause difficulty in distinguishing the two levels. In the case of Dapeng, the local dialect should fall into Level 4. As previously mentioned, the fieldwork in Dapeng entailed interacting with numerous Dapeng speakers from diverse age and gender groups. Among these groups of self-identified Dapengers, only one person claimed to not speak the local dialect well. This individual, a 23-year-old factory guard, was hesitant to become an informant when invited, stating, in Mandarin, that he “does not speak the local dialect well enough.” Although he could speak the Dapeng dialect, he believed that he was unfamiliar with the vernacular words and ultimately declined to participate in the audio recording sessions. However, even if this young man is considered a counterexample, there are still many others who speak the Dapeng dialect. During a two-month period, interactions with dozens of local people ranging in age from 22 to 84 resulted in only encountering one such case. Therefore, it seems reasonable to place the Dapeng dialect on Level 4 (Unsafe, “nearly all speak the language”).

3.1.4. Trends in Existing Language Domains

This factor reflects how the target language is used in discourse domains and what functions it has. The scale of this factor is shown in

Table 7. Factor 4: Trends in Existing Language Domains.

Degree of Endangerment	Grade	Domains and Functions
Universal use	5	The language is used in all domains and for all functions
Multilingual parity	4	Two or more languages may be used in most social domains and for most functions.
Dwindling domains	3	The language is used in home domains and for many functions, but the dominant language begins to penetrate even home domains.
Limited or formal domains	2	The language is used in limited social domains and for several functions
Highly limited domains	1	The language is used only in a very restricted domains and for a very few functions
Extinct	0	The language is not used in any domain and for any function.

.

Language domains refer to the social situations and contexts where a language is used. The Dapeng dialect appears to meet the criteria for Level 4 (Multilingual parity) on the language domains factor. The definition provided for Level 4 in Table 7, however, is not clear. To gain a better understanding of this level, it is necessary to refer to the UNESCO official guide, which offers a more informative explanation [30] (p. 9), quoted below with italic added for emphasis:

“One or more dominant languages, rather than the language of the ethnolinguistic group, is/are the primary language(s) in most official domains: government, public offices, and educational institutions. The language in question, however, may well continue to be integral to a number of public domains, especially in traditional religious institutions, local stores, and those places where members of the community socialize. The coexistence of the dominant and nondominant languages results in speakers’ using each language for a different function (diglossia), whereby the nondominant language is used in informal and home contexts and the dominant language is used in official and public contexts. Speakers may consider the dominant language to be the language of social and economic opportunity. However, older members of the community may continue to use only their own minority language. Note that multilingualism, common throughout the world, does not necessarily lead to language loss.”

Overall, the description aligns with the observations made of the Dapeng community. Putonghua is more commonly used by Dapeng speakers in school and government settings and when communicating with Mandarin speakers. However, it is rarely heard among Dapeng speakers in conversation with one another. Similarly, Cantonese and Hakka, which are considered more prestigious regional dialects, are not often used by the local people. Dapeng speakers will only switch to these dialects when their interlocutors are not sufficiently capable in the Dapeng dialect. This is particularly true for older speakers, who will use the Dapeng dialect as long as the other party is able to understand it to some extent, even if they are outsiders. Overall, the Dapeng dialect remains the socially dominant usage across various domains of use in the local community.

3.1.5. Response to New Domains and Media

Factors 5 and 6 denote two areas in which the Dapeng dialect, along with numerous other minor dialects in China, is assigned a remarkably low level of vitality. Factor 5 pertains to the ability of a language to broaden its scope of use to newly emerging domains, such as new forms of education, new work environments, and new media (e.g., broadcasting and the Internet). The UNESCO official guide warns that, “If the communities do not meet the challenges of modernity with their language, it becomes increasingly irrelevant and stigmatized” [30] (p. 11). The scale of Factor 5 is illustrated in

Table 8. Factor 5: Response to New Domains and Media.

