Perceptions and Use of Putonghua Among Hong Kong Cantonese Speakers

(1)

Perceptions and Use of Putonghua Among Hong Kong Cantonese

Speakers

A Qualitative, Interview-based Study

Eirik Slinning Karlsen Asia and Middle East Studies

KIN4593 – Master’s Thesis in Chinese Society and Politics 30 Credits

Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages (IKOS) Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo

Spring 2020

(2)

ii

Abstract

The official languages in Hong Kong today are Chinese and English. Whether ‘Chinese’

refers to Cantonese or Putonghua (also known as Mandarin) is unclear. Putonghua was officially introduced to the Hong Kong language milieu after the British ceded Hong Kong back to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. The implementation of Putonghua occurred largely through language policies in education making the language a compulsory subject, as well as through an increased political, cultural, and economic involvement from the PRC. Despite these involvements, the overall reception of Putonghua among Hong Kong Cantonese speakers has been rather unenthusiastic.

This thesis attempts to answer the question; How is Putonghua perceived and used by people with Hong Kong Cantonese as their mother tongue? The question was approached by first reviewing existing literature from the sociolinguistic field, especially in the context of Hong Kong, and then compare the literature to the findings from qualitative, face-to-face interviews conducted in Oslo and Hong Kong in November and December 2019.

The aim of this thesis is to provide knowledge regarding the interview participants’

experiences and perspectives regarding identity, language attitudes, and language use, thereby adding another dimension to existing literature. Their perceptions and use of language are explored by examining instrumental and integrative motivations for language choices.

The findings suggest that the participants only used Putonghua when the circumstances demanded it, or when they made jokes directed toward and at the expense of Putonghua- speakers. This study had a limited number of participants, as well as a limited timeframe.

Therefore, more research regarding this topic, which may elaborate on areas where this study falls short, is required.

De offisielle språkene i Hongkong er i dag kinesisk og engelsk. Det er imidlertid uklart om

‘kinesisk’ refererer til kantonesisk eller putonghua (også kjent som mandarin). Putonghua ble offisielt introdusert for Hongkongs språkmiljø etter britene avsto Hongkong tilbake til

Folkerepublikken Kina i 1997. Implementeringen av putonghua forekom stort sett gjennom språkpolitikk innenfor utdanning hvor dette språket ble gjort til et obligatorisk fag. I tillegg var det økt politisk, kulturell og økonomisk innblanding fra Folkerepublikken Kina. Til tross for denne innblandingen har putonghua fått en lunken mottakelse hos

hongkongkantonesisktalende.

(3)

iii Denne masteroppgaven forsøker å svare på spørsmålet; Hvordan er putonghua oppfattet og brukt av folk med hongkongkantonesisk som morsmål? Dette ble gjort ved først å gjennomgå eksisterende litteratur fra det sosiolingvistiske feltet, spesielt i en Hongkong-kontekst, for deretter å sammenligne den litteraturen med funnene fra kvalitative ansikt-til-ansikt-intervju gjennomført i Oslo og Hongkong i november og desember 2019.

Målet til denne masteroppgaven er å formidle kunnskap fra intervjudeltakernes opplevelser og perspektiver som handler om identitet, språkholdninger og språkbruk, og derved tilføye enda en dimensjon til eksisterende forskning. Holdningene og språkbruken deres utforskes ved å se på instrumentell og integrativ motivasjon for språkvalg.

Funnene antyder at deltakerne kun brukte putonghua når omstendighetene krevde det, eller når de lagde vitser på rettet mot og på bekostning av putonghuatalende. Denne studien har både hatt et begrenset antall deltakere og en begrenset tidsramme. Det trengs derfor mer forskning på dette temaet for å utdype områder hvor denne studien ikke strekker til.

(4)

iv

Acknowledgments

Although this master’s thesis is written by one person, it would be impossible without the help of others. Fittingly, these ‘others’ should also be credited by name for their efforts in guiding me, both in the course of writing this thesis and during all of my academic endeavors.

First, I would like to extend my thanks to my supervisor Koenraad Wellens for continuously helping me improve the thesis. On the same note, I would like to show my appreciation to all teachers and professors from the Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages at the University of Oslo. During my five years of studying Chinese, I have encountered many extraordinary students and teachers, who all motivated me at times when I needed it the most.

Some of them have now become my friends, and I dearly appreciate their friendship built on shared interests and experiences. I trust that you know who you are.

Before I started studying Chinese at the University of Oslo, I studied English in Trondheim.

My first semester there, I had the pleasure of attending the lectures of Daniel Weston. His lectures on sociolinguistics sparked my interest in the field, and I often think back on these lectures. He would have the whole auditorium burst out in tears of laughter, and at the same time have the students learn new things. I would also like to thank him for meeting me for a cup of tea when I was in Hong Kong, and how he yet again motivated me by showing interest in my undertaking.

I would also like to give a heartfelt thanks to my girlfriend Annica Marie Fosli, who has been working on her thesis simultaneously as I worked on mine. Her persistence and support during these demanding times have motivated me, and I doubt I would have made it without her.

My family also deserves thanks, as they have been supportive throughout all my years of studying. Even if they do not always understand my ramblings about this or that Chinese thing, they always show interest. Perhaps especially my mother Inger Slinning, who has been of great help during the writing of this thesis.

Last, but by no means least, I want to show my gratitude to my big sister Cecilie Slinning Knudsen. She has done more than what could be expected as she, without warning, declared herself as my extra supervisor. I am forever grateful for her valuable academic and mental support, a support that has been there throughout my whole life.

(5)

v

Abbreviations

CMI Cantonese Medium of Instruction

CS Code-switching

EMI English Medium of Instruction

HKbr Broad Hong Kong Accent

HKC Hong Kong Cantonese

HKE Hong Kong English

HKed Educated Hong Kong Accent

HKSAR Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

LegCo Legislative Council

MOI Medium of Instruction

OLO Official Languages Ordinance

PRC People’s Republic of China

SLA Second Language Learning

SWC Standard Written Chinese

(7)

1

1 Introduction

Ever since the colonization of Hong Kong, the complex language situation developed there has been of great interest to scholars from fields such as sociology, linguistics,

sociolinguistics, anthropology, and political science. The three main languages in play are Hong Kong Cantonese (HKC),¹ English, and Putonghua.² This is due to a series of historical and political events, as explained further in section 1.1. Hong Kong has served as an

important area of study when it comes to English in colonized areas, multilingualism, code- switching (CS), medium of instruction (MOI), identity, and other phenomena related to language use. There is substantial literature concerned with language policies, language in education, and language attitudes in Hong Kong, where the main focus is on the role of English (see for instance Bolton 2011; Evans 2016; Zhang 2014; Littlewood, Liu, and Yu 1996). Some scholars focus more on the interplay between Hong Kong Cantonese and English (see for instance Weston 2016; Pennington 1998). Increasingly, scholars focus on all three languages, HKC, English, and Putonghua, in Hong Kong (see for instance D. C. S. Li 2017; Lai 2012; Poon 2010; Liu 2018). Arguably, since the three languages exist in the same language milieu, the complex language situation in Hong Kong demands scholars to

acknowledge and discuss the role of HKC and Putonghua before laying focus on English if that is their chosen focus.

