1. Purpose of the Study

Some theoretical ideas about sociolinguistics have already been outlined. By now we should also have had a brief idea of what is Hawaiian Creole English and its position in Hawaiian society through former research. 

This study, instead of applying the theories of the formation of contact languages on Hawaiian Pidgin, focuses on the sociolinguistic aspect of the language. We are particularly interested in three areas of sociolingustic situation in Hawaii concerning HCE, and they are: the people's perception of the language, the function of the language as identify marker and the use of Pidgin in media as it can show whether the language is prevalent or preferred. By handing out questionnaires and carrying out interviews in Hawaii, we aim at finding out the following questions throughout our study: Do most people have a general idea of the language? How often, and under which settings they use the language, and why? In what extend do they think the language mark their identity? How efficient they think is the use of pidgin in advertisement? What is their attitude about the language use in different social contexts? Do they have a general positive or negative negative attitude towards the language? 

This is an attempt of applying, as critically as possible, the theories in sociolinguistics into the real linguistic environment in the island of O’ahu. The data collected in the field was to be evidence to support, modify or even refute the existing theories. 

2. Methods of the Study

In the current research, we recruited 49 people from all walks of life in different locations, namely, students on the campus of the University of Hawaii (hereinafter UH), shopkeepers in shopping malls, and members of staff from different facilities of UH.  In terms of the sex of the participants, there were 21 males and 28 females. The age of the participants was not required in the questionnaire but different age groups were included in order to represent a more reliable and comprehensive picture. Participants were recruited from different locations to enhance fairness and credibility of the study by making an effort in encompassing people with different demographical backgrounds. The venues of the experiment were also chosen deliberately to facilitate one-on-one follow-up interviews. For these reasons, most of the tests and interviews were conducted in the canteens and the library on campus and shops with fewer customers.

            

Among the 49 participants of the test, 15 of them claimed that they were local Hawaiians, meaning that they were born and raised in Hawaii, while the rest considered themselves as non-local Hawaiians. When asked generally whether they could speak Hawaiian Creole English (HCE), 27 out of 49 participants, which were slightly more than half of the test subjects, admitted that they are HCE speakers. The following table shows the four possible language-identity combinations.

	Local Hawaiian	Non-local Hawaiian
HCE speaker	14	13
Non HCE speaker	1	21

Before giving out questionnaires, participants were asked a simple question "Do you know what Hawaiian Pidgin is?” so that we could confirm they are suitable for the test. Instead of using the term Hawaiian Creole English or HCE, we chose Pidgin as it is the layman’s term that are better known among the public) is.

The questionnaire consisted of two sets of questions. One is for HCE speakers while the other one is for non-HCE speakers. Instructions were given to guide the participants through the whole process. For the participants who were HCE speakers, they were asked to rate their proficiency in HCE on a five-point scale ranging from 1 as “beginner” to 5 as “native”. They were also required to indicate their frequency of speaking HCE in general again on a five-point scale where 1 and 5 represented “rarely” and “always” respectively. After that, the questionnaire takers would have to further distinguish their use of HCE in five social occasions on a six-point scale from 0 being “never” to 5 being “always/very much”. The selected situations include 1) Work/study, 2) Wedding, 3) Family gathering, 4) Classroom, and 5) Chat with friends. This part of the questionnaire was to check if there was any felicity effect and habitual usage of HCE. The final section of this set of questionnaire comprised 11 statements revolving the issues of HCE. Participants were to show their responses towards these statements on a five-point scale with 1 being “strongly disagree” to 5 being “strongly agree”. This was to find out their perceptions towards HCE and their attitudes towards the education of HCE and the use of HCE in the media and other social contexts.

An alternative set of questionnaire was designed for the non-HCE speakers. This set is relatively simple in which the questionnaire takers were only required to reflect their attitudes towards nine statements on HCE. Again, this was to find out the perceptions of the non-HCE speakers towards HCE and their attitudes towards the education and the use of HCE in the media and other social contexts. They were also expected to answer on the same five-point scale that was used in first set of the questionnaire.

