their responses to statements about language and politics, education, identity and career. ... maintain the use of their ethnic language and diverge from outgroup .... It was therefore supposed that these students might exhibit a more definite ...
Hyland, K. (1997). Language attitudes at the handover: communication and identity in 1997 Hong Kong. English World Wide. 18 (2): 191-210.
Language attitudes at the handover: Communication and identity in 1997 Hong Kong Introduction On the surface Hong Kong appears to be a multilingual society where English and Cantonese coexist and function in different domains. Cantonese is the language of the home and intimacy while English is the principal means of communication within the administrative, legal and business worlds and is the ostensible medium of instruction in secondary and university education. However, significant changes to this situation are expected to occur now the territory has returned to Chinese sovereignty, with Putonghua (Mandarin), the official language of mainland China, expanding its current marginal role. While no pronouncements have been made concerning a post 1997 language policy, the fact local Chinese mainland officials have chosen to make all their public statements in Putonghua is a strong signal that it will quickly emerge as a significant rival to Cantonese and English.
With Hong Kong entering a period of great political change, of “decolonisation without independence” (Pierson, 1994), issues of language and identity take on particular importance. Moreover, these developments are occurring in already complex diglossic conditions of “superposed bilingualism” (So, 1989) created by a long period of British colonialism and the sociolinguistic importance of English as a world language. The research described in this paper therefore addresses how these socio-political changes may be affecting perceptions towards Cantonese, English and Putonghua and the roles they should play in society. Specifically, it seeks to measure the ethnolinguistic attitudes of 926 tertiary students by examining their responses to statements about language and politics, education, identity and career. I will first sketch the existing language situation and then go on to describe the results of the survey.
The ethnolinguistic situation in Hong Kong Until July 1 this year Hong Kong had been a British colony since 1841. But while its culture exhibits both Western and Chinese influences, it is a racially homogeneous, monolingual society. The 1991 census shows that 98% of the population are Chinese and that 89% speak Cantonese as a first language at home. Only
1
1% of Chinese respondents to recent surveys do not speak Cantonese and there has been a steady decrease in the numbers claiming other dialects such as Chiu Chau, Hakka and Fukien (Bacon-Schon & Bolton, In Press). English was claimed to be the first language by 2.2% of the population and Putonghua, the standardised oral form of modern Mandarin, by 1.1% although nearly 32% professed to speak English and 18% said they could communicate in Putonghua.
Generally speaking, interaction between the English and Cantonese speech communities is limited to academic, commercial and administrative contexts among the middle classes and English plays a negligible social role in the daily lives of most Hong Kong people (Bruce, 1990). The Cantonese speaking community has a strong intra-group cohesion and a high level of “ethnolinguistic vitality” in that speakers keenly maintain the use of their ethnic language and diverge from outgroup speakers (Giles & Johnson, 1987). The Cantonese, originating from the neighbouring Guangdon Province of China, have traditionally considered themselves a distinctive sub-group within China as a result of their relative isolation on the South China coast, and are equally proud of their regional identity as of being Chinese (Wilson, 1990). Consequently they have little reason to acculturate to Western culture and there is a general acceptance of Cantonese as the vernacular.
Cantonese is the language of solidarity (Cheung, 1985) and the preferred medium of communication for the majority. It is the lingua franca of a community who not only respect traditional Chinese culture and values but who are also aware of their singular political, economic and cultural status at the frontier of east and west. This shared language reinforces a positive ethnolinguistic identity which is also maintained through strong family ties and other close contacts while diverging from other groups (Bond & Yang, 1982; Bond & Hewson, 1988). Consequently studies over the past 20 years have found that language attitudes are inextricably associated with notions of ethnicity and evaluations of the in-group and out-group (Bond, 1985; Pierson & Bond, 1982). In other words, Cantonese is not only a language, but also a culture with which individuals strongly identify.
English however is the “language of success” and continues to be used at the higher levels of government administration and business, particularly in written communication (So, 1989). Many multinational corpo-
2
rations have regional offices in Hong Kong and conduct much of their business in English. In fact, one survey suggests that English is used for over 66% of workplace communication in such large firms (Blomfield & Pierson, 1987). Hong Kong’s success as an international financial and trading centre, particularly following China’s “open door” policy, is well known and English has played an important role in this growth. Consequently English is perceived among the community as having strong marketability, and knowledge of English correlates highly with income, social prestige and educational level (Cheng & Zi, 1987).
This socio-economic importance of English is reflected in the colonial education system where English is the de jure medium of instruction for 91% of secondary school students. This is largely due to limited government support of vernacular education until recently (So, 1992) and to parental demand for immersion education. There is a widespread belief among both parents and students in Hong Kong that English medium education results in a better standard of English (Tung, et al, in press). However most teachers are untrained in the language (Education Commission, 1995:26) and students’ monolingual lives outside class offer limited opportunities to practice it (Littlewood et al, 1996). The majority of students are therefore unable to benefit from an education in English. The situation of a foreign language being used where teachers and students have a common tongue creates serious learning problems for many students (Yu & Atkinson, 1988). As a result bilingual practices are prevalent in classrooms, despite official prohibitions against what is seen as a pedagogically harmful interlanguage, to make material accessible to learners with limited English (Lin, 1996). So while students continue to express a desire to learn English, its actual use in schools may have declined.