This thesis focuses on language use and perceptions in Hong Kong by people with HKC as their mother tongue (L1).³ The research question of this paper is: how is Putonghua perceived and used by people with Hong Kong Cantonese as their mother tongue? The question is approached by examining several factors that may influence language use and attitudes. To facilitate this examination, language use in Hong Kong is divided into two categories; 1) personal language use and attitudes, and 2) institutional language use and attitudes. In the category that concerns the personal dimension, concepts of identity, language use, and language attitudes on an individual level are examined. In addition, personal language use

1 The term ‘Hong Kong Cantonese’ is used in this study to differentiate between Cantonese spoken in

Guangdong (sometimes referred to as 广东话 Guǎngdōng huà, «Guangdong speech») and Cantonese spoken in Hong Kong (sometimes referred to as 香港话 Xiānggǎng huà, «Hong Kong speech»).

2 Putonghua, also known as Mandarin or Modern Standard Chinese Mandarin, is one of the official languages of the People’s Republic of China. It is based on Mandarin dialects in Northern China, especially as it is spoken in the Beijing area. For formal writing, Mainland China uses simplified characters, whereas Hong Kong uses traditional characters, although both use a standardized writing form based on Putonghua, often called Standard Written Chinese (SWC).

3 In this paper, mother tongue is the term used for a person’s first learned language. More on this decision in section 2.1.

(8)

2 and attitudes are explored in relation to broader social contexts. In the institutional category, language use and perceptions in official contexts such as within policies, education, and career are discussed. From a sociolinguistic standpoint, further dividing concepts such as identity, language use, and attitudes is not preferential, as these concepts are closely

interconnected. The reason for including language use and attitudes in official contexts is that language policies and institutions (such as schools and workplaces) influence which

languages, and how much of each language is socially expected and formally allowed to be used by individuals in certain contexts.

This thesis mainly explores the individuals’ use and attitudes of languages, but in order to achieve a holistic picture of the language situation in Hong Kong, a mix between personal and institutional language use and attitudes is required. The two categories are used

consistently throughout this paper and need to be viewed as equally relevant for the bigger picture. These categories are closely linked to integrative and instrumental orientations; the motivations for learning and using another language (further explored in section 2.1) Furthermore, all three of the most common languages in Hong Kong (HKC, English, and Putonghua) must be considered in historic and current relations to each other, as well as in relation to their past and present international roles, to get an accurate representation of the language situation.

Overview of Sections

Providing a historic background may assist in gaining a better understanding of how Hong Kong’s language situation has evolved throughout time. Therefore, in section 1.1, a short historical background for language in Hong Kong is presented. In section 2, the categories of personal, and institutional language use and attitudes are further investigated. This is done by examining existing literature, sociolinguistic theories, and relevant sociolinguistic models, including discussions regarding how such theories and models may be applicable in this study. Section 2.1 is dedicated to identity, language use, and language attitudes. Section 2.2 is concerned with language policies, language in education, and language in career. As

mentioned earlier, this thesis mainly explores the individuals’ use and attitudes of languages, which makes sections 2.1 and 4.1 larger than 2.2 and 4.2. The information in section 1.1 and 2 will help contextualize this study’s findings, as well as lay a foundation for analyzing the interviews I conducted in Hong Kong for this thesis. In addition to basing this thesis on existing literature on language use and attitudes in Hong Kong, which oftentimes have been quantitative in nature, the chosen data collection methodology for this study is qualitative and

(9)

3 is presented in section 3. The qualitative interviews were conducted in Hong Kong in

December 2019. As a supplement to the interviews conducted in Hong Kong, this study also makes use of a podcast recorded in Oslo in November 2019, where I conversed with two people from Hong Kong with HKC as their mother tongue.

The research findings in section 4 are divided into the same two subsections as in section 2.

This means that section 4.1 is about the participants’ sense of identity, as well as their language use and language attitudes. Section 4.2 is dedicated to the participants’ view on language in education and career. The theme of language policies is disregarded when discussing the interviews, as that is outside the scope of this study. The MOI policies fall under the subcategory ‘language in education’. The two subsections 4.1 and 4.2 will

hopefully provide a holistic picture of participants’ views and feelings on the topics. Section 5 provides a short conclusion where key points, findings, and arguments are reiterated and brought together. This section is concluded with suggestions for further research. Lastly, a list of references is provided, as well as an appendix with the interview guide used for the

interviews with participants in Hong Kong.

1.1 Hong Kong’s Language History, Use, and Identity

This section aims to provide an overview of the language background for Hong Kong by giving a simple summary of relevant historic events in Hong Kong, before moving on to the consequences these events had on languages in the area. Hong Kong Island first became a colony of the United Kingdom of Great Britain after the First Opium War (1839-1842). In the Treaty of Nanking it was agreed that Hong Kong Island was to be ceded to Britain. Shortly thereafter, in 1858, the Qing dynasty was once more defeated in the Second Opium War (1856-1858). In the Convention of Peking, which was stipulated two years later, the Kowloon Peninsula south of Boundary Street (which separates today’s areas Mong Kok in the south and Tong Mi in the north) was ceded to Britain. In 1898, a 99-year lease of the New Territories was made, making the area of Hong Kong as we know it today an entrepôt of Britain. Between then and the 1980s, Hong Kong observed Mainland China’s turmoil closely, where historic events such as the fall of the last Chinese dynasty, the Chinese Civil War, the Cultural Revolution, and the Cold War took place. In 1984, a Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed, stipulating the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1997. The notion of having the principle of “One Country, Two Systems” was agreed upon by both parties, and was later captured in The Basic Law of Hong Kong Special

(10)

4 Administrative Region (HKSAR) adopted in 1997 (Poon 2010, 3-4). During the one and a half century of these historic changes, the language situation in Hong Kong changed as well.

Before the British arrived in 1842, the Hong Kong area was just a small fishing village consisting of about 5,000 people. This number grew to about 120,000 in the early 1860s, and the majority of people coming to Hong Kong was classified as belonging to one of four ethnic groups; “the Punti, “locals”, i.e. “Cantonese”; the Hakka; the Tanka, boat dwellers;

and the Hoklo, from eastern Guangdong province” (Munn 2001, 71 in Bolton 2011, 54).

These ethnic groups were supposedly free to choose their MOI in school, and the use of Hakka in classrooms lasted until 1971. In 1971, Cantonese was chosen to become the standard language when vernacular primary education was introduced by the government, effectively making Cantonese the only ‘dialect’ used as an MOI (D. C. S. Li 2017, 98). Even though some people decided to have another language as MOI, English still existed as a gatekeeping high-status language in Hong Kong, mainly due to it being the language used in tertiary education and international business.

