The Existence of Hong Kong English and Its Political and Social Roles - Literature review Example

The Existence of Hong Kong English and its political and social roles Kachru, (1985b) states that the diffusion of English which is unprecedented has in essence become a phenomenon for post 2nd world war. It has been realised that the study as well as the classification of indigenous English varieties is proving to be a new area where research needs to be done in a purposeful and in an organised manner (Kachru, 1992). A number of groundbreaking conferences since 1970’s were targeting future development with consideration of special attention on description and analysis of ‘New Englishes’. Some of the questions addressed in such conferences include the stage at which the English being spoken at certain location can qualify to be classified as a variety. In this case, Hong Kong English is one of the new English under study. In the early years, English had been the only official language in Hong Kong as a British colony. Until now, English is also playing an important role in education, economy and politics. It is also worth noting that English practiced in Hong Kong has certain characteristics that have become systematic as time goes by. Thus, the existence of Hong Kong English is a concept that requires recognition (Kachru, 1992). This paper discusses the Hong Kong English existence and its political and social roles. The existence is well explained through three historical stages. These are the early era, colonial era, and post- 1997 era of Hong Kong English. The article also considers its current trend and future possibilities. English in Hong Kong: The Early Era Before the 2nd Opium War, Hong Kong was part of China. At that time, Hong Kong belonged to Guangdong province and there is the likelihood that English development at that time was Hong Kong English development at early stages. After the two wars, Hong Kong became a colony of the British where its matters in language became distinctive from China which was then Mainland China. Bolton (2002) notes a long history of English in China where English was in Canton in the nineteenth century where Canton was a key area of trading. Between mid eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, this language developed from Canton English to Pidgin English that was commonly used in South China. The loss of the first and second Opium Wars forced China to open to the western countries more ports and cities. At the same time, use of English spread out leading to the development of English in China. Moreover, the foundation of schools run by missionaries in Hong Kong significantly contributed to the increase in number of English speakers. As formal education enabled people to gain access to English, Hall (1994, as cited by Bolton, 2002) stated the there was a decline of Pidgin English from 1890s. Bolton (2002) also states that these schools were also centralised earlier in Macau as well as Hong Kong. There is a belief that these schools significantly influenced the system of education and Hong Kong English. With the occupation of the Britons in Hong Kong, there was also a change in its language policy. In addition, the long period of the British colony emphasised on the use of English thus, making the Cantonese language in Hong Kong inferior. The Late colonial era: Hong Kong English The period referred to as the colonial era is the time from mid 1960 to the sovereignty change. This period is believed to play a very crucial part in the history of Hong Kong as it was during this time that its economy thrived. As Hong Kong people were traditionally Cantons, a majority of Hong Kong people speak Cantonese. Gibbon (1987) stated that the city of Hong Kong was characterised by racial homogeneity. This is because the Chinese constituted about 98% of the entire population while Cantonese language contributed to 80% population wise. Hong Kong community is also multi-ethnic as evidenced by a large count of those whose origin is canton or Shanghai. Tsou (1996) made categorisation of the people of Chinese origin that live in Hong Kong into five groups linguistically: Szeyap speakers, those speaking in Cantonese, those speaking in Hakka, those speaking in Chiuchow and finally, out-of- starters. The author later discovered that the other four groups shifted their languages to Cantonese. Though English was set as a dominant language in Hong Kong in the early colonialism era, the Chinese shift of language as well as increasing number of those speaking in Cantonese pressurized the Hong Kong policy on language. As English was still the official language in Hong Kong, non-official domains widely used Cantonese. This created a move towards expanding the use of English especially in relation to upper-middle families. In addition, the transitional period occurred between 1991 and 1995 where the code norm was blurry. The behaviour of switching code was inevitable due to the establishment of the new code. At this point, the prestigious of English became unstable while on the other hand, the Cantonese seemed reinforced. However, it is worth noting that English is still exerting influences to a larger extent on every domain in Hong Kong. The theory of Hong Kong English may have been attributed by the affinity that was developed in the last two decades that refer to the ‘Englishes of the World’ as new varieties that are locally different. In categorisation of the new Englishes, Kachru (1997) suggested three concentric circles model. The model is based on his idea of viewing the spread of English into three concentric circles that represent the patterns of acquiring English, types of spread and functional domains in relation to the use of English across various languages as well as cultures as Kachru (1985a) explains. These circles are the inner, outer and expanding circles. The inner circle consists of countries that are speakers of native English such as Australia, and America among others whose use of English is referred to as a primary language. In addition, these countries are endocentric or norm providing. The second circle includes the countries