Bilinguals in Style: Linguistic Practices and Ideologies of Cantonese-English Codemixers in Hong Kong
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BILINGUALS IN STYLE: LINGUISTIC PRACTICES AND IDEOLOGIES OF CANTONESE-ENGLISH CODEMIXERS IN HONG KONG by Hoi Ying Chen A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Linguistics) in The University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor Judith T. Irvine (Co-Chair) Professor Sarah G. Thomason (Co-Chair) Associate Professor Robin M. Queen Assistant Professor Babra A. Meek 雙語風格: 香港粵英語碼混合者的言語行為及意識形態 版權所有 陳海瑛 Katherine Hoi Ying Chen 2008 An exhibition poster outside the Hong Kong Museum of Art in 2007: “Chinglish” or “Chinese English”. The four large Chinese characters (with partial English cursive designs) read “Not Chinese, not English”. © Hoi Ying Chen 2008 To My Parents 陳保才 和 李月釵 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The journey to earn this degree has been long and difficult, but it has also been the most fruitful of my life to this point. It would not have been possible, however, without countless wonderful people guiding and encouraging me along the way. I have found life-long mentors, friends, and family members. When I reflect on this experience as a whole, they are truly what I value most. I would like to express my deep gratitude to the Department of Linguistics at the University of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, the Barbour Fellowship, and the Center for the Education of Women for providing funding and continued support for my research. Colleagues and friends in the Socio-discourse Group and the Linguistic Anthropology Lab must be thanked for their constant stimulation and constructive feedback. In particular, tireless brainstormers named Rizwan Ahmad, Anna Babel, Laura Brown, Lisa Del Torto, Sai Samant, Mark Sicoli, and Vanessa Will. In truth, I would not have survived the frigid Michigan winters without the dear friendship and intellectual support of my close-knit cohort, namely Jennifer Nguyen, Nancy Perez, Nick Pharris, Vera Irwin, and Carson Maynard. Additionally, Amanda Banerjee, Pam Beddor, Holly Cashman, Debby Keller-Cohen, Dushyanthi Mendis, Chutamanee Onsuwan, Sylvia Suttor, John Swales, and Ashley Williams, who are all part of the Michigan Linguistics network, have contributed in immeasurable ways to my iii success. Outside of that network, I have also benefited greatly from interactions with Kingsley Bolton, Mary Bucholtz, Daniel Davies, Margaret Deuchar, and Monica Heller. On paper, this dissertation has two chairs, but three is actually closer to reality. Lesley Milroy, who brought me to Michigan, worked very closely with me in designing and executing my research and data analysis. Even after her retirement, she gladly provided me with research, career, and personal guidance. Judy Irvine has been a constant inspiration, introducing me to whole new worlds of intellectual excitement. She not only elevated my understanding, but my ability to understand. Sally Thomason nurtured me through many a storm and was an infinite source of motivation. She maintains a perfect balance between honest criticism and heart-felt compassion. The other members of my committee may not have been chairs, but that doesn't make their contributions any less valuable. In Robin Queen I discovered a friend and mentor who treated me more like a colleague than a student. She was always looking to prepare me for the future, not just the task at hand. And then there's Barb Meek, who has a bottomless pit of imagination and showed me many unexplored dimensions of my work. I'll no doubt be mining her suggestions for years to come. These academic giants never made me feel small, always coached me kindly, and helped to shape much more than a dissertation - they helped shape a person. Through these past few years, I have come to realize that the dissertation process is far from mine alone. Many people have helped me see it to fruition and many people have been affected along the way. More than anyone else, though, it has affected both of my families, the Chens and Carpers. Special thanks to Carol for showing me that dissertations are like elephants - you must eat them one small bite at a time. I have no iv words to adequately describe the gratitude I have for my parents. They made me who I am, equipped me with the skills I need for success, and supported all of my decisions while I was so far away from home. Speaking of being far from home, my brother also deserves a nod for taking good care of my parents and giving me peace of mind so I could concentrate on my research. And finally Gray, who has spent the last few years walking alongside me and supporting me, and without whom none of this would matter. v TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................. ix ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION: BILINGUALISM AND LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES IN HONG KONG ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Motivations, goals, and theoretical considerations .................................... 1 1.2. Sociolinguistic background of Hong Kong................................................ 8 1.3. Population mobility and family/education connections with English speaking countries ................................................................................... 12 1.4. Attitudes toward code-mixing in Hong Kong .......................................... 15 1.5. Content layout .......................................................................................... 16 2. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES ......................................................................... 19 2.1. Methodological considerations ................................................................ 19 2.2. Recording of Natural conversation .......................................................... 28 2.2.1. Local in-group code-mixing conversation ................................ 28 2.2.2. Returnee in-group code-mixing style ........................................ 29 2.3. Interviews with speakers of both groups ................................................. 31 2.4. Individual language use in out-group day-to-day interaction .................. 32 2.5. Attitudinal study of speakers of the local code-mixing pattern ............... 34 2.6. Participant observation............................................................................. 38 3. IN-GROUP LINGUISTIC CHOICES: STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO CODE-MIXING PATTERNS .......................................................... 40 3.1. Previous literature on Hong Kong code-mixing ...................................... 40 3.2. Structural framework for data analysis .................................................... 41 3.3. The linguistic findings: structural difference of the two code-mixing patterns ..................................................................................................... 44 3.4. The local in-group pattern ........................................................................ 47 3.5. The returnee in-group pattern .................................................................. 48 3.5.1. Insertion in the returnee pattern ................................................ 48 vi 3.5.2. Alternation in the returnee pattern ............................................ 51 4. LINGUISTIC CHOICES OF LOCAL INDIVIDUALS IN OUT-GROUP DAY-TO-DAY INTERACTIONS ....................................................................... 59 4.1. Goals and structure of Chapters 4 and 5 .................................................. 59 4.2. Sociolinguistic backgrounds and language attitudes ............................... 61 4.3. Intraspeaker code and code-mixing choices ............................................ 64 4.3.1. Linguistic choices within the family ......................................... 65 4.3.2. Language choice at work .......................................................... 68 4.3.3. Language choice with friends ................................................... 71 4.3.4. Other interlocutors .................................................................... 72 4.4. Individual’s consistency in code/code-mixing choices with the same interlocutor ............................................................................................... 73 4.5. Structural comparison of code-mixing patterns with different interlocutors ................................................................................................................. 74 4.6. Structural comparison of different code-mixing language pairs .............. 76 4.7. Comparing the two individuals’ code and code-mixing choices ............. 78 4.8. Comparing in-group and out-group linguistic choices ............................ 81 4.9. Summary .................................................................................................. 82 5. LINGUISTIC CHOICES OF RETURNEE INDIVIDUALS IN OUT-GROUP DAY-TO-DAY INTERACTIONS ....................................................................... 84 5.1. Introduction .............................................................................................