According to a survey by the Census and Statistics Department, 3.3% have ‘other Chinese dialects’ as their reported mother tongue (2019, 88), wherein Hakka and Hokkien would be categorized. ‘Other Chinese dialects’ is a translation of 其他中國方言, which means ‘other Chinese dialects’ or perhaps rather ‘other Chinese topolects’. As dialects are usually

classified as being mutually intelligible, which is not the case for varieties such as Hakka and Putonghua, some linguists have suggested the term topolect to avoid confusion. Some

researchers still refer to Cantonese as being a ‘local dialect’ (see for instance Liu 2018, 195), and some refer to it as different ‘varieties of Chinese’ (see for instance D. C. S. Li 2017).

Some people view these different ‘varieties’ of Chinese as individual languages and have been vocal on the topic on the Internet. For instance, they say “Cantonese is not a dialect. It is a legal language acknowledged by UNESCO” (Gao 2012, 455). Officially, the Chinese 方言 (dialects/topolects) are viewed as being in the same language group as Putonghua, even though some of them are mutually unintelligible. This is much due to political, cultural, and historical factors, as well as the fact that the different dialects/topolects/languages often use Chinese characters in writing. The survey from 2019 also showed that out of those 3.3%

speaking ‘other Chinese dialects’ as their mother tongue, only 4% of those were young people (Census and Statistics Department, 88). This can indicate that ‘other Chinese dialects’

in Hong Kong have lost ground to other languages such as HKC and even Putonghua.

(11)

5 Already from the 1860s, accounts of second language acquisition (SLA)⁴ in Hong Kong education claimed that using English medium of instruction (EMI) would affect the students’

learning ability. Classes were not only supposed to be given in the English language, but in a British fashion as well. As the EMI classes were conducted in the same way as in Britain, with no further regard for students’ mother tongue, many students did not understand the words they were trying to speak and write themselves. Despite most schools being EMI in the early colonial era, teachers adopted a mixed-medium of instruction where they had to make a Cantonese translation of the English sentence given. The education institutions did not truly address this issue until the 1950s, when the Primary and Secondary schools having Cantonese medium of instruction (CMI)⁵ officially started rising in numbers (Evans 2016, 38-40; D. C.

S. Li 2017, 148). However, before 1998, about “90% of secondary students attended schools where the official MOI was English (apart from in Chinese subjects), but the actual medium of classroom instructionand interaction in all but the most prestigious schools was

Cantonese” (Evans 2002 in Evans 2016, 36). In other words, the debate regarding MOI has been present since the very beginning of Hong Kong as a British colony. It is still a

controversial topic today as the actual MOI practices have, and still do, vary to some degree.

A simplified overview of different MOI in Hong Kong is provided in section 2.2.2.

It is not only in the education sector that language choice is fiercely debated. In Hong Kong today, as stated in Article 9 of the Basic Law of HKSAR, English is an official language in addition to Chinese (2012, 42), but that has not always been the case. Also, as many scholars have pointed out, “it is not clear what exactly ‘the Chinese language’ refers to” (D. C. S. Li 2017, 1). Some have speculated that the ambiguity was deliberate to make it easier to change language policies after the handover. As such, the term ‘Chinese’ can very well mean

Putonghua (Ibid; Evans 2016, 16-17). Article 9 of the Basic Law of HKSAR is based on the Official Languages Ordinance (OLO) from 1974, when Chinese finally became a co-official language in Hong Kong, together with the already official language English. The OLO was stipulated after pressure created by civil disturbances in 1966 and 1967, and student-led campaigns during the early 1970s. In addition to granting co-official status to the Chinese

4 SLA refers here to “any language that is learned subsequent to the mother tongue” (Ellis 1997, 3).

5 In some literature, CMI refers to Chinese medium of instruction with no further explanation (see for instance Evans 2016; Poon 2010; Lai 2013). Li states in his work that CMI is “Chinese medium of instruction (i.e., Cantonese-medium, unless otherwise stated” (Li 2017, xxi). In this paper Putonghua and Cantonese medium of instruction are clearly divided into PMI and CMI, respectively, to avoid potential confusion. When reviewing literature that use CMI without further explanation, it is expected that it refers to Cantonese medium of instruction unless the context suggests otherwise, as Cantonese is the most common MOI in Hong Kong.

(12)

6 language, the government introduced reforms in social welfare, public housing, and

mandatory Secondary education as a result of the protests (Evans 2016, 16). Around the same time Chinese became the co-official language in Hong Kong, the economy flourished. As more people in Hong Kong started working in the business sector, they regarded English as an international language rather than a colonial language. Also, education became widely accessible, and English proficiency was needed for the increased wish for tertiary education.

These social changes made the attitudes toward the English language more positive.

All these changes can be argued to have helped Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong people in developing a higher degree of self-esteem, resulting in a distinct Hong Kong identity consisting of [Hong Kong] Cantonese, English, and eventually for some, Putonghua (Poon 2010, 24-25). In the following section, some of the language phenomena in Hong Kong are examined by reviewing some of the existing literature regarding language and identity, language in education, as well as attitudes and use of language.

(13)

7

2 Theoretical Discussion

For the sake of clarity, the existing literature is divided into two categories; ‘2.1 Identity, Language Use, and Language Attitudes’, and ‘2.2 Language Policies and Language in Education and Career’. Although here divided, these two categories and their topics should not be read as completely independent of each other. How one uses a language and which attitudes one has toward that language is, for instance, closely interrelated. By following this approach, it will be possible to cover several of the different aspects of language use. In section 2.1, the more individual aspect of language use and attitudes, both in general and in the setting of Hong Kong is examined. Section 2.2 focuses on language policies, and language in education and career in Hong Kong. This is because how official institutions manage languages can affect people’s use of languages, their attitudes, and ultimately also their identity. These sections also include how the existing literature is relevant to the interviews conducted in Hong Kong. The findings from the interviews are also divided into two similar categories (in section 4).

2.1 Identity, Language Use, and Language Attitudes

Attitudes toward language and identity are both complex concepts, and there are several definitions and theories on the two. In this subsection, these concepts are introduced and explained by examining some of the most agreed-upon definitions from scholars in the field.

Regarding the use of languages, statistics on language use is presented to get an overview of the language situation in Hong Kong. When discussing people’s language use and language choice later in this section, motivation is emphasized as a key factor, bringing us to the socio- educational model by Gardner (2010) which is concerned with instrumental and integrative motivations for language choices. Code-switching, translanguaging, multilingualism, and diglossia are also clearly defined. In addition to introducing these theories and concepts, research on these concepts in the context of Hong Kong is reviewed in this section as well.

2.1.1 Identity

The concept of identity is complex, and linguists, philosophers, psychologists, and anthropologists have taken for granted that language and identity are innately related and dependent on each other. Identity may be viewed as something individual or something socially conditional. Nevertheless, language and identity cannot be viewed as completely independent of each other as they are arguably in a codependent relationship. As Mæhlum et

(14)

8 al. (2008, 106-108) put it, an individual's identity is crystallized in the area of tension

between the individual and the collective.