whose English was spread through colonisation as a second language such as Malaysia, Singapore and specifically, Hong Kong lies in this category. At this circle, English posses official functions as well as status where it has gone some acculturation in addition to nativization. At this circle, the creative literature is usually written in different forms of local English. The final circle is referred to as expanding and involves the nations where the status of English is a foreign language, for example Japan and Korea among others. It is worth noting that these nations are exocentric or in other words, they depend on norm as they are generally in search of a Standard English. In the process of replacing the original English by referring it as native (ENL), second language (ESL) as well as foreign language (EFL) with this model’s concepts the author stresses that standards as well as norms should by no means be determined by the contexts of inner circle or ENL stating that English belongs to everyone using it. This acknowledges a growth in the pluri-centrality hence bringing of new plural term ‘Englishes’. Although the new English concept may seem challenging to the belief of traditional Eurocentric, it provides the basis for explaining the development and emergence of postcolonial. Schneider (2003) further gives a proposition of a new framework referred to as the dynamic model which examines thedevelopment of new Englishes such as Hong Kong English. The model involves expansion of ENL, ESL and EFL into (STL) for colonisers, and indigenous (IDG). Thus, those speakers who are defined as the outer circle or non-native speakers can as well be English speakers of first language. The process on the development of new Englishes was then divided into five stages namely foundation, exonormatice stabilisation, nativisation (where Hong Kong lies), endonormaive stabilization and differentiation. From this process, Hong Kong English is categorised in the third stage which is a sign of appearance and development of new variety of English to a certain degree. Joseph (1996) performed an evaluation on Hong Kong English concept concern of public in relation to the observed declined in Standard English. Although there were worries on Standard English deterioration for last few years, it can also be observed from the census results that there was a significant increase in speakers of English as from 1983 to 1993. The decrease in Standard English with increasing English speakers is a sign of emergency or development of Hong Kong English which is the new variety. Joseph (1996) analysed the Hong Kong English standardisation on the basis of three aspects; linguistic form, function and status. First, it should be assessed whether Hong Kong English has distinctive linguistic form or not. Chan (2004) discovered a syntactic problem experienced by Hong Kong students in learning English noun phrases which resulted from the differences between Chinese and English. Gisborne (Bolton, 2002) also proved a distinctive syntax of Hong Kong English through the features of relative clauses of Hong Kong English. In addition, there was also a presentation of phonological features which occur in Hong Kong English. Stibbard (2004) further expanded and echoed these phonological systematic characteristics of Hong Kong English though he also realised negative attitude to the pronunciation in Hong Kong. Secondly, Hong Kong English status is no likely to be approved publicly the pronunciation of Hong Kong people towards their English is negative. Further studies also noted that Standard English and native pronunciation in Hong Kong are preferred whereas these people have low esteem for Hong Kong English. Thirdly, the status of language influences is also influenced by language function. Therefore, more the domains used in a language results to higher the status. As the linguistic hegemony of English was observed to change gradually toward the end of colonialism, the sharing of status of the official language with Cantonese also reduced the Standard English but on the other hand it promoted Hong Kong English. Thus, based on the three aspects, it can be concluded that a decline in Standard English offered space for the emergence of Hong Kong English (Joseph, 1996). In addition, Bolton (2002) further explained Hong Kong English from Butler criteria: vocabulary; accent; history; reference works; literary creativity; and style guides. It is also noted that Hong Kong English future development relies heavily on the language policy as well as the attitude of Beijing. Post- 1997: Hong Kong English The government had made attempts to alter the situation of the language even two years before the handover by pronouncing their new language policy where one of essential changes was based on promotion of Putonghua. But due to long history on the use of English as well as increased numbers of those who speak in Cantonese, it was challenging to implement the policy. Although in the colonial period there were schools that were taught in Chinese, English education was so dominant. This led to strengthening of high English status in Hong Kong. But the government decided to change the status of the language by putting more emphasis on mother tongue as they approached 1997. This reduced the number of secondary schools that continued to use English an instruction medium where more schools were forced to adopt Chinese in their learning (Bolton, 2002). Education in the mother tongue represents the Hong Kong language policy in post 1997. The intended change was supposed to be a trilingual situation which included speaking Cantonese as a home language, speaking Putonghua as the standard spoken and a national language as well as speaking English as an international lingua franca (Lai and Byram, 2003). Change in political powers is also an implication of favouring a different variety thus, promotion of Putonghua as a national language was inevitable in order to establish national identity as well as removing Hong Kong colonial taint. According to Lai (2001), English still plays a significant role in many domains which is an indication