Degree of Endangerment	Grade	New Domains and Media Accepted by the Endangered Language
Dynamic	5	The language is used in all new domains.
Robust/active	4	The language is used in most new domains.
Receptive	3	The language is used in many domains.
Coping	2	The language is used in some new domains.
Minimal	1	The language is used in only a few new domains.
Inactive	0	The language is not used in any new domains.

.

In stark contrast to its stable utilization in traditional domains (e.g., household, commerce, and farming, as indicated in Factor 4), the Dapeng dialect manifests minimal indications of vitality in emerging domains and media. Similar to the circumstances highlighted in Factor 4, all the new domains examined in this study are completely occupied by other major dialects, predominantly Putonghua, and occasionally Cantonese. Consequently, the Dapeng dialect is categorized as “inactive”, denoted by Level 0, in Factor 5.

3.1.6. Materials for Language Education and Literacy

Factor 6, lacking the “Degree of Endangerment” column on the far left, appears to be a relatively marginal factor, since it does not directly index the degree of vitality.

Table 9. Factor 6: Materials for Language Education and Literacy.

Grade	Accessibility of Written Materials
5	There is an established orthography, literacy tradition with grammars, dictionaries, texts, literature, and everyday media. Writing in the language is used in administration and education.
4	Written materials exist, and at school, children are developing literacy in the language. Writing in the language is not used in administration.
3	Written materials exist and children may be exposed to the written form at school. Literacy is not promoted through print media.
2	Written materials exist, but they may only be useful for some members of the community; and for others, they may have a symbolic significance. Literacy education in the language is not a part of the school curriculum.
1	A practical orthography is known to the community and some material is being written.
0	No orthography is available to the community.

illustrates the scale of this factor.

In the Chinese context, the absence of an orthography for dialects is a common issue, as written materials in dialects other than Mandarin are typically scarce. The advancement of written materials in Chinese dialects has encountered numerous social obstacles. Snow identified several factors that could hinder the development of dialect literature, including a lack of standardization, hostile government policies, declining readership, low levels of literacy among readers, and negative perceptions of “vulgar” dialect writing, among others [46]. There are two possible exceptions to this phenomenon: first, major dialects, especially those spoken in affluent regions where vernacular literature is more developed (e.g., Cantonese in Guangzhou and Wu in Shanghai) [47]; and second, dialects that have translations of religious texts such as the Bible by missionaries (e.g., Cantonese, Hakka, and Min dialects along the coast). The Dapeng dialect, however, does not belong to either of these categories and is hence assigned to Level 0, “No orthography available to the community”.

3.2. Language Policy, Attitude, and Urgency for Documentation

3.2.1. Governmental and Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies, including Official Status and Use

Factor 7 is associated with language attitudes and policies, which are relevant to the assessment of language vitality. It indexes the level of governmental support in promoting languages and dialects.

Table 10. Governmental and Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies, including Official Status and Use.

Degree of Support	Grade	Official Attitudes toward Language
Equal support	5	All languages are protected.
Differentiated support	4	Minority languages are protected primarily as the language of the private domains. The use of the language is prestigious.
Passive assimilation	3	No explicit policy exists for minority languages; the dominant language prevails in the public domain.
Active assimilation	2	Government encourages assimilation to the dominant language. There is no protection for minority languages.
Forced assimilation	1	The dominant language is the sole official language, while nondominant languages are neither recognized nor protected.
Prohibition	0	Minority languages are prohibited.

illustrates the scale of this factor, where both explicit policies and implicit attitudes of the government toward the language or dialect in question are taken into account.

Firstly, it is a rare occurrence for southern, non-Mandarin dialects in mainland China to receive any form of institutional or governmental support [48]. Consequently, none of these dialects should be ranked higher than Level 3. The status of a southern dialect might be subject to debate as to whether it is undergoing passive or active assimilation. While some may raise the example of the anti-Putonghua campaigns in Guangzhou in recent decades [49,50], no such tensions are found in the Dapeng community between the local dialect and others.

