Two Name Formation Systems in One Country: Cantonese People’s Attachment to Names in Hong Kong

Fu Kin-hung Shin Kataoka Department of Chinese Language Centre Hong Kong Institute of Education Hong Kong University of Science & Technology

Abstract

In Hong Kong, personal names are written with Chinese characters and pronounced in Cantonese. Each name also has a romanized equivalent that reflects Cantonese pronunciation. This paper reports on a small-scale research project to investigate the attachment of Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong to their names and their attitudes to using mainland Chinese simplified characters in names and the use of Pinyin instead of existing romanization conventions.

Introduction

One’s name is used for identification of oneself. It is personal and one often has a strong attachment to it. In Hong Kong, names are written with conventional Chinese script and pronounced in Cantonese. Since English is the second official language, each name has an equivalent in romanization that usually reflects Cantonese pronunciation. Although older generations may have names in non-Cantonese romanization, Cantonese-based romanization is quite common among younger generations. Romanized names are used on official documents such as birth certificates, ID cards, passports, business cards, or when reported on English TV programmes and in newspapers.

As Jernudd (1994) points out, constraints on the choice of names may arise from processes of political unification and from institutionalized state control over individuals. Due to the resumption of Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, it has been argued that Mandarin, or Putonghua as it is called in

Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 2,2 (1997); pp. 93–108

| 94 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka

China, will have a more important role to play in decolonized Hong Kong as a symbol of national unity. This might also lead to the adoption of Pinyin, which is the official phonetic system in China for the transliteration of Chinese, as well as to the conversion from the currently used conventional characters to the simplified equivalents used in China. The adoption of an unfamiliar system in Hong Kong may give rise to two issues. Firstly, Pinyin is based on Putonghua pronunciation and, therefore, names would look and/or sound different. Examples can be found in the use of unreleased finals in Cantonese (-p, -t, -k) that Mandarin lacks, or the use of voiceless and voiced letters in Pinyin to denote aspirated and unaspirated sounds respectively, which is not found in Cantonese romanization for names. Secondly, Hong Kong Cantonese speaking people might feel that their choice of names was restricted by the mainland system. The choice of names is, in fact, to be understood as an issue of language choice because, by nature, one’s name pronounced in one particular Chinese dialect presupposes that the rest of one’s speech is also in that dialect. Similarly, simplified script may be recognized as the mainland written system and its adoption in Hong Kong may therefore affect people’s perception of their own names. Some differences in the two systems are shown in Table 1.

Conventional Simplified Cantonese- Pinyin Script Script based romanization 陳 陈* Chan Chen* 李 ರ Li, Lee Li* 黃 黃 Wong Huang* 何 何 Ho He* 張 张* Cheung Zhang* 歐 欧* Au Ou* 周 周 Chow Zhou* 麥 麦* Mak Mai*

(Those different in the mainland system are indicated by asterisk.)

Table 1: Name Forming Differences in Hong Kong and Mainland China

Although no policy has formally been announced with regard to future changes in the name forming system, the issue has occasionally been addressed by Chinese language planning authorities. For instance, Li (1995), in his personal Two name formation systems in one country: Cantonese people’s attachment to names in Hong Kong | 95 view on the future language policy in Hong Kong, proposed that place names that replace colonial names and personal names for those born after 1997 should employ Pinyin as the official romanization, and that names should be put in the order of surname first and given name second. T'sou (1994) identifies three kinds of major difficulties that could result from such a policy: a. Violation of the attachment individuals might have for their traditional romanized names. b. Difficulties with individual identification on the basis of romanization based on a different and unfamiliar dialect. c. Difficulties with the legal basis for identification (e.g. for inheritance and criminal records purposes).

T'sou’s focus was on romanized names. In our research, however, attitudes to the adoption of simplified script in formal name writing were also examined, as this was also considered to be a variable that relates to T'sou’s three difficulties. The results of our research do indeed indicate that the choice of script type is considered important in relation to people’s attachment to names.

Taking T'sou’s difficulties into account, our paper first discusses the current name formation system both in Hong Kong and in China and then attempts to identify possible problems if the mainland system were to be implemented in Hong Kong. Lastly, our small scale questionnaire research will be discussed with reference to Hong Kong people’s attachment to their names and their immediate reaction to the mainland system.