Social psychologist Henri Tajfel proposed the social identity theory (SIT) in 1978, and he

“distinguishes between identities which are principally personal and identities which are principally associated with a group” (Meyerhoff 2011, 73). Therefore, the SIT is essentially more lenient to divide the concept of identity into two more or less separated notions of identity called personal identity and group identity. This contrasts with Mæhlum et al. (2008) who prefer the concept of identity to include both the social/collective and the individual.

Although the SIT conveys that “people identify with multiple identities, some of which are more personal and idiosyncratic and some of which are group identifications” (Meyerhoff 2011, 73), it acknowledges the dynamic nature of identity, which is one of the main points of a constructivist identity perception. Mæhlum et al. (2008) divide identity perception into a constructivist identity perception and an essentialist identity perception. The essentialist identity perception believes that identity is something permanent, immune to external influences and social impulses. It is also based on a belief that identity is a naturally given and inherited size that just is, and that identity has some inner, unchangeable core. In contrast, constructivist identity perception is based on the belief that identity is something more dynamic. It is something multitudinous, heterogenic, and complex – a culturally given size without a core. Identity is believed to be something that can be constructed, or something that is acquired, dependent on external factors. Finally, the constructivist identity perception is based on what an individual does, and how an individual is perceived through his or her behavior, lifestyle, and appearance. Rather than choosing one identity perception over the other, Mæhlum et al. suggest that identity should be viewed in a synthesis of the two identity perceptions presented above as a compromise (2008, 109-110). However, in this study, the constructivist identity perception and its dynamic take on identity is followed. This

perspective is chosen due to participants from this study themselves having experienced their self-identity to be altered by external factors.

Some people from Hong Kong feel that language use and self-identity are closely related. In Lai (2010), the integrative orientation toward HKC become clear when the participants strongly agreed to the statement “As a Hongkonger, I should be able to speak fluent Cantonese” (Ibid, 104). The statement “As a Chinese, I should be able to speak fluent Putonghua” resulted in the mean score 2.44 (Ibid, 105) (score from 1-4, where 4 strongly

(15)

9 agrees), which shows an unenthusiastic integrative orientation toward Putonghua. It is worth noting that this statement has several layers to it because it says “as a Chinese” and not “as a Hongkonger”, which could potentially cause some participants to express dissatisfaction with the statement itself. For the statement “Putonghua will help me much in getting better career development in the 21st century” (Ibid, 106), the mean score was 3.07, showing an

instrumental orientation toward Putonghua.

Others are reported having a more positive attitude toward Putonghua, as noted by Tian (1995). When she asked why a teacher wanted to learn Putonghua, the teacher answered “I am Chinese, I should be able to speak Putonghua” (Ibid, 42). Tian (1995) also claimed that people in the industrial and commercial sectors had a long term vision, and some said that if they were not able to speak Putonghua, it would be like “a chicken talking with a duck, and how is one supposed to make money in that case?”.⁶ Findings from these two studies by Lai (2010), and Tian (1995) show that language and sense of identity are closely related

according to some people, but the instrumental value of knowing how to speak Putonghua is perceived as relatively high.

2.1.2 Language Use

In this study, the objective is to examine the language use of, and attitudes toward, Putonghua among Hong Kong people with HKC as their mother tongue. The very definition of mother tongue itself can be problematic because “the native speaker is a theoretical construct, an idealization, as Noam Chomsky has always emphasized” (Coulmas 2013, 190). When discussing multilingual societies, which some scholars regard Hong Kong to be, and their language phenomena such as code-switching, diglossia, multilingualism, etc., the linguistic theories based on the notion of having one mother tongue can become problematic (Ibid, 191). Some prefer the term ‘first language’ to ‘mother tongue’, but the two terms are often used interchangeably in sociolinguistic literature, especially when discussing theories and literature where both terms are used across different works. A participant in this study expressed uncertainty toward the definition of mother tongue as her mother did not have HKC as her first language/mother tongue, although it was the participant’s first

language/mother tongue. In the context of Hong Kong and this specific study, when referring to the Cantonese-speaking people in Hong Kong it can be practical to maintain this notion of

6 “A chicken talking with a duck” is a direct translation of the Chinese idiom 鸡同鸭讲 (jī tóng yā jiǎng), which means that people talk without communicating and understanding each other.

(16)

10 mother tongue, as it is used the most in official statistics and academic literature.⁷ To further investigate what it means to have HKC as a mother tongue in Hong Kong, and its relationship to other languages, the definitions of diglossia, and bilingualism/multilingualism are

examined and placed in the context of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is undeniably an area where multiple languages are present in different contexts to varying degrees. Data from the Census and Statistics Department (2019, 81) shows that 88.8% reported Cantonese⁸ as their mother tongue, 3.9% reported having Putonghua as their mother tongue, 3.3% reported having ‘other Chinese dialects’, 1.4% reported having English, and 2.6% reported having other languages as their mother tongue. As mentioned in section 1.1, the statistics do not specify what the ‘other Chinese dialects’ refers to. In a paper from 1998, the numbers were similar, apart from Putonghua being as low as 1.1%. Other Chinese varieties were specified, with Min Chinese at 1.9%, Hakka at 1.6%, and Teochew at 1.4% (B.

Z. Li 1998, 49). As previously mentioned, English and Chinese are the two official languages in Hong Kong, and the current language policy in Hong Kong is to promote “trilingualism and biliteracy” (Civil Service Bureau 2018). How this kind of language policy manifests itself is further discussed in section 2.2. First, Hong Kong’s status as multilingual, and whether such a status is justified, is discussed.

In the following, I make use of Fishman’s (1967) original theory where he examines

bilingualism and diglossia in relation to each other. Newer research (see for instance D. C. S.

Li 2017; Liu 2018; Poon 2010) suggest that his theory is still relevant and applicable today, something that is tested in this study by using it in the context of Hong Kong. The linguistic community of Hong Kong is often referred to as a bilingual, trilingual, or diglossic society.

Based on Ferguson’s research that first introduced the term diglossia in 1959 (Joseph 2006, 44), Fishman explains that diglossia was initially

used in connection with a society that used two (or more) languages for internal (intra- society) communication. The use of several separate codes within a single society (and their stable maintenance rather than the displacement of one by the other over time) was found to be dependent on each code's serving functions distinct from those considered appropriate for

7 The use of mother tongue can be found in for instance D. C. S. Li (2017), Poon (2010), and Liu (2018). For the written Chinese equivalent 母语 (Mǔyǔ), see for instance Baozhu Li (1998), or Census and Statistics

Department (2019).

8In the survey by Census and Statistics Department (2019), they use ‘Cantonese’ and 廣州話 (Guangdong speech).

(17)

11 the other. Whereas one set of behaviors, attitudes and values supported, and was expressed in, one language, another set of behaviors, attitudes and values supported and was expressed in the other (Fishman 1967, 29)

Furthermore, this definition of diglossia makes the distinction between H(igh) language and L(ow) language as superposed languages, in the sense that H language is used in education, religion, and so on, whereas L language is used in more everyday settings (e.g. at home and at work) (Ibid, 29-30).