In Dapeng, the local government is not actively promoting Putonghua. The Dapeng dialect is spoken by a significantly smaller population and has minimal influence beyond the peninsula area. This is in contrast to Cantonese, which exerts a cultural influence beyond the Pearl River Delta where it is originally spoken, particularly in popular culture, such as music and movies. Consequently, the Dapeng dialect is not perceived as a threat to Putonghua or the nation’s language policies. On the other end, the local community is not engaging in any confrontational actions to promote the Dapeng dialect beyond its traditional domains of use. Based on fieldwork observations, an equilibrium among all the dialects spoken in the Dapeng community is being well maintained. Hence, the Dapeng dialect is placed at Level 3 as facing “passive assimilation” from the government.

3.2.2. Community Members’ Attitudes toward Their Own Language

Factor 8 is also related to language attitudes from the community members’ perspective. The scale is presented in

Table 11. Factor 8: Community Members’ Attitudes toward Their Own Language.

Grade	Community Members’ Attitudes toward Language
5	All members value their language and wish to see it promoted.
4	Most members support language maintenance.
3	Many members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss.
2	Some members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss.
1	Only a few members support language maintenance; others are indifferent or may even support language loss.
0	No one cares if the language is lost; all prefer to use a dominant language.

.

One of the noteworthy characteristics of the Dapeng-speaking community, as discovered during the fieldwork, is their loyalty to their mother tongue. Generational gaps in language attitude are reported in the literature. For instance, in the Shaoguan Tuhua community, also in Guangdong Province, only the elderly population valued their native dialect [8,9]. However, the situation in Dapeng is markedly different, with all individuals expressing their unreserved commitment to the maintenance of the local dialect. Irrespective of age, all interviewees emphasized that they had had or would have their children speak the Dapeng dialect. Some even went to the extent of stating, “One has to know how to speak the local dialect in order to qualify as a Dapenger.” These responses reflect their preference for using the Dapeng dialect in most language domains and their positive attitude toward their mother tongue.

The Dapeng dialect’s placement at Level 4, rather than Level 5, is due to a lack of evidence indicating the community’s wish “to see the local dialect promoted”. The Dapeng community is generally conservative, laid-back, and unambitious in claiming or reclaiming domains of local dialect use beyond their already have. To avoid overestimating local people’s language attitude, Level 4 is assigned to the Dapeng dialect-speaking community for Factor 8.

3.2.3. Amount and Quality of Documentation

Factor 9 evaluates the urgency of documentation of a language. The scale of this factor is shown in

Table 12. Factor 9: Amount and Quality of Documentation.

Nature of Documentation	Grade	Language Documentation
Superlative	5	There are comprehensive grammars and dictionaries, extensive texts; constant flow of language materials. Abundant annotated high-quality audio and video recordings exist.
Good	4	There are one good grammar and a number of adequate grammars, dictionaries, texts, literature, and occasionally updated everyday media; adequate annotated high-quality audio and video recordings.
Fair	3	There may be an adequate grammar or sufficient amount of grammars, dictionaries, and texts, but no everyday media; audio and video recordings may exist in varying quality or degree of annotation.
Fragmentary	2	There are some grammatical sketches, word-lists, and texts useful for limited linguistic research but with inadequate coverage. Audio and video recordings may exist in varying quality, with or without any annotation.
Inadequate	1	Only a few grammatical sketches, short word-lists, and fragmentary texts. Audio and video recordings do not exist, are of unusable quality, or are completely un-annotated.
Undocumented	0	No material exists.

.

The only written materials related to the Dapeng dialect found during the fieldwork were some lyrics of local ballads written in a combination of standard written Chinese and colloquial characters, which recorded some basic Dapeng grammar and a few colloquial words. Regarding audio–visual materials, there existed some clips of television reporters interviewing local residents speaking the Dapeng dialect. Given the limited and fragmented nature of available documentation, the Dapeng dialect is assigned to Level 2, characterized as “Fragmentary.”

4. Discussion

In accordance with the UNESCO-LVE framework, a comprehensive assessment of a language’s vitality requires the consideration of all nine factors in combination. The integrated scale for all factors is presented in

Table 13. A Combination of All Factors.