Current name formation policy in Hong Kong and China

Hong Kong At present, the Hong Kong government has a free policy in terms of choice of names. In the course of birth registration, the surname usually follows that of the father. A given name is then chosen by parents. The registration should be made in both Chinese and English. Characters used in Chinese names should be included in the Hong Kong government’s reference book, known as the Chinese Commercial Code (CCC, Hong Kong Government, 1989). Some simplified characters are included in the CCC, though treated as different characters from the conventional equivalents to avoid misidentification. As for the system of romanization, there is no standardized system either for Cantonese or Putonghua and, while it is usually Cantonese-based romanization | 96 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka that is chosen by parents for their child’s given name, Pinyin can also be employed on the parents’ request. Parents can decide whether the romanized given name is (1) the romanized equivalent of the Chinese given name, (2) another English (or Christian) name, or (3) both. They can also decide the order of their children’s surname and given name(s) in English. Alteration or addition of a given name, be it in Chinese script or romanized script, is possible until the age of 11, after which legal procedure is required (see the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance, Chapter 174, Section 13). Applying the mainland system to the whole population in Hong Kong would inevitably involve altering existing names, which seems unrealistic under the present legal system.

China The Chinese registration system is standardized. Simplified script and Pinyin must be used by all citizens except for minority nationalities, who are allowed to have their own romanization (see Chinese Language Reform Committee, 1974). In 1978, the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs also announced that as from 1 January 1979, Pinyin should be employed as the standardized romanized system when names of ethnic Han Chinese citizens are used in romanized diplomatic correspondence (cited in Wu, 1979).

Possible problems with the adoption of mainland system in Hong Kong.

If people born after 1997 were to adopt Pinyin for their romanized names, and if the legal system were to allow children to have a differently spelt surname from their father, two different systems would be put into effect concurrently.

Since a Chinese surname is typically monosyllabic both in Putonghua and Cantonese, there would be many homonyms, which might cause identification difficulty (see Table 2), as also pointed out by T'sou (1994).

Pinyin Cantonese 吳 Wu Ng 胡 Hu Wu, Woo 唐 Tang Tong 鄧 Deng Tang Two name formation systems in one country: Cantonese people’s attachment to names in Hong Kong | 97

黎 Li Lai 李 Li Li, Lee 萬 Wan Man 雲 Yun Wan 劉 Liu Lau 廖 Liao Liu

Table 2: Identification difficulty in romanized Chinese Surnames

Apart from the identification difficulty arising from its unfamiliar appearance, adoption of simplified script might cause similar problems. For example, the Cantonese surname Siu is written as 蕭 in Hong Kong and its simplified equivalent in China is formally 蕭 . However, this simplified character has another popular simplified version: 肖. Both are pronounced alike in Putonghua, and cause no confusion. In Hong Kong, however, the former would be easily recognized, but the latter might be regarded as a different character, which has a different pronunciation in Cantonese (see Table 3).

Pinyin Cantonese Conventional 蕭 Xiao Siu Simplified 蕭 Xiao Siu Popular 肖 Xiao Chiu

Table 3: Identification difficulty caused by Chinese script type

Questionnaire research on people’s attachment to their names

Research questions

Taking the above points into account, we designed a small research project, in which we hoped to address the following research questions.

1) What is the people’s attachment to the current name forming system? | 98 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka

2) What is their reaction to the possible adoption of the mainland system? 3) How would this reaction change if their name is used in different situations? 4) What do people wish the language policy in Hong Kong to be in the future?

Methodology A questionnaire was designed to gather opinions on the above questions. It was composed of multiple choice questions in which the subjects were asked to make a choice regarding the personal name systems in different situations. After the questionnaire was administered, all the data were processed with SPSS/PC+.

Subjects We received questionnaire data from 94 school teachers of various subjects. They were chosen as a convenient sample available at the time of the questionnaire administration. Approximately 90% were born in Hong Kong, and speak only Cantonese with their parents. 98% had lived in Hong Kong for more than 20 years. More than 73% had learnt Putonghua for less than one year. The subjects were classified into groups such as sex, age, and self-rated Putonghua proficiency to cross analyze the data. Table 4 shows the number of subjects in each group:

Sex: Male (27) Female (67) Age: 21-31 (18) 31-40 (38) 41-50 (37) 51 or over (1) Proficiency: Very good (2) Good (6) Average (33) Poor (37) Very poor (16)

Table 4: The distribution of the subjects

Results The following data were obtained according to different situations in which names may be used.