After filling in the questionnaire, the subjects were asked a few follow- up questions on how they felt about HCE. The questions and content were based on the answers they had just filled in and some general questions on how they perceived and thought about HCE as a language. The interviews were not formal. Instead, they were in a casual manner, as if they were a conversation. The purpose of such follow-up interviews was to gather more information that the questionnaire may have not been able to collect. We jotted down some of the points the subjects said. However, due to technical problems, some interviews were not recorded and some were recorded partially only.

3. Statistical Results of Questionnaires

This article aims at listing the statistical results and statistical observation obtained from the questionnaire. Upon completion of questionnaires, the data collected were analyzed. Among the 49 questionnaire takers, 27 of them considered themselves to be HCE speakers. Local HCE speakers showed a higher level of both proficiency (M = 2.64, SD = 1.15) and frequency (M = 2.50, SD = 1.34) in using HCE than that of non-local HCE speakers (proficiency: M = 1.54, SD = .52; frequency: M = 1.62, SD = .65). Generally speaking, local HCE speakers possessed an intermediate to advanced level of HCE and use the language quite often, while non-local speakers are between beginner and intermediate level and only speak HCE at times.

In terms of the occasions of speaking HCE, both the local and non-local groups had a similar pattern in the usage of the creole language. They both showed a clear tendency of speaking using HCE in certain situations than other occasions. Regarding the local HCE speakers, the average points of frequency for speaking the creole in the selected situations were as follows: “Work/Study” 1.00 (SD = .88), “Wedding” 1.07 (SD = 1.27), “Family Gathering” 2.21 (SD = 1.67), “Classroom” 1.50 (SD = 1.34), and “Chatting with Friends” 3.00 (SD = 1.47). For the non-local HCE speakers, the average points of frequency were as follows: “Work/Study” 1.15 (SD = 1.14), “Wedding” .69 (SD = 1.03), “Family Gathering” 1.62 (SD = 1.50), “Classroom” 1.38 (SD = 1.12), and “Chatting with Friends” 2.54 (SD = 1.13). The results primarily proved that HCE speakers do actually choose their code in relations to the situation that they are in, regardless of the racial identity as suggested by the consistent pattern shared by both local and non-local speakers.

The five selected situations could be classified into two groups, the more formal and more casual groups, in which “Work/Study”, “Wedding”, and “Classroom” were considered to be the former, while “Family Gathering”, and “Chatting with Friends” the latter. Both the local and non-local groups of HCE speakers inclined to speak more of the creole in the informal occasions, especially when chatting with friends. This was indicated by the relatively higher average points of frequency in the two less formal occasions. Individual subjects even claimed that they never spoke HCE in the more formal occasions.

In the final section of the questionnaire, participants had to rate certain statements about the relationship between HCE and their social identity, their likings towards the creole and its use in the media and other social contexts. Significant inter-group differences, which were defined by any difference larger or equal to 0.25 points on average, did exist between the local and non-local speakers on some of the statements and are shown as follows.

Statements	Local Speakers		Non-local Speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
3) I think people speaking Hawaiian is part of the local community.	3.57	1.16	3.92	.64
7) I think Hawaiian Creole English can be used in many formal situations, e.g. interviews etc.	2.00	.96	1.69	.85
8) I am more attracted and persuaded to advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Creole English.	2.57	.85	2.31	.95
10) I feel more attached to political slogans in Hawaiian Creole English.	2.71	.73	2.00	.91
11) I think people should promote the use of Hawaiian Creole English in Hawaii.	2.93	1.00	2.62	.87

            

Apart from these statements, others show similar results between the two groups of HCE speakers. Both groups held generally neutral attitudes towards speaking the creole itself (Local Speakers (LS):  M = 3.21, SD = .70; Non-local Speakers (NLS): M = 3.08, SD = .64) and other creole speakers (LS: M = 3.00, SD = 1.18; NLS: M = 2.92, SD = .86). They, as HCE speakers, also held negative attitudes towards HCE education among the new generation (LS: M = 2.64, SD = .93; NLS: M = 2.54, SD = .97) and did not feel targeted when HCE were used in advertisements (LS: M = 2.43, SD = .85; NLS: M = 2.38, SD = .87). The reasons of the results and the similarities and differences between the two groups of speakers would be accounted for in the discussion part.

