Hong Kong English – Does it Exist?lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v13_04.pdf · Hong Kong English –...

HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol. 13, 2009

Hong Kong English – Does it Exist?

Julie Groves Hong Kong Baptist University

Abstract

The rise of English as an international language and its expansion into new multilingual and multicultural contexts has raised many new issues. One of these is the question of when a new indigenous variety of English can be considered a full language, on an equal basis with so-called native varieties. With regard to Hong Kong English (HKE), this question still remains a source of disagreement. This paper presents a review of the literature relevant to the issue of the existence of ‘Hong Kong English’. The various positions held by different scholars regarding the status of Hong Kong English are introduced. Three frameworks (Kachru, Moag and Schneider) for the developmental process of ‘New Englishes’ varieties are examined and applied to English in Hong Kong. The paper finishes with a discussion about the possible present and future status of English in Hong Kong. It is seen that HKE is an emergent variety, currently in phase 3 of nativization of Schneider’s dynamic model of the development of post-colonial Englishes. It remains to be seen when (or whether) it will move on to the next stage of public recognition.

1. Introduction The unprecedented diffusion of English has in essence been a post-World War II phenomenon (Kachru, 1985b). Consequently, the study and classification of indigenous varieties of English is a relatively new area of research, only being undertaken in a purposeful and organized manner seriously since several

Groves: Hong Kong English

55

groundbreaking conferences in the 1970’s and the 1980’s (Kachru, 1992). At those conferences, a number of theoretical and applied research areas were targeted for future development, with special attention being paid to analysis and description of the ‘New Englishes’ of Kachru’s (1985a; see below) Outer and Expanding Circle nations, the development of which has raised many questions which have never been asked before (Kachru, 1986). One of these questions is at what stage the English spoken in a given location can be classified as a variety. With regard to Hong Kong, the very existence of an autonomous entity called Hong Kong English has been the subject of ongoing debate. This paper presents a review of the literature relevant to the issue of the existence of ‘Hong Kong English’ (HKE). First, Kachru’s ‘three circles’ framework for the study of World Englishes is presented, and the various positions held by different scholars regarding the status of Hong Kong English are introduced. Three frameworks for the developmental process of New English varieties are then introduced and applied to English in Hong Kong. The paper finishes with a discussion regarding the possible present and future status of English in Hong Kong. 2. Kachru’s Three Circles Kachru’s (1985a) pioneering model for world English spread and usage has been widely used as a framework for the study of World Englishes. His idea was that the spread of English could “be viewed in terms of three concentric circles representing the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages” (Kachru, 1985a, p. 242). He names these the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle.


56

The Inner Circle refers to native-English-speaking countries such as the UK, North America, New Zealand and Australia, who use English as their primary language. These are norm-providing, or in other words, endocentric. Secondly, the Outer Circle includes those countries where English was spread as a second language through colonization, e.g. Nigeria, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines. Here English has official status and functions. It has already undergone some acculturation and nativization, and there is a creative literature written in the local variety of English, hence these are termed norm-developing countries. The Expanding Circle refers to those nations where English has the status of a foreign language, such as China, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, Egypt and Korea. These are norm-dependent, or exocentric, generally looking to ‘standard English’ for their norms. The use of English in these societies is generally restricted to limited domains such as science and education. In replacing the original English as a native language (ENL), English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) terminology with the concepts in his model, Kachru emphasizes that English belongs to all who use it; that “norms and standards should no longer be determined [solely] by Inner Circle/ENL contexts” (Schneider, 2003, p. 130). It acknowledges a growing pluricentrality (see also Foley, 1988), hence coinage of the new plural term ‘Englishes’. Recently there has been some criticism of Kachru’s model, as it cannot be used as a precise tool for classification.1 For instance, some areas have both Inner Circle and Outer Circle populations, such as South Africa, while the line between Outer and Expanding Circles is not always clear. This is the case with English in Hong Kong. Like an institutionalized ‘Outer Circle’ variety, it has a legal status as an official language and is used as a medium of instruction in the school system. However, like an ‘Expanding Circle’ variety, its standards tend to be


57

exonormative, and it is used mainly for international communication rather than in the personal domains. 3. The Debate over Hong Kong English What exactly then is the status of English in Hong Kong? Is there such a thing as ‘Hong Kong English’, or is there simply an ‘English used in Hong Kong’? Some earlier scholars, for instance, Luke and Richards (1982), Platt (1982), Tay (1991), Johnson (1994, quoted in Bolton, 2002 & 2003) and Li (2000, quoted in Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2002), tended not to consider the English of Hong Kongers much more than a developmental continuum, a learner’s interlanguage developing along a cline of proficiency. Luke and Richards (1982, p. 55) stated outright that “there is no such thing as ‘Hong Kong English’”. Claiming that “there is no societal basis for the ‘indigenization’ or ‘nativization’ of English in Hong Kong,” they suggested use of the term auxiliary language to describe its status. Along the same lines, Pang (2003) considers English in Hong Kong has been localized but not indigenized and therefore calls it a ‘stillborn variety’. More recently, Schneider (2003) suggests that the variety is now on its way to structural nativization. Joseph (1997), Bolton (2002, 2003), Deterding et al (2008) and Gisborne (2009) have all argued for its recognition as an autonomous variety, either on linguistic and/or societal bases.2 Bolton quotes census figures which seem to indicate there is a significant and increasing proportion of English users among the population of Hong Kong. According to these figures, English is now spoken by around one-third of all Hong Kongers, with 6% being proficient users (Bolton & Luke, 1999). Jenkins (2003) points out that this compares very favourably with the 4% of proficient users of English in India, a variety which has nevertheless received more recognition. However other researchers undertaking