For the case of bilingualism, it can be defined as when someone knows two languages. Even though that is a correct definition per se, there are several layers to it. Bilingualism can be said to be when a person knows two languages in the same modality, such as spoken English and spoken German, or American Sign Language and German Sign Language. Bilingualism also includes two languages from different modalities, such as spoken English and German Sign Language, or spoken French and written Sanskrit (Steinberg and Sciarini 2006, 160- 161).

In an attempt to make it possible to represent the probable relationships between diglossia and bilingualism, Fishman developed a four-fold table divided as such; 1) both diglossia and bilingualism, 2) bilingualism without diglossia, 3) diglossia without bilingualism, 4) neither diglossia nor bilingualism. His table is based on bilingualism and diglossia. However, to use it for the case of Hong Kong could arguably require adjustments that make it possible to include trilingualism and triglossia. These terms have been used by scholars during recent years to include Putonghua (see for instance Pennington 1998; Poon 2010). The definition of diglossia by Fishman, with his four-fold table, “encompassed every case of a multilingual or multidialectal community where the varieties occupy different functional domains and have different levels of prestige” (Joseph 2006, 45). Some sociolinguists concerned with diglossia and bilingualism have maintained this view and description of linguistic communities. Most linguistic communities are not monolingual. In many cases where monolingualism is

claimed, other varieties are often marginalized or ignored (Ibid). This is noted in the fourth alternative of Fishman’s four-fold table with ‘neither diglossia nor bilingualism’. By attempting to classify Hong Kong belonging to one (or more) of these four categories, a better understanding of Hong Kong’s language milieu may be achieved.

Fishman argues that for a society to achieve the status of having both diglossia and bilingualism, it must have a widespread case of bilingualism. If this notion is expanded to

(18)

12 triglossia and trilingualism, most Hong Kong people would have to know how to speak HKC, English, and Putonghua. Statistics from 2019 show that 33.1% perceived that they had not so good or no knowledge in spoken English, meaning that approximately one third of Hong Kong people feel their English competence is lacking. Regarding Putonghua, the figures are nearly the same, with 32.7% reporting to have not so good or no knowledge of the language (Census and Statistics Department 2019, 82). It is worth noting that people’s perception of

‘not so good’⁹ is individual and can vary to some extent. With such notable figures of people reporting to have little to no knowledge in both English and Putonghua, one can still assume that Hong Kong cannot be defined as a society with both triglossia and trilingualism, based on Fishman’s conditions. Even so, that does not necessarily mean there is no triglossia or trilingualism in Hong Kong. Based on the statistics, on an individual level, the majority of Hong Kong people seem to have at least some knowledge of the three languages, and the younger generations are increasingly adept in all three languages.

Diglossia without bilingualism is for instance when the elites of a society speak an H

language for intra-group purposes, and the common people another language for intra-group purposes. The reason it has not yet developed to the stage of bilingualism is because

the majority of elites and the majority of the masses never interacted with one another they did not form a single speech community (i.e. their linguistic repertoires were discontinuous) and their intercommunications were via translators or interpretors (a certain sign of intragroup monolingualism) (Fishman 1967, 33).

This is arguably not the case for today’s Hong Kong since the group of elites has shifted from being primarily British to native Hong Kong people who for the most part speak HKC for intra-group purposes. This can be illustrated by numbers stating the extensive use of English in for instance the Legislative Council (LegCo) in Hong Kong. In 1971-72, “every speech in the chamber was in English; 40 years later, […] (2011–2012), only 0.38 % of the addresses were in English” (Evans 2016, 23). The language use in official institutions like the LegCo is further examined in section 2.2. Before the handover, and especially before the OLO in 1974, English was the H language used for intra-group purposes in Hong Kong, with Cantonese having little status. Fishman predicts that in such cases, social groups that

9 ‘Not so good or no knowledge’ is the chosen translation for ‘較遜色或不懂’ in the bilingual statistics report. It could be worth noting that an alternative translation of ‘較遜色或不懂’ can be ‘rather inferior or no

knowledge’.

(19)

13 are economically underdeveloped and unmobilized […] are bound to experience language problems as their social patterns alter in the direction of industrialization, widespread literacy and education, democratization, and modernization more generally. Since such polities rarely developed out of initial socio-cultural consensus or unity, the educational, political and economic development of the lower classes is likely to lead to secessionism or to demands for equality for sub merged language(s) (Fishman 1967, 34).

As explained in section 1.1, this is exactly what happened when Hong Kong people protested the government in the 1960s and 1970s. The result was precisely as Fishman predicted;

demands arose for the marginalized languages’ equality, in this case Standard Written Chinese and spoken Cantonese. It seems that Hong Kong was a society with diglossia without bilingualism in the greater part of the colonial era.

Bilingualism without diglossia is something that can occur in societies where there has been a rapid social change, for instance during industrialization. In such a society, which Hong Kong was during the British supervision, it can be said that the means of production were “derived from one speech community while the productive manpower was drawn from another” (Ibid, 35). In such a case, the workers often learn the language of the means of production at a faster rate than they can take part in the sociocultural aspects attached to the language.

Whereas some members of such a society view this new language positively and would like to keep it in education and industry, others wish to replace the new language with an

institutionalized version of the language they used before the introduction of this new language. In typical cases of bilingualism without diglossia,

the formerly separate roles of the home domain, the school domain and the work domain are all disturbed by the massive dislocation of values and norms that result from simultaneous immigration and industrialization, the language of work (and of the school) comes to be used at home (just as in cases of more radical and better organized social change the language of the home comes to be established in school and at work) (Ibid).

In the case of Hong Kong, there was perhaps some degree of bilingualism without diglossia among some people. However, most people in Hong Kong did not end up speaking English at home to any notable extent, despite the language in schools was officially English. Therefore, bilingualism without diglossia may not be regarded as an accurate description of Hong

Kong’s language situation in any time period.

In a study conducted by G. S. Fu in 1975, one of the results was that approximately “half of the secondary school respondents felt uneasy when their classmates spoke to them in English

(20)

14 outside the classroom” (D. C. S. Li 2017, 13). Based on another research by Pierson, Fu, and Lee (1980), it seems that such uneasiness may be rooted in the feeling of betraying one’s national identity rather than feeling awkward about speaking English. The informants of the study absolutely agreed/quite agreed to the statement ‘when using English, I do not feel that I am Chinese any more’. They ‘quite agreed’ to the statement ‘I do not feel awkward when using English’, and their score was placed between ‘no opinion’ and ‘quite disagree’ to the statement ‘I feel uncomfortable when hearing one Chinese speaking to another in English’.

Nor did they agree to lack confidence when speaking in English (1980, 293).

Based on these two studies, it may seem as if the Hong Kong students did not lack the confidence to speak English at home, nor did they necessarily feel the need to sanction someone who did speak English at home, but there is a possibility they sensed that speaking English at home would compromise their identity. In this aspect, Hong Kong cannot be regarded as a society with bilingualism and without diglossia in the definition of Fishman.