Factor	The Dapeng Dialect
1. Intergenerational Language Transmission	4
2. Absolute Number of Speakers	About 3000
3. Proportion of Speakers within the Total Population	4
4. Trends in Existing Language Domains	4
5. Response to New Domains and Media	0
6. Materials for Language Education and Literacy	0
7. Governmental & Institutional Language Attitudes and Policies including Official Status and Use	3
8. Community Members’ Attitudes toward Their Own Language	4
9. Amount and Quality of Documentation	2

, indicating the overall vitality of the Dapeng dialect as spoken in the Dapeng peninsula community.

As indicated in Table 13, the Dapeng dialect is placed at Level 4 in half of the first six factors, which directly relate to language vitality. The two factors that show a different tendency (Factors 5 and 6) are related to common issues of inadequate institutional support and the absence of literature/orthographies, both shared by non-Mandarin Chinese dialects. In other words, levels assigned to the Dapeng dialect for Factors 5 and 6 are predictable for a Southern Chinese dialect. Overall, based on Factors 1, 3, and 4, the vitality of the Dapeng dialect is relatively positive. This is particularly remarkable considering that the dialect is spoken by only around 3000 people in the Dapeng area, including less than 2000 permanent residents.

The assessment based on the first six factors is supported by the last two factors, which concern language policies and attitudes. Despite receiving minimal or no support from the government, the Dapeng dialect has a strong base of speakers who hold loyal and supportive attitudes toward their local dialect.

Still, as shown in Factor 9, the lack of documentation could pose a problem. To address this issue, there is a need to document the Dapeng dialect through various forms of recording, including textual, audio, or video recordings. Access to this information is crucial for both the language community and linguists, as it enables the development of sustainable and effective revitalization initiatives and collaborative research projects, especially during periods when such efforts are necessary.

This study represented a pioneering effort to explore the suitability of language vitality assessment frameworks in the Chinese context. It suggested that the UNESCO-LVE framework is most suitable for assessing the vitality status of Chinese minor dialects. As previously discussed, the framework’s main strength lies in its holistic approach, which considers all nine factors collectively to evaluate the specific situation of each speech community. The framework is particularly useful in evaluating the vitality of non-Mandarin dialects in the Chinese context, as some factors, such as school education and orthography, may have a similar influence. While a small local dialect’s low score on Factor 6 may indicate low vitality, it becomes redundant when most Chinese dialects receive identical scores. Therefore, evaluators can focus on other factors for cross-dialectal comparison in the Chinese context.

The application of the UNESCO-LVE framework revealed an overall vigorous condition of the Dapeng dialect despite certain factors that could suggest low vitality. Consequently, this study suggested that not all minor dialects in China are severely endangered as reported in the literature. It emphasized the need for researchers to utilize evaluative frameworks applicable to Chinese languages for a comprehensive and accurate view of a minor dialect’s vitality status, which is influenced by specific sociolinguistic ecology in local communities. The results of this study align with findings from recent research on other languages that population size alone may not be a reliable indicator of language vitality or risk of extinction [51,52].

Although small population size, lack of written material, and pervasive bilingualism are factors that contribute to the loss of language vitality, this study illustrated that none of these factors should alone define a dialect’s vitality status. Instead, sociolinguistic factors work together, and a collective consideration of all factors is necessary to reach a valid conclusion about a dialect’s vitality profile. Therefore, this study recommended that future studies on Chinese dialect vitality should conduct a more systematic examination of sociolinguistic factors by using appropriate assessment frameworks.

Moreover, future studies on the Dapeng dialect and its speakers’ community can shift attention from China to Manhattan Chinatown in New York City. This study noted that the affluence of Dapeng speakers in China has boosted pride in their dialect and overall identity as Dapengers, leading to confident and consistent use of the local dialect. However, the Dapeng dialect spoken in the United States faces different linguistic and socioeconomic contexts. For instance, many early Dapeng immigrants who worked in sweatshops lacked similar socioeconomic privileges as their peers in China. Since language use is largely influenced by social, political, and economic variables, speakers’ lower socioeconomic status may have made the Dapeng dialect less favored and vital in the United States than in China. This hypothesis should be tested in future studies on the vitality of Chinatown Dapeng.