58

work on its specific language features are more ambivalent. Both Hung (2002) and Pemberton (1993), studying its phonology and lexis respectively, note that some of its language features are both systematic and idiosyncractic, yet they avoid committing themselves to a definite position regarding its status. At the other extreme, Stibbard (2004) rejects previous claims of phonological systematicity. Other researchers take a midposition. For instance, J. Setter (personal communication, October 6, 2009), studying its phonology, believes it is not (yet) a genuine regional standard. 4. New Paradigms for New Settings This raises the issue of how exactly a ‘New Englishes’ language variety is determined. Responding to new contexts which require new paradigms, different researchers have proposed a variety of means for analysis and classification; however when these are applied to HKE, they are still not fully conclusive. Kachru (1983) focuses on the factors influencing nativization, which he explains has two faces: cultural (acculturation, the absorption and reflection of the culture in the language) and linguistic (impact of the native language(s) on the local English variety). The degree of nativization of a variety depends partly on the length of time of bilingualism in that society. In Hong Kong, mass bilingualism is only a fairly recent phenomenon. It is related to the introduction of universal education in the 1970s, followed by the expansion of the tertiary system to cater for a larger proportion of high school graduates, both of which have had the effect of broadening the English language base in Hong Kong society while at the same time making it difficult to adhere to the norms of British English (Joseph, 1997).3 Thus looking at the time factor would place HKE fairly near the beginning of the nativization process.


59

The extent of nativization of a variety can also be measured by its range and depth (Kachru, 1983). Range refers to the distribution of its functions in various domains, while depth refers to usage among a range of social classes as well as lectal variation within individual speakers. English in Hong Kong scores low on both these points (Tay, 1991). Regarding range, it is used mainly in public domains and not usually for intra-communication (Luke & Richards, 1982; Tay, 1991); this habit is perpetuated by the triglossic situation (Cantonese, English and Putonghua) which results in different languages filling different roles (Pang, 2003). When it comes to depth, Hong Kongers use an acrolectal (formal) style only. As English (by itself) does not serve an integrative function, there is no equivalent to the mesolectal or basilectal (colloquial) styles that have developed naturally in places like Singapore or India (Pang, 2003). This may be related to a lack of native speakers, again unlike places such as Singapore or India, which would help explain the discrepancy in the supposedly high percentage of English users in Hong Kong in comparison with those countries. There is one proviso to this observation; the increased use of computer-mediated communication with an integrationist function among the youth has introduced a basilectal style of English with many local features. Pang (2003) remarks that this may eventually facilitate the indigenization of Hong Kong English. Alternative requirements are given by Butler (1997), who has listed five criteria for the recognition of a full variety of English. Summarized by Bolton (2002, p. 44), these are accent, vocabulary, a history, literary creativity, and reference works. Bolton himself concludes that Hong Kong English meets the first four of the five criteria. As to the fifth, there are as yet few reference works which concede the existence of a variety of HKE, although some vocabulary items have been included in the recent Macquarie dictionary (Jenkins, 2003). Nevertheless


60

Bolton asserts that even some of the currently recognized varieties of English would not meet this criterion.4 Therefore on that basis, he argues for the recognition of HKE (also see Kirkpatrick & Xu, 2002), stating that the “essential conditions necessary for the emergence of such a variety may already be present in the community” (Bolton, 2003, p. 116). But Pang (2003) takes issue with Bolton on the fourth point in particular, pointing out that most literature written in English by Hong Kongers is for an international audience and is not written in the local variety. In an investigation into how and when new languages get realised, Joseph (1997) maintains that three sets of factors need to be considered: linguistic form, function and status. Thus far we have already seen that a focus on form and function is inconclusive; what about status? In spite of any discussions and claims made in the international literature, one thing all writers are generally agreed upon is that the notion of ‘Hong Kong English’ is not supported in society (e.g. Joseph, 1997; McArthur, 2005), which still has a strong attachment to native speaker norms.5 This is attributed to a philosophy of ‘linguistic purism’ which requires that standards be kept very high (Pang, 2003), and where “native speaker norms have been internalized as the only right and proper thing” (Phillipson, 1992, p. 199). This especially manifests itself in the teaching profession (Jenkins, 2003; Pang, 2003; Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008). Language attitudes research carried out on HKE to date has confirmed this strong native speaker norm orientation (e.g. Bolton & Luke, 1999; Jenkins, 2003; Groves & Chan, 2010). However, once again this is not an open-and-shut case. In a study by Bolton and Luke (1999), 43% of male university students showed a preference for local educated models of spoken English, while in a recent study by Groves and Chan (2010), as many as one-third of the 140 student respondents stated they believed that Hong Kong English was a ‘unique, acceptable variety of