Again, this is just the case for Hong Kong society as a whole, not necessarily for people in Hong Kong at an individual level. Granted, this is data from several decades ago, but based on the statistics of language use from 2019, combined with the elevated official position of HKC, it can be assumed that English on its own is still not used at home and with friends by people with HKC as their mother tongue to a large extent. The interviews conducted for the present study also confirm this impression, as is further discussed in section 4.1.

Lastly, there is the idea of a society having neither diglossia nor bilingualism. Fishman argues such societies are rare by saying only

very small, isolated and undifferentiated speech communities may be said to reveal neither diglossia nor bilingualism. […] such groups – be they bands or clans –are easier to

hypothesize than to find (1967, 36).

Identified as an international business hub for decades, Hong Kong is neither an isolated nor an undifferentiated speech community.

As all four of Fishman’s possible relationships between bilingualism and diglossia have been examined in the attempt of categorizing Hong Kong without providing a clear answer, it leaves Hong Kong in a grey area. Even so, some of the categories did contain characteristics that may be attributed to the Hong Kong language milieu to some extent. Diglossia without bilingualism was quite accurate for Hong Kong during most of the colonial era, especially considering the use and view of H and L languages, but it is not as fitting today. Bilingualism

(21)

15 without diglossia could have taken root in Hong Kong society, and for some people in Hong Kong it presumably did, but it seemed that the idea of betraying one’s social and national identity was closely linked to change of language choice for most Hong Kong people, as shown in Pierson, Fu, and Lee (1980). Because one third of Hong Kong people feel that they have “not so good or no knowledge” in both English and Putonghua, it is difficult to

categorize Hong Kong as trilingual and triglossic also. Nevertheless, because of the increasing numbers of (especially younger) people knowing all three languages due to the official policies of promoting trilingualism and biliteracy, the conclusion that can be made is that Hong Kong is not trilingual and triglossic yet. Depending on what comes first,

institutionalized triglossia in the form of defined contexts in which a specific language should be spoken, or a general increased knowledge of the three languages among Hong Kong people, Hong Kong has the potential to become both trilingual and triglossic.

Regardless of how Hong Kong is categorized in terms of trilingual/triglossic, it is a place where there has been, and still are, speakers with knowledge of different languages. When speakers “competent in more than one language are present, language contact takes place”

(Coulmas 2013, 122). Language contact can result in language phenomena such as code- switching (CS), code-mixing, and translanguaging. These terms are somewhat similar in definition, and some of them are used interchangeably. Translanguaging is a concept that has gained traction in sociolinguistics in recent years (see for instance García and Li Wei 2019), and some prefer it to CS. There are arguably differences between the three terms, although they all deal with speakers’ choices and variations between varieties (codes).

For CS, it can be said that those who CS are fluent in said languages, although they are not necessarily completely balanced between them. Some claim that there is not only an L1 and an L2 (second language), but also an LX, which is directly related to CS. CS is different from borrowing individual lexical items in the sense that borrowed words belong to the language from which they were borrowed, in turn following grammatical constraints of that language on all levels. CS is thus regarded as a linguistic skill itself, not a solution where one would borrow words because of a communication problem (Coulmas 2013, 124-127). There is also a term called ‘code-mixing’, which usually “refers to alternations between varieties, or codes, within a clause or phrase” (Meyerhoff 2011, 125). CS is oftentimes regarded as the

alternation between varieties across sentence or clause boundaries. CS is also often used as a term covering code mixing as well (Ibid, 121). The notion of using CS as an umbrella term is particularly useful for the purposes of the present study wherein there is no significant need

(22)

16 to differentiate between alternations between varieties within or across sentence and clause boundaries.

The CS that is most prevalent in Hong Kong tends to involve single English words inserted into a Cantonese sentence structure (Setter, Wong & Chan 2010 in Weston 2016, 386). An example of CS with HKC and English could be “我明天有一個 presentation”, which translates to “I have a presentation tomorrow”. It is also possible to differentiate between different types of CS among Hong Kong people depending on how and how much they CS.

In Weston (2016), he divides them into three categories; those who CS in ‘bits’, ‘chunks’, and those who ‘channel-switch’. Bits are English lexical insertions in Cantonese. Chunks refer to multimorphemic lexical items inserted in an assumed matrix language,¹⁰ and channel- switching is when speakers alternate between longer strings of HKC and English. ‘Assumed matrix language’ is used because even if one was to assume that CS operates on the premise of matrix language, it is not always easy to identify the matrix language. As Joseph noted during his time in Hong Kong, it was “normal for Cantonese-English bilinguals to converse with code-mixing in every sentence, sometimes in the middle of a word, so that it was difficult or even impossible to identify a matrix language. Cantonese might appear to be the matrix one minute, English the next” (2006, 61). Categorizing HKC, English, or Putonghua as a matrix language in Hong Kong CS can be a complicated task, as it can shift and depends on person and context. Therefore, based on the findings from the interviews conducted for this present study, I can only suggest that participants have HKC as the matrix language, although I recognize the possibility for that to change when they are in different contexts.

Social backgrounds and experiences can influence which category (bits, chunks, or channel- switching) Hong Kong people would fall under. Based on his research, Weston (2016) notes that there is a “distinction between the “bits” of language used by Hong Kong locals, the

“chunks” used by educational sojourners, and the “channel-switching” characteristic of the Chinese diaspora” (2016, 395). The use of bits in Hong Kong CS is viewed as the norm for locals, and his participants showed some degree of hostility toward people who broke this norm (Ibid, 394). The four participants interviewed in Hong Kong for the present study have not spent much time abroad, whereas the two interviewed in Norway have been living outside of Hong Kong for a while (see section 3.2). Therefore, it can be assumed that the participants

10 The Matrix Language Frame model by Myers-Scottson suggests that CS and borrowing are very similar, with the only difference being frequency. The model also assumes that in all cases of CS, a matrix language can be identified (Coulmas 2013, 130).

(23)

17 in Hong Kong would for the most part be categorized as having the local style of CS, where they are expected to use bits (i.e. lexical insertions) in CS if any. The participants in Norway would be expected to ‘switch channels’, i.e. CS above sentence or clause boundaries, or alternate between longer strings of the languages they know.

However, how someone from Hong Kong speaks English can also influence how other people perceive her/him. The scholar Kachru “has taught us to think of English, as used around the world, in the form of three concentric circles” (Svartvik and Leech 2006, 2).

These circles are the ‘inner circle’, ‘outer circle’, and the ‘expanding circle’. This model states that the inner circle represents countries where most of the inhabitants have English as their mother tongue, the outer circle is countries where English is regarded as a second language (often with official or co-official status), whereas the expanding circle includes countries where English is learned and used as a foreign language (Ibid). Svartvik and Leech (2006) claim that some linguists argue that the difference between English as a second

language and as a foreign language is irrelevant and categorizing areas as belonging to this or that circle can be a complicated task (Ibid, 4).