that the development of Hong Kong English continues even if there is a challenging policy. Application of English in Hong Kong can be regarded as undisputed given its historical situation for spreading of English during the colonial period to inhabitants and it can be regarded as an integral part in regard to sociocultural reality. Local artists express their linguistic creativity by using diversity of forms of hybridisation and appropriation instead of that of resistance. The productions in drama include translated works from western heritage which may be performed at times in English or Cantonese. There are plays written for multilingual or bilingual participation which is done by actors possessing various abilities linguistically. The play-texts usually show traces of trilingualism in English, Cantonese as well as Putonghua (Kachru, 1992). Spread of English is also cherished by business and trade sectors as English in modern Hong Kong is identified with prosperity in conduction of international business (Bolton, 2002). The multilingual and bilingual characteristics of the society in Hong Kong are also receiving more recognition. Boyle (1991) states that the local sociolinguists have acknowledged the existence of reality in sociolinguistic in local context as they hold discussions in regard to the history of English in this country, language policies and planning from late to post-colonial period of the territory. On the assessment of the extent of justly application of the linguistic label of imperialism to English in Hong Kong, Boyle depicts pragmatics of parental preference for education using English medium and the benefits generated from multilingualism. In the ambition of Hong Kong to be the 21st century global metropolis; the English will be used as a lingua franca among different ethnic groups and also between partners in transnational business. Thus, the people of Hong Kong have opted for English for practical reasons. Bolton (2002) focuses on re-examination of much linguistics previous judgements on choice to emphasise the Cantonese dominance in the local community. Bolton attempts to explain as well as discard the invisibility myth and a monolingual myth that have vigorously persisted social and linguistics descriptions of Hong Kong for the last few decades. Bolton with other sociolinguistics provide findings and references of the wide ranging picture as well as the objective of issues that are related to multilingualism and bilingualism in the context of the country. Bolton proposes for re-evaluation of English in Hong Kong claiming that essential conditions for such a variety’s emergence deserves further attention from sociolinguistics as well as other academics. Hence, the role of English in many personal, social and public domains since sovereignty of Hong Kong was handed over in 1997 is significant. Current trends and future possibilities Various points relate to the recent trends as well as the possibilities in future in relation to Hong Kong English. Today, the Kachru’s ‘linguistics schizophrenia’ is manifested in the form of orientations norms that tend to be competing. Unlike places which include the Philippines, India and Singapore among others where there are already developed norms, native speaker norm ideas is still firmly rooted in this country’s society. The decisions required for the purpose of making these countries endonormative are yet to be implemented in our country of interest (Jenkins, 2003). A lot of research indicates that the local norms will be systematic as well as pervasive with unconscious acceptable of some deviations by the people of Hong Kong. This can be attributed to a shift that was recently experienced from elitist to mass bilingualism in near past. This means that the complaint tradition that is about falling standards is seen to have risen in Hong Kong. This on the other hand conflicts linguistics views that there is an emergence of Hong Kong English. This contradiction is addressed by Joseph (1996) as he explains the decline in English and its emergence. Joseph adds that there is a sense of losing of English in Hong Kong as it is evidence to lose norms of American or British English but on the other hand, Hong Kong is gaining its norms. The author adds that this development is good as the decline in imported standards in Hong Kong is necessary for Hong Kong needs to survive its post-colonial setting. Foley (1988) also states that this nativization is referred as the same process that has been adapted in other places in order to come up with new English varieties throughout the world. This also includes all varieties of the inner circle. The main difference between native and non-native varieties in the present day is only the time of existence which shows acceptance and recognition. At some age in history, each one has been involved in similar conflicts in regard to the deficiencies in language as well as the falling standards that new varieties in outer and expanding circles are currently experiencing. In the same manner, it required imported varieties of native speaker such as American English up to approximately two hundred years to pass through ‘linguistic schizophrenia’ phase. In addition, even for regions that have attained endo-normative stabilization stage and in turn, they have started to apply their own norms in their systems. It is worth noting that the process does not lack controversy which may take generations as well as centuries. This leads to long-term prospects for Hong Kong English. With the recent advent of mass bilingualism and an early stage of nativization, it may be not be real to expect the emergency of Hong Kong English as a variety that is fully autonomous in the future (Kirkpatrick, 2007). Kirkpatrick also noted that, as English is currently at a high demand, the Englishes’ expanding circles are capable of developing at a relatively fast speed and their recognition may be very quickly as compared to how the complements of their inner circle were. Therefore, it is not a must that we will wait for long as Hong Kong English inner circle varieties become reality in public. In the Hong Kong