61

English spoken by educated Hong Kongers’. Although these are not majority percentages, neither do they represent an insignificant minority. It is worth noting that the results that are most positive towards acknowledging a variety of HKE have been gained from studies of the attitudes of students (e.g. Bolton & Luke, 1999; Groves & Chan, 2010), whereas teachers seem to have been less open to accepting local norms (e.g. Jenkins, 2003). 5. Models for the Emergence of New World Englishes Why is it that the status of English in Hong Kong continues to defy clear classification? Several scholars have further noted that the process of the formation of new English varieties around the world has entailed several successive stages, with similarities between locations despite different sociocultural settings. Subsequently, several overarching dynamic models have been posited to account for this phenomenon, in place of the static models which sometimes seem to raise more questions than they answer. We shall look at three models below, those proposed by Kachru, Moag and Schneider respectively, and analyse how each one applies to the kind of English spoken by Hong Kongers. 5.1 Kachru’s Stages Kachru posited three general stages in the emergence of new English varieties. The first phase is characterized by non-recognition of the local variety. Local speakers consciously try to imitate native speakers, and look down on speakers of the local variety (Kachru, 1983; Kirkpatrick, 2007). In the second stage, there is extensive spread of bilingualism in English. The local model begins to be used widely, although it is still ranked low by its users. During this time, a variety of competing norm orientations co-exist, including ‘overt’ (native speaker) prestige and ‘covert’ (local) solidarity norms. During the third stage, the


62

local variety becomes accepted as the norm and becomes a badge of identity. The variety gains important intranational functions and the teaching materials become contextualized in the native sociocultural context. Kachru notes that several of the Outer Circle institutionalized varieties of English in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia or the Philippines have already gone some way through these stages. This basic model essentially predicts two things. This first is that in the development of any variety, there will be a period of time that Kachru (1983) terms ‘linguistic schizophrenia’, when competing norm orientations are likely to co-exist: the idealized native speaker norms alongside the local forms actually in usage. This trend has been tested and confirmed in studies on attitudes towards HKE. Groves and Chan (2010), in particular, found that while a large majority of respondents were aiming at native speaker norms, most of them self-identified to be using their own localized variety of English. The second prediction is that in the long term, speech communities tend to move on to determining their own norms. In spite of Hong Kongers’ non-recognition of their own variety, there seems to already be a process of unconscious establishing of norms; apart from the previously-mentioned studies of linguistic features of HKE, Groves & Chan’s (2010) study of semantic shift suggested that Hong Kongers do not realise the extent to which some of their own deviations from British English norms are both systematic and pervasive. 5.2 Moag’s Life Cycle Moag’s tentative ‘Life cycle of non-native Englishes’ (1982, also summarized in Kirkpatrick, 2007) expands Kachru’s initial scheme out to five stages6, although his second phase of indigenization continues playing out concurrently through the third and fourth stages. In the first stage, transportation, English


63

is introduced into a new environment. Indigenization, the second phase, is similar to Kachru’s nativization period, and involves a long “process of language change by which the new variety of English becomes distinct from the parent imported variety, and from other indigenized varieties elsewhere” (Moag, 1982, p. 271). During this time, the local variety begins to be used either in new domains or to new degrees, especially in education, the media, and the government. Thus this is the beginning of the expansion in use phase. Internal variation then appears in the form of a colloquial style, resulting from schoolchildren’s use of the variety in the playground. In the fourth phase, of institutionalization, the local variety becomes the ongoing school model, taught by locally trained teachers. Local literature will also begin to be written in the new variety. The fifth stage of restriction occurs if and when English is displaced by a local official language, with its use being curtailed once again to limited functions. According to Moag, all varieties eventually go through the first four stages to full indigenization and institutionalization, but not all experience the fifth.7 With regard to English usage in Hong Kong, it seems that phase two of indigenization is well under way. Some traces of stage three, of expansion in use, may be apparent. English is in wide use in the education system as a medium of instruction, in spite of official efforts to promote mother-tongue medium of instruction; however, there are few signs of basilectal variation appearing. There are also signs of stage four: with the vast majority of teachers being locally trained Hong Kongers, the local variety has in effect become the model for local schoolchildren. However the ideal norm remains largely exonormative, again marking an intermediate phase between endonormative and exonormative standards.


