2. HCE and local identity

According to the results of the questionnaire, the link between the language and the identity itself shows a relatively weak relationship. It may not be surprising to find that non-local speakers show neutral attitude, with a mean of 3.0 out of 5, towards the creole as a marking of their local identity because they may learn HCE only out of their need to communicate with their local friends, as suggested by one interviewee who is a shopkeeper. “You just have to learn it (HCE) if you are living here (Hawaii)”, she responded. However, it is out of our expectation that local speakers show similar response, with a mean of 2.93 (although the mean is slightly smaller than that of the non-local speaker, they have no significant differences). We expected that local speakers feel identified as a Hawaiian when they speak HCE because Lum (1986) suggested that a local language, of which HCE is certainly one, validates a local identity and Spolsky (1991) also expressed the idea that a language is a powerful symbol of national and ethnic identity.

There are three possible reasons to explain the result. First, the word marks in this particular statement (“Hawaiian Creole marks my identity as a local Hawaiian.”) might have sounded too strong to them that they tend to show no agreement towards or even deny the statement. What we really wanted to know is actually whether they think HCE constitutes part of their identity.

Another reason is explained by the root of HCE. Referring to what we have mentioned regarding the evolution of HCE, we know it sprang from the need to communicate with each other among workers who spoke different languages in the plantation village. So it did create the culture, identity and solidarity of the working class at that time (Romaine 1994). However, the majority of our interview subjects have not ever worked in the plantation village and acquired the language in real need, instead, they may be raised up around family members who speak the language and therefore happened to pick it up. It is then reasonable that it does not constitute a significant part of their identity as a Hawaiian. We may then predict those who possibly feel identified by the language are the former plantation workers or those who have a close relationship with the plantation village. The prediction is actually supported when we take a closer look at the interview with a tour guide in the plantation village. From his questionnaire and interview, we found that he strongly agrees with the statement “Hawaiian English marks my local identity as a local Hawaiian”.

The last possible aspect to look for when explaining the result findings is the social perception of HCE. “When you acknowledge a language, you acknowledge a people,” said Lum (1986) when interviewed by Honolulu Weekly (Choo 1993). This is to say, if you are to feel identified by a language, the language itself has to be acknowledge in the first place. Sadly, Pidgin has long been regarded as improper English (Da Pidgin Coup, 1999) which does not receive public acknowledgement. It is hard for the speakers to feel validated as well according to the logic of Lum (1986).

Nevertheless, responses towards the subsequent statement (“I think people speaking Hawaiian Creole English is part of the local community.”) revealed that being able to speak HCE deem an individual to be part the local community. Both local and non-local groups showed strong tendency to agree with this particular statement, with a mean of 3.57 for local speakers and a mean of 3.92 for non-local speakers. In other words, the creole language is an important element of the Hawaiian community. It is interesting to see that while local speakers show a neutral attitude to creole as a marking of their own identity, they show relatively stronger agreement on speaking creole as marking the others’ identify as a part of the local community. This may reveal that local speakers do believe the function of creole as an identity marker, but when it comes to themselves, they tend not to acknowledge it because HCE generally receives a low prestige in society.

From the above results, it can be concluded that language does not necessarily serve the purpose of an identity marker, which supports what May (2012) has suggested: “there is no direct correspondence between language and ethnicity" (p.134). However, it is still safe to say that language, or in this case, HCE, contributes to the inclusivity of a certain society or community. It helps to form and maintain the boundary of a social group.

References

Choo, David K. (1993). A sense of place. Honolulu Weekly, October 20, 1993.

         Da Pidgin Coup (1999). Pidgin and education: A standpoint paper.

Lum, Darrell H. Y. (1986). Local literature and lunch. In Chock & Lum (eds.), 3-5.

May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. New York: Routlege.

Romaine, S. (1994). Hawai'i Creole English as a literary language. Language in society, 23, 527-527.

Spolsky, B. (1999). Second-language learning. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Handbook of language and ethnic identity (pp. 181-192). Oxford: Oxford University Press.