Names used by others The subjects were asked whether they would consider it appropriate for their surname to be in Cantonese or Putonghua when addressed in spoken English in the form of “Mr./Ms. + surname” (e.g. Mr./Ms. / lam / (Cantonese) or / lin Two name formation systems in one country: Cantonese people’s attachment to names in Hong Kong | 99

/ (Putonghua)), and when referred to in written English in the form of “Mr./Ms. + surname” (e.g., Mr./Ms. Lam (Cantonese) or Lin (Pinyin)). The result is shown in Table 5.

Addressed in Addressed in Referred to Referred to Cantonese Putonghua in Cantonese in Pinyin Appropriate 51 (54.3%) 21 (22.3%) 66 (70.2%) 31 (33.0%) Inappropriate 12 (12.8%) 22 (23.4%) 4 (4.3%) 18 (19.1%) No opinion 31 (33.0%) 51 (54.3%) 24 (25.5%) 45 (47.9%)

Table 5: Attitudes to the use of names in English contexts

Here, our focus was on how their name is used in an English speaking situation because such English speaking situations are quite common in Hong Kong and also so that the issue could be considered outside the Chinese language context. The result, however, was not as significant as was expected. The subjects showed a preference for the current practice, while there were also quite a number of people who were against it. Since it would be easy to identify who was addressed or referred to in a context like this, it is possible that the subjects do not care too much how others call them. The negative response to the use of the Cantonese surname could have been due to the wording in this question (e.g., the use of their given name might be preferred).

Name for self-introduction The subjects were shown a sample of a business card in both systems and asked whether they would consider it appropriate if the business card were theirs. The working place was set as Hong Kong. The result is shown in Table 6:

Conventional Pinyin Conventional Simplified romanization romanization script script Appropriate 75 (79.8%) 21 (22.3%) 86 (91.5%) 14 (14.9%) Inappropriate 1 (1.1%) 22 (23.4%) 0 (0%) 45 (47.9%) No opinion 18 (19.1%) 51 (54.3%) 8 (8.5%) 35 (37.2%)

Table 6: Attitudes to the use of names in Hong Kong

| 100 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka

The majority felt the current system was appropriate, while there were some who considered it appropriate to adopt the mainland system. Nearly half of the subjects considered it inappropriate to use simplified script on business cards. The same question was then asked with reference to a different situation. This time, the working place was set as mainland China (see Table 7).

Conventional Pinyin Conventional Simplified romanization romanization script script Appropriate 26 (27.7%) 63 (67.0%) 43 (45.7%) 72 (76.6%) Inappropriate 26 (27.7%) 7 (7.4%) 19 (20.2%) 5 (5.3%) No opinion 42 (44.7%) 24 (25.5%) 32 (34.0%) 17 (18.1%)

Table 7: Attitudes to the use of names in mainland China

Compared with the previous result, there was a considerable change in attitude. Although there was still support for the conventional name writing system, the support for the mainland system was greater. Since business cards are used to introduce oneself so that one’s business partner will recognize one easily, the subjects may have been more conscious of how their names would be pronounced and written in mainland China. This change in attitude may imply that Hong Kong people’s attachment to names is not rigid.

Name for personal identification Next, the subjects’ views on their names as they appear on the Hong Kong Identity Card were examined and the result is shown in Table 8.

Conventional Pinyin Conventional Simplified romanization romanization script script Appropriate 81 (86.2%) 12 (12.8%) 85 (90.4%) 7 (7.4%) Inappropriate 2 (2.1%) 28 (29.8%) 2 (2.1%) 47 (50.0%) No opinion 11 (11.7%) 54 (57.4%) 7 (7.4%) 40 (42.6%)

Table 8: Attitudes to the use of names for personal identification

The conventional system received almost unanimous agreement, while very few supported the mainland system. Pinyin received greater support than simplified script. In order to examine in more depth the subjects’ views on the adoption of Pinyin and simplified script on their ID cards, the frequency of Two name formation systems in one country: Cantonese people’s attachment to names in Hong Kong | 101 responses was rated by sex, age, and self-rated Putonghua proficiency, and the results were as follows. (1) Both sexes showed similar views on Pinyin, whereas on simplified script, female subjects expressed stronger disagreement than males. (2) In the 21-30 age group, the percentage is almost even between those in favour of Pinyin and those against it. However, those against Pinyin doubled the number of supporters in older groups, e.g., the 31-40 age group had 37% opposed to it in contrast to 16% who supported it. Half or more in each group were against simplified script. The most negative view was held by the 41-50 group, in which the supporters were only 3%, which is a clear indicator of their strong unwillingness to adopt it. (3) Unfavourable attitudes to Pinyin and simplified script were equally observed in almost all Putonghua proficiency groups.