64

5.3 Schneider’s Framework Schneider’s (2003, 2007) framework accounts for the emergence and development of ‘Post-Colonial Englishes’ (‘PCE’s) specifically, which he argues “is understood as a sequence of characteristic stages of identity rewritings and associated linguistic changes affecting the [two main] parties involved in a colonial-contact setting” (2007, p. 29). He outlines five stages that a speech community progresses through, of Foundation, Exonormative Stabilization, Nativization, Endonormative Stablization and Differentiation. For each phase he distinguishes between the perspectives of the ‘settler strand,’ a group of English-speaking settlers, and the ‘indigenous strand’ (see Table 1 below for a summary). The process is usually started by an English-speaking immigrant group. This is stage one, of Foundation, usually marked by little contact between the two languages, and similar to Moag’s phase of transportation. Cross-cultural communication is very limited and specialized; consequently marginal bilingualism develops in the indigenous strand, while the settlers adopt placenames from the local language. Stage two is Exonormative Stabilization. By now the colony has stabilized under foreign political dominance. English is formally established at least in some spheres of society, e.g. administration, education and the legal system, and so bilingualism starts to spread among the indigenous population. Thus an ‘indigenous elite’ develops, largely attempting to follow the norms of the imported standard English, although at the same time, some ‘structural nativization’ begins almost unnoticeably to occur, resulting from phonological and syntactic transfer. A hybrid identity begins to develop in both strands, a ‘British-plus-local’ identification for the settlers, and a ‘local-plus-English-knowing’ identity among the indigenous bilinguals.


65

These linguistic changes lead directly into the next stage of Nativization, “the central phase of both cultural and linguistic transformation … for the drastically increased ranges of communication between the parties involved now makes language use a major practical issue and an expression of new identity” (Schneider, 2007, p. 247). Ties with the ‘mother country’ are weakening for the settler strand, the social gap between the two groups is reduced, and there may be calls for independence. The local residents now begin to undergo large-scale second language acquisition of English. Some form of mixed-code becomes an identity carrier, and their usage develops noticeable local ‘linguistic idiosyncracies’. This is the stage where insecurity about language norms rears its head, and a ‘complaint tradition’ about falling standards begins. As Schneider expresses it: “Is the old, external norm still the only ‘correct’ one, as conservative circles tend to hold, or can local usage really be accepted as correct simply on account of being used by a significant proportion of the population, including educated speakers? ... The process of transition is marked by some discussion of these issues and, over time, an increasing readiness to accept localized forms” (Schneider, 2007, p. 248). Phase four, Endonormative Stablization, typically follows political independence (as the community must have the ability to determine its own language policies).8 The local ‘idiosyncracies’ now lose their stigma, and local norms are accepted and adopted, including in formal usage. The new language norms become a means of expression of a new identity which emphasizes shared territory, and which is also displayed in the emergence of literature in the new English variety. Characteristically, this is the stage where codification can begin. It is also where formal recognition is given to the new variety, and so the phrase ‘the English spoken in X-place’ becomes ‘X-an English’. Singapore, South Africa and Jamaica


66

are current examples. The fifth and final stage, Differentiation, is marked by internal diversification which sees new regional and/or social dialects springing up, representing new social or regional identities within the nation.9 According to Schneider, Hong Kong English progressed through stage one roughly in the 19th century, and phase two through much of the 20th. It is now largely in phase three, of nativization, with some traces of stage two – a strong endonormative orientation - being observed. The two important processes taking place in stage three are identity reconstruction and linguistic innovations, both of which can be observed in Hong Kong. Preparation for the Handover in 1997 had a major impact on both language use and identity. British expatriates had to decide whether to make Hong Kong their home, while locals were developing a stronger ‘Hong Konger’ identity nested within a broader ‘Chinese’ identity. Attitudes towards the use of English changed positively, with the new Hong Konger identity incorporating a mixed-code of English and Chinese (Hyland, 1997; Pennington, 1998). By this time, Hong Kongers’ English had also developed its own distinctive accent, phonological features, lexis and grammatical structures. This has caused the ‘complaint tradition’ to arise, another central characteristic of phase 3 of nativization. Thus Schneider’s framework classifies HKE as an emergent variety, on the verge of becoming a full language but not quite one yet. Schneider himself points out Hong Kong as potentially being an interesting test case for the predictive implications of his dynamic model.


67

Table 1: Schneider’s dynamic model for the emergence and development of post-colonial Englishes (PCE’s)

(based on Schneider, 2007, p. 56 – Table 3.1: The evolutionary cycle of New English: parameters of the developmental phases.)

Sociopolitical

Background Identity Construction

Sociolinguistic conditions

Linguistic effects (IDG = indigenous strand; STL = settler strand)

Examples

Phase 1 Foundation

Settling of a group of English speakers (STL strand)

Separate, distinct

Marginal bilingualism in IDG strand

IDG - Some English pidgenization STL – Toponymic borrowing (i.e. local placenames) adopted

Phase 2 Exonormative Stabilization

Colonial establishment, English adopted for some spheres

Hybrid identity

Bilingualism spreads, indigenous elite

IDG - British norm accepted but rarely achieved STL – Borrowings from flora & fauna, culture & objects

Fiji

Phase 3 Nativization

Increasing independence

Local identities develop based on mixed-code

Widespread English acquisition; ‘complaint tradition’