English case, there is specifically and added influence of the mainland China neighbour that is acquiring English rapidly which is also fast becoming an instrument for artistic innovation as well as identity construction. Thus, if there is thefast development of China English, it is predicted that this would impact on acceptance and development of Hong Kong English (Kachru & Nelson, 2006). Development of linguistics may also be linked with political developments. Thus, as observed the semi-autonomous state of both English and Cantonese in the country under study reflects the recent semi-autonomous situation politically (Groves, 2008). In particular, Joseph (1997) mentions the possible future policy decision effects in regard to development and use of written colloquial Cantonese where the author believes that he could force a crisis of a cultural identity. There are a lot of parallels existing between current status and development of Hong Kong English and written Cantonese and the development of these two has been parallel. Snow (2008) also recognised that Cantonese has attained a degree of functional elaboration and autonomy. In addition, the norms are crystallising through known consensus. He adds that, as with mixed code of English-Cantonese, the written Cantonese proved to be an identity symbol specifically among the young. People have the tendency of feeling that it is substandard or wrong to write in Cantonese and the same way usage of English local features are decried, there is a raised concern that Cantonese in writting is undermines the ability of the students to write standard Chinese (Cheung & Bauer, 2000). A factor that favours the written Cantonese ongoing developments is that it is a phenomenon for the youth. The same case applies to Hong Kong English as the youths become more open as they use local feature laden English style in their communication using electronics. This may also assist in eventual idealization of English. As a result, this would lead to functional nativeness for the next generation as opposed to genetic. In addition, this would provide more ability for the variety to expand its social depth and functions which would lead to strengthening of nativization (Kachru & Nelson, 2006). Conclusion Due to social and historical transition that occurred in recent past, Hong Kong has proved to be one of the attractive places for socio-linguistics in order to study how various languages such as English among others are coping with Hong Kong’s new situation. This article lays focus on Hong Kong English development through evaluation three historical stages: early era, colonial era, and post- 1997 era where it is being taken eventually as a new variety. In analysis of the three stages, it is evident that Hong Kong English has played both political and socio-cultural roles in Hong Kong and its partner states such as China. English has performed multiple roles in Hong Kong culture as it primarily keep records, disseminate information and enhance various cultures to access modern worldwide practices as well as the knowledge ability of global society. It also plays a role in facilitation for multinational and cross-cultural communication. The evidence also suggests that Hong Kong English placed at the start of the third phase of Schneider’s model which is nativization while it is partially at exonormative stabilization which is the second phase. Hong Kong English can also be graded among the half-way Butler’s varieties which fulfil part of full language criteria but not all. These two gives clarification in regard to the uncertainties related to the status of Hong Kong English. They also explains the tendency for socio-linguistics to use ‘English in Hong Kong’ phrase instead of ‘Hong Kong English’ References 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. Boyle, J., & Boyle, L 1991, Common spoken English errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman. Chan A. Y. W 2004, Noun phrases in Chinese and English: a study of English structural problems encountered by Chinese ESL students in Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum [online], 17 (1). Viewed on 15 June, 2012,http://www.multilingual-matters.net/lcc/017/1/default.htm Cheung, K. H., & Bauer, R. S 2002, The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters. Berkeley, CA: Project on Linguistic Analysis, University of California. Foley, J 1988, Introduction. In J. Foley (Ed.), New Englishes: The case of Singapore (pp. i-xv). Singapore: Singapore University Press. Gibbons, J 1987, Code-mixing and code choice: a Hong Kong case study. Clevedon: The Bath Press. Groves, J. M 2008, Language or dialect – or Topolect? A comparison of the attitudes of Hong Kongers and mainland Chinese towards the status ofCantonese. Sino-Platonic Papers, 179. Viewed on 15 June, 2012,, from http://sinoplatonic. org/complete/spp179_cantonese.pdf 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. Joseph, J. E., 1996. English in Hong Kong: emergence and decline. Current Issues in Language and Society [online], 3 (2). Viewed on 15 June, 2012, http://www.multilingual matters.net/cils/003/2/default.htm 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. Kirkpatrick, A 2007, World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lai, M., 2001, Hong Kong students’ attitudes towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English after the change of sovereignty. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development [online], 22 no.2. Viewed on 15 June, 2012, http://www.multilingual-matters.net/jmmd/022/2/default.htm 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. 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-occurring segmental errors. Language, Culture and Curriculum [online], 17 (2). Viewed on 15 June, 2012, http://www.multilingual-matters.net/lcc/017/2/default.htm Tsou, B. K 1996, Aspects of the two language systems and three language problems in the changing society of Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language and Society [Online] 3 (2). Viewed on 15 June, 2012, http://www.multilingual-matters.net/cils/003/2/default.htm Read More