Some argue that Hong Kong English (HKE) is its own variety of English (Zhang 2013;

Joseph 2006), like Australian and Indian English have become. Additionally, it is argued there are subcategories of HKE, such as HKE with a ‘broad accent’ (HKbr), and HKE with an ‘educated accent’ (HKed) (Zhang 2013). Others believe that HKE does not exist

(‘invisibility myth’), and that the English proficiency in Hong Kong has been falling (‘falling standards myth’) (Evans 2016, 71-72). Joseph (2006) defends HKE as a legitimate variety by saying “‘falling English standards’ and ‘the emergence of Hong Kong English’ are simply two ways of looking at the same thing, namely, language change that reflects in part the interference of the mother tongue, or resistance grounded in the mother tongue” (Ibid, 37).

Despite this, a study by Zhang (2013, 12) showed that local Hong Kong people view HKbr the most negative, whereas the American English and Received Pronunciation¹¹ varieties were ranked the highest. HKed was in the middle but ranked lower than ‘Mandarin accented English’. This could be worth studying further in conjunction with CS, as the

abovementioned attitudes toward CS among Hong Kong people could vary if HKed and

11 Received Pronunciation (RP), also known as Standard British pronunciation. RP is also jokingly defined as

“‘the kind of English that foreigners want to learn’” (Svartvik and Leech 2006, 126). This turns out to coincide with the findings in Zhang 2013.

(24)

18 HKbr are considered. Considering that I do not possess the competence to assess the different varieties of HKE, and that examining HKE is not the main concern of this present study, the different varieties are only considered when the data imply that it carries importance.¹² Translanguaging is different from CS in the sense that it does not only refer to switching to another language or between two languages. It refers to the speaker’s construction and use of original and complex mutual related discursive practices which cannot be easily described in a traditional definition of language, but something that constitutes the speaker’s whole linguistic repertoire. Translanguaging is thus not centered around language itself, but around the multilinguals’ language practice which is easily observable. The perspective of

translanguaging is to a large extent built on the belief that multilinguals have one linguistic repertoire (García and Li Wei 2019, 38-39). This view is only possible to uphold if a redefinition of the meaning of ‘language’ is made. García and Li Wei (2019) do this by thinking of language as a series of social practices and actions, executed by speakers who are part of a web of social and cognitive relations. By redefining language in this way, it is possible to break the static perception of language, thus embracing the dynamic character of speakers’ accurate and local language practice. This can be done by making use of

languaging, a term increasingly used by sociolinguists, which focus on the language users’

linguistic practice in an ongoing process of interactive creation of meaning (Ibid, 27). To García and Li Wei, translanguaging is languaging which involves social and subjective political transformations. This opposes the imbalance of power created by terms like language and other meaningful codes related to nationalistic ideologies. Thus,

translanguaging contrasts itself with the historical and cultural position of monolingualism or the additive bilingualism (Ibid, 59). Translanguaging can in this way capture the extended and complex practices of speakers, speakers who have been born or live between societal and semiotic contexts where they interact with a varying series of other speakers (Ibid, 35), as is the case for many people in Hong Kong.

As will be further discussed later in section 4, most of the participants of this study do not seem to make use of their whole linguistic repertoire in their daily lives. Even so, they seem to still be bound to societal and institutional perceptions of language, consequently hindering them using their whole linguistic repertoire freely. A societal obstacle, as exemplified earlier by Weston (2016), can be when young students from Hong Kong use English, they can be

12 For more information regarding the two varieties of HKE, see chapter 2 of Zhang (2014).

(25)

19 perceived negatively by other locals. An example of an institutional obstacle may be how it is forbidden to use HKC during some classes (see section 2.2). The intention of this paper is not to entirely abolish the traditional notion of language, but rather it strives to acknowledge the complex practices of speakers and how such practices may shift over time.

2.1.3 Language Attitudes

Similar to language use, language attitudes can also shift over time. Before further examining this notion, a definition of attitude should be provided. Depending on academic fields, the term ‘attitude’ can be defined in several ways. This study uses the term ‘attitude’ as it tends to be defined in sociolinguistics. It can be said that “[attitude] is a hypothetical construct used to explain the direction and persistence of human behaviour” (Baker 1992, 10). However, as someone’s thoughts and feelings are internal and hidden, attitudes cannot be directly

observed. Baker (1992) says that attitudes are a way of explaining consistent patterns in behavior, and attitudes can summarize, explain, and predict behavior (Ibid, 11). Behavior is often regarded as being dependent on context, and several variables can affect research on people’s language attitudes. The most important variables are discussed in section 3.2.

This present study makes use of aspects from Gardner’s (2010) socio-educational model on SLA to explore language attitudes and possible reasons behind language use. The socio- educational model takes the relative importance of variables into account in a more complex and multi-variate approach. This is a contrast to other methods used in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, where research more often than not looked at single relationships, such as the relationship between age and language attitude, or between language attitude and language proficiency (Baker 1992, 19-20). The socio-educational model is largely based on the notion of people having integrative and/or instrumental orientations when learning another language. Within these orientations, there are variables, and after having mapped out and considered all major variables, it can be decided if a person has a more integrative or instrumental orientation toward language.

An integrative orientation would be if someone were to learn a language for the sake of communicating with and understanding people from another culture through language. If a person is fascinated by another culture and its history and society, chances are this person would approach SLA in an integrative manner. An instrumental orientation would be if someone learns a language for the sake of personal gain without any further interest in communicating with the other group. If someone were to learn a language just for the sake of

(26)

20 getting a high-paid job, they would most likely approach SLA in a more instrumental manner.

However useful these classifications may seem, if an individual appears to have a specific orientation when studying another language, it is not a given that this person endorses all items in that orientation (Gardner 2010, 16-17). For the current study, this notion of having various motivations for SLA when encountering Putonghua in different contexts, be it in career or education, is explored.

In addition to having motivation as a primary variable with integrative and instrumental orientations, Gardner (2010) proposes five other major variables in SLA. One major variable is that of ability. Because language is “a system of sounds and symbols involving cognitive and affective features” (Gardner 2010, 22), Gardner claims that there are individual

differences that can affect a person’s ability to learn a language, especially in a school context. Another variable is culturally relevant variables. Language can be said to be

a social facilitator that permits interaction among individuals and is an integral part of the individual’s very being. It serves to identify individuals’ cultural/linguistic backgrounds and influences their thoughts and perceptions of the world. As a consequence, learning a second language has major implications for individuals, and various attitudes linking them to their cultural background and other cultural communities can be expected to have an effect on their learning of the language (Ibid, 23).

These culturally relevant variables are closely related to the notion of integrativeness.

Educationally relevant variables are another set of variables deemed notable. Here it is claimed that the educational environment is an important factor, where classroom

atmosphere, available equipment, teachers, quality of instruction, and so on, are all important aspects. In the socio-educational model, it is proposed that it is the individual’s attitude toward the learning situation itself that is the main influence of success in SLA. Language anxiety is another major variable, and it is suggested that the types of experiences the language learner has in different contexts are of importance. Language class anxiety and language use anxiety are differentiated. Language class anxiety occurs in a language learning context, whereas language use anxiety occurs in social contexts outside of the classroom.