IDG – Variant forms & local accent stabilize STL – Heavy lexical borrowing

Malaysia, the Philippines, Kenya, Nigeria

Phase 4 Endonormative Stabilization

Independence

New local identity

Local variety of English recognized

Homogeneous local norms, codification

Singapore, South Africa, Jamaica

Phase 5 Differentiation

Political stability and self-dependence

Group-specific

Diversification

Dialect birth USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand


68

5.4 Summary To summarize the main points of each of the three dynamic models, in each case, settlers to a non-English speaking area import their variety of English, which is then influenced and changed by local languages and cultures. At first the new indigenous variety is considered inferior, but over time it slowly becomes widespread, becomes socially accepted and is then institutionalized (Kirkpatrick, 2007; see Table 2 below). With regard to Hong Kong, the most pertinent aspect of these three models is that there is a period of time of uncertainty between norm orientations, a time when linguistic attitudes (being exonormative in orientation) do not match up with linguistic behaviour (being endonormative in practice). This seems to be descriptive of English in Hong Kong currently. Another facet of relevance is that all three models also predict that non-native Englishes will eventually progress through this cycle and become nativized and accepted as varieties in their own right, barring unexpected events or policy changes – it’s just a matter of time.

Table 2: Developmental cycles of new varieties of English (Adapted from Kirkpatrick 2007, pp. 32-33; shaded areas relate to the possible current stage(s)

of the development of HKE)

Scholar Phases

Kachru (1983)

1 non-recognition

2 co-existence of local and imported varieties

3 recognition

Moag (1982)

1 transportation

2 indigenisation

3 expansion in use

4 institutionalisation

5 decline

Schneider (2003, 2007)

1 foundation 2 exonormative stabilisation

3 nativisation

4 endonormative stabilisation

5 differentiation


69

6. Current Trends and Future Possibilities Thus far, the literature review has revealed conflicting opinions among researchers as to the status of HKE. Various static linguistic and sociolinguistic parameters applied to New Englishes, such as linguistic systematicity, range and depth, the existence of literature and reference works, and societal attitudes, are largely inconclusive. Taking into consideration the changing nature of language in use, it seems more meaningful to use a dynamic model, which can situate a variety along a developmental scale and account for the uncertainties and inconsistencies. Schneider’s is the most recent model, as well as the most comprehensive and illuminating in the case of HKE. It places HKE roughly in the middle of the developmental process and classifies it as an ‘emergent variety’. Two important points raised by this placement relate to the current trends and the future possibilities for the variety. Currently there is a manifestation of Kachru’s ‘linguistic schizophrenia’ in the form of competing norm orientations. Unlike places like Singapore, the Philippines, Nigeria and India, etc, where internal norms have developed, the idea of native speaker norms is still firmly rooted in Hong Kong society. Consequently, decisions that have been made to enable these other countries to be endonormative, cannot yet be made in Hong Kong (Jenkins, 2003). On the other hand, actual usage does not conform with this ideal. Most research has shown that local norms tend to be pervasive and systematic, with some deviations being (unconsciously) accepted by Hong Kongers. This is probably due to the recent shift from elitist to mass bilingualism in the last few decades. Thus a ‘complaint tradition’ about falling standards has arisen in Hong Kong. This seems to conflict with the view held by some linguists that a variety of HKE is emerging. Joseph (1997) answers this seeming contradiction: How can English be both declining and


70

emerging at the same time? He states that, in fact, there is a real sense in which Hong Kong is losing English – it is losing the norms of standard British or American English, while at the same time gaining its own norms. He views this development in a positive light, maintaining that this ‘decline’ in imported standards is a necessary phase for Hong Kong to go through in order for English to adapt to and survive in its post-colonial setting. Joseph also points out that this nativization is the same process which has given birth to English varieties in other places around the world, including all the Inner Circle varieties (which Foley (1988) therefore terms ‘Old Englishes’)10. In fact the main difference between the present-day ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ varieties seems only to be length of time of existence, and therefore recognition and acceptance (Kirkpatrick, 2007) – and historically at some stage each one has been embroiled in the same conflicts about language deficiencies and falling standards that the emerging Outer and Expanding Circle varieties are now undergoing. Consequently, it took imported native speaker varieties such as American, Australian and New Zealand English up to two centuries to pass through this phase of ‘linguistic schizophrenia’. And even for those Outer Circle regions that have moved into the stage of endonormative stabilization. and have begun to use their own norms in their education system, the process has not been without controversy, generally taking generations or even centuries (Schneider, 2007; Kirkpatrick, Deterding & Wong, 2008). This leads on to the long-term prospects for English in Hong Kong. Given that the advent of ‘mass bilingualism’ is relatively recent in Hong Kong, and its nativization still at a relatively early stage, it would probably be unrealistic to expect HKE to emerge as a fully autonomous variety in the near future. On the other hand, Kirkpatrick (2007) has noted that because English is