With the dialect spoken with parents taken into account, the results obtained were as follows. (1) 58% of the subjects who speak non-Cantonese dialects with parents showed a favourable attitude to Pinyin in contrast to only 9% among those who only speak Cantonese. (2) 43% of the non-Cantonese subjects supported simplified script in contrast to 5% among the Cantonese subjects. This result is an indicator that people of non-Cantonese background may have a more flexible view on the adoption of the mainland system.

Names in post-1997 contexts With regard to future name formation policy, the subjects were asked whether they agree or disagree on the use of conventional romanization, Pinyin, conventional script, and simplified script for those born after 1997.

Conventional Pinyin Conventional Simplified romanization romanization script script Agree 52 (55.3%) 19 (20.2%) 63 (67.0%) 11 (11.7%) Disagree 2 (2.1%) 19 (20.2%) 1 (1.1%) 33 (35.1%) No opinion 40(42.6%) 56 (59.6%) 30 (31.9%) 50 (53.2%)

Table 9: Attitudes to the use of names in post-British contexts

No opinion was recorded on many of the questions. Nevertheless, the current system, be it romanization or script, was supported by more than half the subjects. While the attitude to Pinyin was rather ambiguous, simplified | 102 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka

script was disfavoured by many subjects. The lack of support for the mainland system might be evidence that many hope that later generations could be differentiated by name from the mainland Chinese. However, compared with the results that directly involve themselves, there seems to be a different in the subjects’ attitudes. The more favourable attitudes to the mainland system for children than for self implies that their attachment to the current system may vary under different circumstances.

The frequency of responses on the adoption of Pinyin for those born after 1997 was also rated by sex, age, and self-rated Putonghua proficiency. Firstly, it turned out that male Pinyin supporters greatly outnumbered those against it, while the opposite results were observed from female subjects. As for simplified script, positive and negative views were expressed by equal numbers of male subjects, whereas the female subjects with a negative view were almost four times as many as those with a positive view. Secondly, those aged 31-40 proved quite different from other age groups in that the ratio of the Pinyin supporters was smaller than those against Pinyin. The 41-50 age group also stands out in that of all age groups, the supporters of Pinyin were the most numerous, and the supporters of simplified script were the least. There was also a tendency that the younger the subjects are, the more supportive they become for the use of simplified script in future. Lastly, the data show that the lower the self-rated Putonghua proficiency is, the more likely the subjects are to disagree with Pinyin.

Language Policy after 1997 In Hong Kong, the Chinese language has been an official language since 1974. However, there is no legal explanation as to which specific spoken form was meant. The Basic Law, the mini-Constitution of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) effective from 1 July 1997, also fails to mention any official spoken dialect. However, it should also be noted that the General Principles of the Chinese Constitution, Article 19 stipulates that the State promote Putonghua as a national common language.

In order to explore the factors that might have affected the subjects’ view on their choice of names, subjects were asked whether they agreed or disagreed on the following language policy related issues, as shown in Table 11:

a) Making Putonghua a common language for communication (PC) b) Keeping Cantonese as a common language for communication (CC) Two name formation systems in one country: Cantonese people’s attachment to names in Hong Kong | 103 c) Making Putonghua an official spoken language (PO) d) Making Cantonese an official spoken language (CO)

PC CC PO CO Agree 33(35.1%) 72(76.6%) 37(39.4%) 53(56.4%) Disagree 22(23.4%) 4(4.3%) 18(19.1%) 8(8.5%) No opinion 39(41.5%) 18(19.1%) 39(41.5%) 33(35.1%)

Table 10: Attitudes to language policy after 1997

The desire to keep the current status of Cantonese as a common language was shared by the great majority. The supporters of Putonghua as a common language for communication outnumbered those against it, which implies that many subjects are ready to accept another language to be spoken in Hong Kong on the basis that the current status of Cantonese would be maintained. When it comes to the legal status of spoken languages, both languages were supported by quite a number of subjects. That Cantonese official status was supported by more than half the subjects might be evidence that they want to be seen as Cantonese-speaking rather than Putonghua speaking. It is also worth noting that female subjects were the strongest advocators of Cantonese. More than 60% of female subjects agreed on the status of Cantonese as an official spoken language, as opposed to only 37% of the male subjects.