However, in spite of the apparent dominance of English in key educational and occupational settings, a straightforward diglossic model of functional distinctiveness is complicated by the existence of both High and Low varieties of Cantonese (Luke, 1984), widespread bilingual practices (Gibbons, 1987) and the increasing presence of Putonghua as another High variety. “Chinese” was recognised as a co-official language with English in 1974 and the use of Cantonese and Standard Written Chinese have increased in the public arena over the past decade. High Cantonese is now employed along with English for most administrative and academic functions. Proceedings in the legislature, civil service, local government and lower
3
courts are commonly conducted in Cantonese, for example, although it is rarely used in informal social discourse (Yau, 1992). The use of both high and low varieties has also continued to increase in the print and broadcast media, particularly with the advent of multi-channel satellite and cable TV in Cantonese, and the growth of a massively successful music industry known as Canto-pop.
Putonghua is the language of the Beijing government, the official language of both China and Taiwan and is spoken as a first language by perhaps 72% of the mainland population (De Francis, 1984). It is also widely seen in Hong Kong as the repository of Chinese culture because of a corpus of a prestigious literature, written in Mandarin, from which it derives its norms of usage. However, Putonghua is a language unintelligible to the majority of Hong Kongers. These two varieties of Chinese diverged some 2,500 years ago and have evolved in relative isolation, resulting in extensive differences in phonology, lexis and syntax (So, 1989; Norman, 1988). Putonghua can, like English, therefore be seen as a second language in relation to Cantonese, although political and cultural factors mean there is a reluctance to recognise this in Hong Kong. Hong Kongers often refer to Putonghua as their “mother tongue”, and express shame at their illiteracy in it.
In sum, Hong Kong presents a complex sociolinguistic situation where a “mother tongue” cannot be simply juxtaposed with English to describe diverse patterns of language use and meanings. While English undoubtedly retains its role as a marker of social distance and power (Lin, 1996), 150 years of British colonial rule have not undermined the cultural integrity of the Hong Kong population nor diminished regional linguistic loyalties. However, as the fate of a language is closely related to the power, both real and perceived, of different groups in a society, the political and cultural effects of reunification are likely to have a considerable impact on language attitudes and use. This climate of expectancy and apprehension provides the context for this study.
The survey In order to survey language attitudes in Hong Kong in the context of the existing social and political conditions, a questionnaire based on that used by Pierson et al (1980) was administered to 926 students at a Hong Kong university six months before the handover. Respondents divided almost equally between the sexes and were distributed across four broad fields of study. While a survey instrument is rather a blunt
4
means of capturing ethnolinguistic attitudes, research in Hong Kong suggests that direct strategies provide a more conspicuous indicator of dispositions and feelings than more abstract interview and matched guise techniques (Pierson et al, 1980). Pennington and Yue (1994:7) also found Pierson’s questionnaire to be a suitable measure for investigating language attitudes as it offered “a more direct and more easily generalizable interpretation than an indirect measure based on stereotypes”.
Prior research has shown that language attitudes are strongly responsive to contextual changes (Yau, 1992; Pierson, 1987). Pierson et al’s original questionnaire was therefore modified slightly to capture any differences in language attitudes brought about by the movement towards political transition in the last 16 yearsi and the often acrimonious public disagreements between the British and Chinese negotiating teams during that period. Thus items were included to tap respondents’ perceptions of the growing importance of Cantonese and Putonghua. It was also decided to conduct the study in English, the language most commonly employed in tertiary settings, to substantially increase the survey sample, and to use university students as subjects rather than school pupils as in the two earlier studies. The 25 statements on the questionnaire (Table 1) were designed to elicit attitudes to four broad categories: language and cultural identity; social and instrumental attitudes; education and official statuses of languages; and cognitive and affective attitudes. As in the original Pierson instrument, statements were purposively emotive to elicit definite reactions from subjects, but, following Pennington and Yue, a four point Likert scale ranging from “complete agreement” to “complete disagreement” was used to force a positive /negative choice.