71

in huge demand at present, Expanding Circle Englishes can develop at a very fast speed and are likely to become recognized much more quickly than their Inner Circle complements were. Therefore we may not have to wait as long as the Inner Circle varieties for HKE to become a public reality. An added influence in the case of HKE specifically, is the example of neighbouring mainland China, who is rapidly acquiring English and for whom it is fast becoming an instrument of identity construction and artistic innovation (Kachru & Nelson, 2006). If China English develops as fast as Kirkpatrick and others predict, this would almost certainly impact on the development and acceptance of HKE. Linguistic developments may also be tied in with political developments. It is interesting to observe that the semi-autonomous state of both Cantonese (Groves, 2008) and English in Hong Kong reflect the current semi-autonomous political situation. In this regard, Joseph (1997) particularly mentions the possible effects of future policy decisions regarding the use and development of written colloquial Cantonese, which he believes could force a cultural identity crisis. In fact, many parallels exist between the development and current status of written Cantonese and that of HKE, and both have been developing at roughly the same time. Snow (2008) notes that written Cantonese has already obtained a degree of autonomy and functional elaboration, and that norms are slowly crystallizing simply through popular consensus. As with an English-Cantonese mixed code, written Cantonese has become a symbol of identity (Snow, 2008), particularly among the young people. He concludes that ‘the long-term trend appears to be toward the consolidation and even expansion of [the social role of written Cantonese]’. However, societal attitudes toward this are ambivalent. People tend to feel writing in Cantonese is ‘wrong’ or at least substandard, and, similar to how local features of English usage are decried, there


72

is concern that written Cantonese is undermining students’ ability to write Standard Written Chinese (Cheung & Bauer, 2002). Nevertheless, one factor that does favour the ongoing development of written Cantonese, is the fact that it’s a youth phenomenon (Snow, 2004). This is also the case with HKE; as noted before, attitudes among youth seem more open, and today’s young Hong Kongers are using a more basilectal, local-feature-laden style of English in their electronic communications, which may also eventually aid in the indigenization of English.11 Presumably this could lead to the next generation developing ‘functional’ (as opposed to ‘genetic’) nativeness (Kachru & Nelson, 2006), and this would give the variety more ability to expand its functions and social depth, thus strengthening its nativization. 7. Conclusion To sum up, all the evidence seems to suggest that HKE is near the beginning of Schneider’s phase three of nativization, while still being partially in phase two of exonormative stabilization. Thus HKE can be numbered among Butler’s ‘half-way’ varieties, which fulfil some criteria for a full language but not all. This both clarifies the uncertainties about its status, and explains the tendency to use the phrase ‘English in Hong Kong’ rather than the more direct label ‘Hong Kong English’. The lingering endonormative outlook seems to be due to a form of linguistic purism, reinforced by the teaching profession and perpetuated by the stable triglossic situation. In spite of this, local features are widely used in actual speech, a development partly due to the relatively recent wide spread of bilingualism. Nonetheless, as Joseph argues cogently, this is a phase it needs to go through if it is to eventually obtain autonomy. Furthermore, application of Scheider’s model would seem to


73

predict the ongoing development and eventual recognition of the variety. So the answer to whether Hong Kong English should be considered a variety in its own right could be: perhaps not yet – but wait and see! It seems to already be present in Hong Kong society in embryonic form. As Bolton believes (and Schneider’s model predicts), the essential pre-conditions for the emergence of the variety may already exist in the community, and so the real question relates not to its present status, but to its future possibilities – will it continue to nativize, developing more functions and social depth, and thus become more than a ‘still-born’ variety? And if so, how long with that process take? This may hinge partly on political or policy decisions, and on developments among the youth, who seem to already be innovating in both Chinese and English with colloquial styles of writing. Based on current patterns of development in Expanding Circle nations, we may not have to wait as long as the Inner Circle varieties for HKE to become a public reality. Why is this issue of status significant? Kachru (1985a, p. 252) stresses the importance of responding to ‘the present complex international dynamics of English’ with appropriate theoretical approaches. Researchers then need to adjust their applied research accordingly, including the two important areas of language planning and teaching methodology. Bell (1976) explains: “There are strong indications that sociolinguistic type has a powerful influence on social function (and no doubt the converse) and hence, on the crucial macrosociolinguistic issue of language planning – code choice … at the intra-national and international level” (pp. 162-163). In some areas, where autonomous varieties are already acknowledged, such as Singapore, the Philippines and Nigeria, this ideological shift is largely underway and endonormative standards are being used in the education system. However there are many other places


74

where this idea does not seem to be welcome, including Hong Kong. This state of affairs is also correlated with a lack of research on Hong Kong English in particular, and New Englishes in general. The establishing of relevant research paradigms is even more paramount, because different ideological frameworks will lead to different research results (Schreider, 2009). For instance, in the case of HKE, most researchers have described patterns that would be considered ‘features’ of Singapore English in terms of ‘errors’ in the grammar of HKE (Bolton & Luke, 1999; for examples see Boyle & Boyle, 1991; Bunton, 1989, 1992). In the same vein, Bolton (2003) complains that very little research has been undertaken on the nativization of HKE. Gisborne (2009) likewise points out that to date there has been very little work done on grammar or vocabulary, and laments that even today, there are no constructive paradigms for analysing its morphosyntax. Therefore in the Hong Kong context especially, much more insightful research needs to be applied, especially to ascertain the emerging norms. In the meantime, there exists the peculiarity of ‘Hong Kongisms’ being produced in everyday utterances of those who deny the very existence of the variety. This in itself is a sign of a new variety in the formative stages. However, it awaits to be seen when (or even whether) HKE will move into the next stage of formation, Schneider’s phase four of endonormative stabilization. Meanwhile, the new realities of emerging English varieties will continue to challenge both the researcher and the teacher of English in Outer and Expanding Circle contexts. Notes 1 The problem is that the situation is more complex than can be captured in one simple model; it corresponds only roughly to geopolitical and social reality