Out of 49 participants, 22 of them claimed to be non-HCE speakers. For the questionnaires, they would only have to show responses to a number of statements as what the group of HCE speakers did. There were a total of nine statements and the participants indicated neutral attitudes towards over half of these statements, in which the average points were ±0.25 around 3 (which is the point for average). However, there was a tendency for them to agree on the following statements.

Statements	Non-speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
1) I have difficulties in understanding Hawaiian Creole English.	3.59	.73
4) I don’t feel Hawaiian Creole English forms part of my identity.	3.82	1.18

 Besides, they showed slight disagreement over the following two statements.

Statements	Non-speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
3) I feel alienated when others are speaking Hawaiian Creole English around me.	2.64	1.00
6) I feel less attracted and persuaded by advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Creole Engish.	2.73	.77

Again, the results would be selected, explained and interpreted in the various discussion blog articles with different topics. 

 Appendices

Table 1: The Proficiency in Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) of Local and Non-local Speakers

Occasions	Local Speakers		Non-local Speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
Proficiency in Hawaiian Creole English	2.64	1.15	1.54	.52

Table 2: The General Use of Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) of Local and Non-local Speakers

	Local Speakers		Non-local Speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
General Use of Hawaiian Creole English	2.50	1.34	1.62	.65

Table 3: The Use of Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) under different occasions

Occasions	Local Speakers		Non-local Speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
Work/Study	1.00	.88	1.15	1.14
Wedding	1.07	1.27	.69	1.03
Family Gathering	2.21	1.67	1.62	1.50
Classroom	1.50	1.34	1.38	1.12
Chat with Friends	3.00	1.47	2.54	1.13

 Table 4: The Responses to the Statements of the Local and Non-local Speakers

Statements	Local Speakers		Non-local Speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
1) I expect Hawaiians can speak Hawaiian Creole English.	3.21	1.25	3.38	.96
2) Hawaiian Creole English marks my identity as a local Hawaiian.	2.93	1.07	3.00	1.00
3) I think people speaking Hawaiian is part of the local community.	3.57	1.16	3.92	.64
4) I feel more friendly to those who speak Hawaiian Creole English.	3.00	1.18	2.92	.86
5) I like speaking Hawaiian Creole English.	3.21	.70	3.08	.64
6) I think Hawaiian children should learn Hawaiian Creole English.	2.64	.93	2.54	.97
7) I think Hawaiian Creole English can be used in many formal situations, e.g. interviews etc.	2.00	.96	1.69	.85
8) I am more attracted and persuaded to advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Creole English.	2.57	.85	2.31	.95
9) I feel I am targeted by advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Creole English.	2.43	.85	2.38	.87
10) I feel more attached to political slogans in Hawaiian Creole English.	2.71	.73	2.00	.91
11) I think people should promote the use of Hawaiian Creole English in Hawaii.	2.93	1.00	2.62	.87

Table 5: The Responses to the Statements of the Non-speakers

Statements	Non-Speakers
	Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (SD)
1) I have difficulties in understanding Hawaiian Creole English.	3.59	.73
2) I can identify local Hawaiians by their Hawaiian Creole English.	3.23	1.38
3) I feel alienated when others are speaking Hawaiian Creole English around me.	2.64	1.00
4) I do not feel Hawaiian Creole English forms part of my identity.	3.82	1.18
5) I want to learn Hawaiian Creole English for communicating with my local Hawaiian friends.	3.00	1.07
6) I feel less attracted and persuaded by advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Creole English.	2.73	.77
7) I feel I am not targeted by advertisements that use or incorporate Hawaiian Creole English.	2.95	1.13
8) I feel less attached to political slogans in Hawaiian Creole English.	3.09	.92
9) I think people should promote the use of Hawaiian Creole English.	3.23	.87

Figure 1: The Sample of the Questionnaire