As for the relation between language policy and the choice of the future name writing system, about 70% of the supporters of the official status of Cantonese agreed that the currently used romanization and script should be maintained, and a similar tendency can be observed from those who agree that Cantonese should be maintained as a communication language. However, the correlation between the choice of Putonghua and the adoption of the mainland system is not as high as in the case of Cantonese.

Discussion

Category groups It seems that the male subjects were generally more supportive of the mainland system than the female subjects. This may imply that men are more | 104 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka

practical and ready to accept the possible change in the name formation system in the future.

All the age groups showed a similar tendency if the adoption of the mainland system were to involve their ID cards. Nevertheless, when it comes to their offspring, the subjects’ unwillingness to adopt the mainland system decreases quite significantly. The older age groups also tend to evaluate Pinyin more positively and simplified script more negatively. The 31-40 age group disagreed with the adoption of Pinyin most strongly. Their loyalty to the present system may result from the fact that they are the first generation since locally born people exceeded half of the population in the 1966 census report.

The data showed that the difference in self-rated Putonghua proficiency had little effect on the forming of the sample’s view. This suggests that Putonghua has not yet been integrated in the society.

Although the sample was small, the data suggested that people of non-Cantonese background within the Hong Kong community might become a big factor affecting societal attitudes if the demographic situation in terms of dialect groups were to change in future.

Attitude change Variable attitudes within the same sample were observed on several questions, such as when the use of the subjects’ names was considered outside Hong Kong contexts, or when names for future generations were taken into account. In these cases, the mainland system was evaluated more positively, which indicates that the extent to which the subjects wish to maintain the current system is not absolute but depends in part on the beneficiary’s identity.

Goffman (1971) observes two identity categories: (1) social identity and (2) personal identity, the former being “the broad social categories to which an individual can belong and be seen as belonging”, and the latter “the unique organic continuity imputed to each individual, established through distinguishing marks such as name and appearance.” Name is a marker of personal identity. However, it may be affected when people’s social identity is subject to change. This is a sensitive and complicated process, and our preliminary research has its limitations. Nevertheless, the data gained from the subjects give some information on their attitudes to their identity under different social circumstances.

Two name formation systems in one country: Cantonese people’s attachment to names in Hong Kong | 105

Script type and romanization When judgements are made, they are often based on people’s sense of value. The opinions sought in this study may have been based on the subject’s linguistic norms. As all the subjects are school teachers, it is possible that their opinions are more normative than those of others. Therefore, when interpreting the data, we must be aware of the treatment of script types and romanization systems in school education.

Apart from its unfamiliarity in the society, the negative evaluation of simplified script may be enforced by the fact that teachers often encourage pupils not to use simplified script as it is an ‘incorrect’ form, an attitude which has long been part of the local linguistic norms. In practice, however, its use in the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE), let alone informal writing, is tolerated by the authorities. Therefore, whether or not negative attitudes to simplified script will change depends very much on future education policy.

Romanization, however, is quite different from script type in that no standardized type of romanization is used or taught in the society. Therefore people’s positive attitudes to the current system are partly based on their own experience of using personal or place names, which are usually pronounced in Cantonese. Positive views on Pinyin may increase if the promotion of Putonghua in school education is successful in future, as Pinyin is essential in studying the language.

Abstention As the results show, a consistently high level of abstention was observed in responses to our questionnaire. One possible explanation is that many of the subjects are indifferent, but would accept the mainland system if they had to. Living in a multilingual society like Hong Kong, people are used to using more than one name. It is possible that this will be extended to the acceptance of Pinyin and simplified script.

Conclusion

Language Planning in China has aimed to make former regionally prestigious dialects subordinate to Putonghua so that only Putonghua can be the high variety in a diglossic manner (T'sou, 1994). The concept is expressed in | 106 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka

the following Chinese expression: “Putonghua is a language originating from dialects, and superordinate to dialects.” The existence of dialect is explained as a consequence of feudal agricultural society (Xu, 1996), and its status is often stigmatized. For example, Beijing Youth Daily once had a special coverage on dialects that included an article entitled “Formidable Dialect Superiority Complex” (Xia, 1995, original in Chinese), which criticized Cantonese-speaking people as being an obstacle to nation building.