Instrumentally relevant variables are a sum of variables that fall under the category instrumental orientation. The need for achievements, power, career, etc. are examples of instrumental reasons to study a language. Compared to integrativeness, instrumental

orientation is not viewed as a strong motivating factor, as it is assumed that it is only effective if the personal goal is fulfilled. Yet, a strong instrumental orientation could still result in high

(27)

21 language proficiency. Finally, as explained above, motivation is seen as the primary variable in the socio-educational model (Gardner 2010, 22-25). When later measuring attitudes and reasons behind language use among the participants in this present study, these major variables in SLA from the socio-educational model are used as a theoretical framework to discuss the personal and institutional language use and attitudes mentioned in the

introduction.

Research on language attitudes in Hong Kong tends to show that people from Hong Kong have a lukewarm attitude toward Putonghua compared to English and HKC. In Lai (2012), the integrative orientation toward Putonghua was low for the study conducted in 2001 but had a significant increase for a similar study made in 2009. The comparative study showed that the integrative orientation toward English was already relatively high in 2001 and increased even more in 2009. The integrative orientation toward [Hong Kong] Cantonese decreased between 2001 to 2009 on most points, except for positive scoring for the statement ‘as a Hongkonger, I should be able to speak fluent Cantonese’, which showed a notable increase.

The instrumental orientation toward both [Hong Kong] Cantonese and English was relatively high in both 2001 and 2009, with English considered as the language with the biggest

instrumental value of the two. This supports the impression of English proficiency being an important asset for getting a good job in Hong Kong (as seen in section 2.2.3). The

instrumental orientation toward Putonghua increased between 2001 to 2009 and was regarded as more important than [Hong Kong] Cantonese on points regarding education and career in 2009 (Lai 2012, 92-97). This shows that both the integrative and instrumental orientations toward Putonghua have increased in Hong Kong between 2001 and 2009.

In another research, conducted by Chow and Yi (2003), 100% of university students, 67% of Secondary students, and 65% of Primary students found Putonghua to “be useful” (Ibid, 31).

These numbers suggest a clearly instrumental orientation toward Putonghua, at least for the university students in the study. Even though they showed an instrumental orientation toward Putonghua, their use of Putonghua in daily life was limited. 49% of the university students reported using Putonghua occasionally in their daily lives, whereas the percentages for Primary students and Secondary students were 57% and 51%, respectively (Ibid). It is worth noting that this research by Chow and Yi (2003) does not state the students’ mother tongue, but they were all students in Hong Kong.

(28)

22 Several other studies have shown similar tendencies of viewing English and Putonghua in an instrumental manner (see for instance Littlewood, Liu, and Yu 1996; Liu 2018) An increase in more positive attitudes toward Putonghua for the participants from Lai’s (2012) research may be explained by several societal factors. An example of such societal factors can be when the participants of this present study expressed feeling patriotic during and immediately after the Olympics in Beijing in 2008 (see section 4). Societal contexts like these can cause a more positive perception of Putonghua, as many tend to associate the language with

Mainland China and what happens there.

2.2 Language Policies and Language in Education and Career

Hong Kong has had different language policies and practices in different institutions such as the LegCo and schools. This section examines how these language policies and practices have affected MOI and general language use and attitudes in education, as well as how they have changed the expectations and demands in the job market. By examining these areas, it is possible to examine a wide range of issues involved in a topic, namely language use and attitudes, thus giving a holistic picture of language in Hong Kong society.

2.2.1 Language Policies

In the Basic Law of HKSAR (2018), there are two articles concerned with language; Article 9 and Article 136. Article 9 states that in addition to Chinese, the executive, legislative, and judicial organs of HKSAR can use English, which is also an official language (Basic Law, 42). As mentioned earlier, it is uncertain if ‘Chinese’ here refers to HKC, Putonghua, or even both. The participants of the present study frequently used ‘Chinese’ and ‘Cantonese’

interchangeably (see section 4). Before the handover, the Basic Law “clearly stipulated that where diverging interpretations of different language versions should occur […], the English version would prevail” (D. C. S. Li 2017, 149). However, after the handover, HKC has replaced English to a large extent in most official contexts, and as Poon points out:

Chinese has replaced English as the common language in government administration, the Legislative Council and the Executive Council. Even the judiciary has permitted the use of Chinese in the District Court (the lowest level Court), but not in the Court of Appeal or in the Final Court of Appeal (Poon 2010, 13).

Although court trials in HKC are not necessarily commonplace today, it is no longer regarded as a novelty (D. C. S. Li 2017, 37). This shows that despite the high status of English,

especially in official settings, it has been made space to include HKC.

(29)

23 Even though HKC is used in court trials, Chen (2016) claims that the public is unable to agree on the relationship between the three languages, especially HKC and Putonghua. The relationship between HKC and Putonghua and which language should be regarded as the legal spoken language is according to Chen (2016) an issue, and he provides an example of a lawyer wanting to question a witness in Putonghua in 2002. The request created controversy, and the lawyer later withdrew his request without providing a reason. The judge said that his own reading of the Basic Law was that Chinese in the Hong Kong setting was to be regarded as Cantonese (Chen 2016, 27).¹³

Another observation reports that “Cantonese is used with decreasing frequency as one moves up the court hierarchy, [and in] a parallel manner, the presence of English exhibits an

inverted pyramidal distribution” (Ng 2009, 253 in Bolton 2011, 62). There is no mention of the use of Putonghua, which can question Chen’s (2016) claim of widespread uncertainty of what should be the spoken language in legal contexts. In other legal organs and meetings, as in the fourth legislature of HKSAR in 2011-2012, the use of [Hong Kong] Cantonese

amounted to 99.45%. English was used in 0.38% of the addresses, in turn leaving very little use of Putonghua (Evans 2016, 23). There is undeniably room for interpretation of the meaning of trilingualism and what ‘Chinese’ means, but the languages used in court and legislatures today seem to be HKC and English.

2.2.2 Language in Education

Article 136 is about the management of educational institutions, including their MOI. It says that the HKSAR is to formulate and develop MOI policies on its own (Basic Law, 69). These two articles are essentially the backdrop of all subsequent policies concerned with language, such as the MOI policies. In modern Hong Kong history (late colonial period and onwards), MOI policies have been consistent at the Primary and tertiary levels, whereas on the

Secondary level the policies and practices have varied. The different periods can be divided into pre-1998, 1998-2009, and 2010-present, with differences between CMI and EMI schools stipulated in policies after 1998. Pre-1998 consisted of schools with an actual mixed mode of HKC and English (apart from the most prestigious EMI schools), despite 90% of students attending schools that were EMI schools. From 1998 through 2009, the schools were officially divided into EMI and CMI. Due to policies allowing CMI schools to have some classes in EMI the four last years of Secondary for the sake of preparing their students to

13 The source says 广东话 (Guangdong speech), therefore translated to Cantonese in this context.

Perceptions and Use of Putonghua Among Hong Kong Cantonese Speakers