75

(McArthur 2001). Bruthiaux (2003) points out that it “tries to account for [different] varieties (in the Inner Circle), a multiplicity of speaker types (mainly in the Outer Circle), and [a range of] geographical locations (in the Expanding Circle) all at once” (p. 161). The lists of countries named as being in each of these circles are only representative examples, not exhaustive lists. 2 Bolton (2003, p. 41) also quotes a list of other researchers from the 1970’s and ‘80’s who have treated Hong Kong English as a standard(izing) variety. 3 Moag (1982) adds further explanation, that in the early stages of formation of a new variety, there is a relatively small number of users (‘elitist bilingualism’ Bolton 2002), so the local learners have enough exposure to and communication with native speaker models for the native speaker norms to be reinforced. However, as the language base broadens among the local population due to a drive towards mass bilingualism, there is more and more transfer of local linguistic features as well as discourse conventions. 4 He also points out that, “Even in those regions where such reference works already exists, for example Singapore and the Philippines, they have not received a wholly favorable reception” (Jenkins, 2003, p. 137). 5 Many researchers have covered this point, e.g. Jenkins, 2003; Pang, 2003; Stibbard, 2004; Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008; and Groves & Chan, 2010. Pang (2003) explains that this is ironically due to the high status of English in Hong Kong society coupled with its regulative and instrumental functions. There is therefore a desire particularly on behalf of the gatekeepers, to keep standards very high, so features such as a local accent or particular local usages are stigmatized, and this would militate against the acceptance of the variety. 6 He points out, similar to the other two frameworks, that stages may occur concurrently and there may be no clear boundary marker between any two particular phases. However, each phase begins in the order stated. 7 Moag speculates that in these cases, English may even revert back to the status of a foreign language, where English is used once again only for limited functions such as technical and scientific subjects, and some professional activities. In fact, his model is the only one of the three that goes on to include this final stage of decline. However, as in both Kachru’s and Schneider’s models, this doesn’t occur before the variety reaches full endonormative stablization. At the time of writing (1982), Moag noted that there were signs of this phase happening in the Philippines, Malaysia and India, with deliberate language planning policies promoting national languages. Writing a full quarter-century later, Kirkpatrick (2007) remarks that there has recently been an officially approved and promoted increase in the uses of English in Malaysia, with no signs of language death in any of the countries mentioned by Moag.


76

8 However, this by itself is not always enough to ensure forward progression through to this stage. In fact, there’s no guarantee that any speech community will progress through all five stages on Schneider’s model; external circumstances may cause them to stop at any one stage, or they may even regress to a prior stage. Schneider notes that the former seems to have happened in the cases of Malaysia and the Philippines, who are stuck in stage three due to changes in language policies. Alternatively, phase four may be reached by ‘event X’ – an event which causes the settler strand to reconstruct a new, locally based identity, emphasizing shared territory. An example is Australia, who was left unsupported by Britain against attacks on it during World War II. 9 Schneider emphasizes that progression through to this fifth and final stage does not necessarily mean that a country has become largely monolingual like Australia, New Zealand or America; instead they may stay multilingual in a stable diglossic situation, such as in Canada. Singapore also seems to be heading in this direction. 10 The imported inner circle varieties – American, Australian and New Zealand varieties – all came into contact with and were impacted both by variant British dialects as well as local languages and cultures, and even the British varieties of English have been influenced by local languages and cultures (Kirkpatrick, 2007); all Englishes reflect the backgrounds of all the people who have ever used them (Kachru & Smith, 2008, pp. 181-182). 11 Kirkpatrick (2007) maintains that this same phenomenon in mainland China is contributing to the development of China English. This is in line with Moag’s (1982) claim that basilectal variation first appears in the younger generation in their casual conversations. References Bell, R. T. (1976). Sociolinguistics: Goals, approaches and problems. London: B. T.

Batsford. Bolton, K., & Luke, K. K. (1999). Language and society in Hong Kong: The social survey of

languages in the 1980’s. Hong Kong: Social Sciences Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong.

Bolton, K. (2002). The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong

English. In K. Bolton (Ed.), Hong Kong English: Autonomy and creativity (pp.29-55). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Bolton, K. (2003). Chinese Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boyle, J., & Boyle, L. (1991). Common spoken English errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman. Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide.

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 159-178.


77

Bunton, D. (1989). Common English errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman. Bunton, D. (1992). Common business English errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:

Longman. Butler, S. (1997). World English in the Asian context: Why a dictionary is important.

In L. E. Smith & M. L. Forman (Ed.), World Englishes 2000 (pp. 90-125). Honolulu, Hawaii: College of Languages, Linguistics and Literature, University of Hawaii and the East-West Center.