Cantonese in Hong Kong, unlike its counterpart in Guangdong Province of China, has developed fully-fledged functions in many domains during the long political separation from China. Recently it has also gained ground in domains where English had traditionally been the predominant language under the British colonial rule, such as in the courts and the civil service. The emergence of a Hong Kong identity is also claimed to be closely related to the development of Cantonese as a common language within different dialect groups (Chan, 1994; Choi, 1990). The fact that written Chinese for the local readership is much “Canonized” is also evidence that it is a language deeply seated in Hong Kong people’s minds.

The design of an SAR (Special Administrative Region) passport was announced in October 1996, and will be put to use from 1997. It can be said that this is a symbol of Hong Kong, China. It is reported that conventional script and romanization will be used in this passport. In this respect, there will be no immediate system change in name registration in the new Hong Kong. However, one should note that Putonghua will be formally introduced into the school curriculum by 1998, and will be included in the HKCEE in the year 2000. It is thus certainly gaining ground in Hong Kong. The promotion of Putonghua in Hong Kong is supported by a relatively large number of our subjects, though the maintenance of the current name formation system in the future was also supported by the majority. This, to some extent, is evidence that Hong Kong people expect their identity to be altered after Hong Kong returns to China. As subjects’ stress was on addition of a new language, language domains presently occupied by Cantonese and English will require some adjustment in the future Hong Kong. The underlying question here is whether future language policy could live up to people’s expectations. The time needed for Putonghua promotion may be the time needed for Hong Kong people to adjust their identity on the basis of a new principle ‘one country, two systems, and three languages’.

Two name formation systems in one country: Cantonese people’s attachment to names in Hong Kong | 107

References

Chan, H.M. (1994). Culture and Identity. In Macmillan, D.H. & Man, S.W. (Eds.) The Other Hong Kong Report 1994. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 443-468.

Chinese Language Reform Committee (1974) (amended in 1976). 中國人名漢 語拼音字母拼寫法 (The Pinyin romanization instruction on Chinese personal names). In 國家語委政策法規室 (Ed.) (1996). 國家語言文字 政策法規匯編 (A Collection of National Language Policy Documents), Beijing: Yuwen Chubanshe, 104.

Choi, P.K. (1990) Popular Culture. In Wong, R.Y.C. and Cheng, J.Y.S. (Eds.) The Other Hong Kong Report1990. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 537-563.

Goffman, E. (1971) Relations in Public. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Hong Kong Government (1974) The Births and Deaths Registrations Ordinance, Chapter 174, Section 13. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government Printer.

Hong Kong Government (1989) Three Way Chinese Commercial Telegraphic Code Book C.C.C./S.T.C.-Romanized Mandarin-Romanized Cantonese. Hong Kong: Royal Hong Kong Police Force.

Jernudd, B.H. (1994) Personal names and human rights. In Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (Eds.) Linguistic Human Rights. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 121-132.

Li L.Y. (1995) 承認現實，逐步發展 (Accept the reality and Develop gradually). Paper presented at the Conference on 1997 and the Chinese language in Hong Kong. Also published in Mingpao, 12 Oct, 1995.

People's Republic of China Government (1982) 中華人民共和國憲法 (The Constitution of the People's Republic of China), Chapter 1, Article 19. Shanghai: Renmin Chubanshe. | 108 K.H. Fu & S. Kataoka

People's Republic of China Government (1996) 中華人民共和國香港特別行 政區基本法(The Basic law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing.

T'sou, B.J. (1994) Language Planning Issues Raised by English in Hong Kong: Pre- and Post-1997. In Kandiah T. & Kwan-Terry, J. (Eds.) English and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian Contribution (pp.197-217). Singapore: Times Academic Press.

Wu W.C. (1979). 漢語拼音字母是拼寫中國人名地名的世界性法定標準 (Pinyin is an international standardized romanization for Chinese personal and place names). 語文雜誌 (Yuwen Zazhi), 1, 32-33.

XIA, H. (1995) 可怕的方言優越感 (Formidable Dialect Superiority Complex). Beijing Youth Daily, 1 August , Beijing.

XU, J.L. (1996). 教育發展的要素富 國家富強的利器(Factors for Educational Development Tools for National Strength). Wen Wei Po, 21-25 April, Hong Kong