University students were selected as subjects because earlier studies have shown academic achievement to correlate positively with a sensitivity to ethnolinguistic phenomena (Pierson et al, 1980; Young et al, 1986). It was therefore supposed that these students might exhibit a more definite response to relatively sophisticated issues of language, politics and ethnicity than the school children surveyed previously. In particular, it was expected that these respondents might be able to reflect maturely on the unique socio-political changes occurring in the territory. In addition, because of Hong Kong’s Western model of education, university graduates are what Luke and Richards (1982) call “linguistic middlemen”, in that they cross ethnic boundaries and bridge the gap between the in-group and out-group. While this exposure to English may imply a greater openness to western culture than in the population at large, undergraduates might also have greater reason to fear acculturation and the undermining of their ethnolinguistic identity. The fact these
5
subjects are in the front line of possible inter-linguistic tensions and are able to reflect maturely on their experiences makes their attitudes of great interest. Results of the survey Table 1 shows the overall results of the survey in terms of the rank order by means together with the standard deviation for each of the 25 items in the questionnaire (1 = completely agree, 4 = completely disagree). Table 1. Rank order of attitude statements by means Statement
Mean
SD
I wish that I could speak fluent and accurate English.
1.40
0.66
I believe I will continue to need good English skills after I graduate.
1.43
0.62
Good English skills are very helpful in understanding foreigners and their cultures
1.43
0.63
The ability to communicate in English is very important for success in my
1.56
0.67
It is a good thing to have English as one of the official languages of Hong Kong.
1.69
0.63
The use of English is one of the most important factors in Hong Kong’s
1.83
0.67
I like to see English-language films.
1.85
0.70
I enjoy talking to westerners in English.
2.06
0.73
Good English is the mark of an educated person.
2.20
0.58
I feel uneasy and lack confidence when using English.
2.25
0.74
I enjoy reading English magazines
2.42
0.70
Because of the changes in 1997, Hong Kong people should learn to speak
2.58
0.67
2.77
0.65
If I use English I will be praised and approved of by my family and friends.
2.81
0.47
The Cantonese language is superior to English.
2.81
0.67
I feel uncomfortable when hearing one Chinese speaking to another in English.
2.88
0.78
English will be less important in Hong Kong after 1997.
2.92
0.78
After 1997 all government and legal business should be carried out in Putonghua.
2.93
0.70
English should not be a medium of instruction in Hong Kong schools.
2.94
0.75
My subject textbooks should be either written in Chinese or translated into Chinese.
3.06
0.69
Cantonese should be the only official language in Hong Kong.
3.22
It should not be necessary to study subjects in English at university
3.27
0.62
At times I fear that by using English I will become like a foreigner.
3.34
0.39
subject at university.
prosperity and development today.
Putonghua rather than English. After I graduate, I believe my professional career will depend more on good Putonghua than good English.
6
0.72
When using English, I do not feel I am a Chinese person anymore.
3.46
0.40
If I use English it means I am not patriotic.
3.71
0.57
While the categorisation of questionnaire items was organised according to the constructs mentioned above, there was no guarantee that respondents distinguished the questions in this way. The results were therefore factor analysed to identify a smaller number of categories based on the subjects’ own perceptions. Factors were extracted with a varimax-rotation loading criteria of >0.45 which produced the pattern of five factors set out in Table 2ii. Fully 22 of the 25 items were discretely associated with one of the five factors and together these accounted for 44.1% of the matrix variance. Cronbach’s reliability test was used to establish the interval consistency between the items and the alpha values are shown for each factor in brackets iii. Fig 2: Factor analysis of results Factors Factor 1: Positive instrumental orientation to English ( 0.67) Good English skills are very helpful in understanding foreigners and their cultures I wish that I could speak fluent and accurate English. I believe I will continue to need good English skills after I graduate. The ability to communicate in English is very important for success in my subject at university. The use of English is one of the most important factors in Hong Kong’s prosperity and development today.
Loadings 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.61 0.52
Factor 2: Positive orientation to Educational and official statuses of English ( 0.57) Cantonese should be the only official language in Hong Kong. English should not be a medium of instruction in Hong Kong schools. It should not be necessary to study subjects in English at university It is a good thing to have English as one of the official languages of Hong Kong. I feel uncomfortable when hearing one Chinese speaking to another in English.
0.55 0.55 0.51 0.50 0.46
Factor 3: Positive affective orientation to English ( 0.54) I enjoy reading English magazines I feel uneasy and lack confidence when using English. I enjoy talking to westerners in English. I like to see English-language films.
0.70 0.64 0.62 0.48
Factor 4: English does not undermine cultural identity (0.46) When using English, I do not feel I am a Chinese person anymore. At times I fear that by using English I will become like a foreigner. Good English is the mark of an educated person. If I use English I will be praised and approved of by my family and friends.
0.65 0.65 0.53 0.49
Factor 5: English will remain important in the future ( 0.55) After I graduate, I believe my professional career will depend more on good Putonghua than good English. After 1997 all government and legal business should be carried out in Putonghua.
7
0.70 0.62
Because of the changes in 1997, Hong Kong people should learn to speak 0.55 Putonghua rather than English. The Cantonese language is superior to English.
0.54
Finally, each of these factors was analysed to determine whether gender or field of study differences influenced subjects’ responses. ANOVA and Multiple Classification Analyses on these two variables indicated that sex contributed significantly only to factor 2, where females were more likely to disagree with the statements, registering a mean of 3.20 against 3.05 for males (p