Cheung, K. H., & Bauer, R. S. (2002). The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese

Characters. Berkeley, CA: Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California. Deterding, D., Wong, J., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2008) The pronunciation of Hong Kong

English. English World-Wide, 29(2), 148-175. Foley, J. (1988). Introduction. In J. Foley (Ed.), New Englishes: The case of Singapore (pp.

i-xv). Singapore: Singapore University Press. Gisborne, N. (2009). Aspects of the morphosyntactic typology of Hong Kong English.

English World-Wide, 30(2), 149-169. Groves, J. M. (2008). Language or dialect – or Topolect? A comparison of the

attitudes of Hong Kongers and mainland Chinese towards the status of Cantonese. Sino-Platonic Papers, 179. Retrieved June 23, 2010, from http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp179_cantonese.pdf

Groves, J. M., & Chan, H. T. (2010, January). When does an error become a feature of

Hong Kong English? Seminar presentation at Hong Kong Baptist University Language Centre Seminar Series 2009-10.

Hung, T. T. N. (2002). Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. In K. Bolton

(Ed.), Hong Kong English (pp. 119-140). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Hyland, K. (1997). Language attitudes at the handover: Communication and identity

in 1997 Hong Kong. English World-Wide, 18(2), 191-210. Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Joseph, J. E. (1997). English in Hong Kong: Emergence and decline. In S. Wright & H.

Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), One country, two systems, three languages (pp. 60-73). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Kachru, B. B. (1983). Models for non-native Englishes. In K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru

(Eds.), World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics: Vol. 4 (pp. 108-130). London: Routledge.


78

Kachru, B. B. (1985a). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: English language in the outer circle. In K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 3 (pp. 241- 269). London: Routledge.

Kachru, B. B. (1985b). Attitudes and usage: English in the world context. In S.

Greenbaum (Ed.), The English language today (pp. 207-226). Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

Kachru, B. B. (1986). The alchemy of English. Oxford: Pergamon. Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language

Teaching, 25, 1-14. Kachru, Y., & Nelson, C. L. (2006). World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong:

Hong Kong University Press. Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. E. (2008). Cultures, contexts and world Englishes. New York:

Routledge. Kirkpatrick, A., & Xu, Z. C. (2002). Chinese pragmatic norms and ‘China English’.

World Englishes, 21(2), 269- 279. Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication and

English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A., Deterding, D., & Wong, J. (2008). The international intelligibility of

Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 27(3-4), 359-377. Li, D. C. S. (2000). Hong Kong English: New variety of English or interlanguage?

English Australia Journal, 18(1), 50-59. Luke, K. K., & Richards, J. C. (1982). English in Hong Kong: Functions and status.

English World-Wide, 3(1), 47-64. McArthur, T. (2001). World English and world Englishes. In K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru

(Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 1 (pp. 89-124). London: Routledge.

McArthur, T. (2005). Teaching and using English in Hong Kong, China, and the

world. English Today, 21(4), 61-64. Mesthrie, R., & Bhatt, R. M. (2008). World Englishes: The Study of new linguistic varieties.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moag, R. F. (1982). The life cycle of non-native Englishes: A case study. In The other

tongue: English across cultures (pp. 270-288). Oxford: Pergamon. Pang, T. (2003). Hong Kong English: A stillborn variety? English Today, 19(2), 12-18.


79

Pemberton, R. (1993). Introduction. In R. Pemberton & E. S. C. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in Lexis (pp. 17-34). Hong Kong: Language Center, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.

Pennington, M. C. (1998). Perspectives on language in Hong Kong at century’s end. In M.

C. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong Kong at century’s end (pp. 3-39). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Platt, J. T. (1982). English in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. In R. W. Bailey &

M. Görlach (Eds.), English as a world language (pp. 384-414), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schneider, E. W. (2003). The dynamics of new Englishes: From identity construction

to dialect birth. In K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru (Eds.), World Englishes: Critical concepts in linguistics: Vol. 1 (pp. 125-185). London: Routledge.

Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English – Varieties around the world. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. Schreider, D. (2009). Assessing the status of lesser-known varieties of English.

English Today, 25(1), 19-24. Snow, D. (2004). Cantonese as written language: The growth of a written Chinese

vernacular. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Snow, D. (2008). Cantonese as written standard? Journal of Asian Pacific

Communication, 18(2), 190-208. Stibbard, R. (2004). The spoken English of Hong Kong: A study of co-occuring

segmental errors. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 7(2), 127-142. Tay, M. W. J. (1991). Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. In J. Cheshire (Ed.), English

around the world: Sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 319-332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

About the author: Julie Groves has taught ESOL in New Zealand, mainland China and Hong Kong, and has also been involved with teacher training in mainland China. She completed her MA in Linguistics at Chinese University of Hong Kong, with her thesis topic being attitudes towards the status of Cantonese in Hong Kong. Her current research interests are self-access language learning, Hong Kong English, language attitudes and language planning. Until recently she has been a Lecturer in English at the HKBU Language Centre. Email: [email protected]

Hong Kong English – Does it Exist?lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v13_04.pdf · Hong Kong English –...

Documents

Transcript of Hong Kong English – Does it Exist?lc.hkbu.edu.hk/book/pdf/v13_04.pdf · Hong Kong English –...