Perceptions and Use of Putonghua Among Kong 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 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 (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 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.

ii

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.

iii

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 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.

iv

Table of Contents Abstract ...... ii

Acknowledgments ...... iv

Abbreviations ...... vi

1 Introduction ...... 1

Overview of Sections ...... 2

1.1 Hong Kong’s Language History, Use, and Identity ...... 3

2 Theoretical Discussion...... 7

2.1 Identity, Language Use, and Language Attitudes ...... 7

2.1.1 Identity ...... 7

2.1.2 Language Use ...... 9

2.1.3 Language Attitudes ...... 19

2.2 Language Policies and Language in Education and Career ...... 22

2.2.1 Language Policies...... 22

2.2.2 Language in Education ...... 23

2.2.3 Language in Career ...... 24

3 Research Methodology ...... 27

3.1 Research Method and Data Collection Process ...... 27

3.2 Participants and Locations ...... 29

4 Interviews and Discussion ...... 34

4.1 Identity, Language Use, and Language Attitudes Among Participants ...... 34

4.2 Language in Education and Career ...... 46

5 Conclusion ...... 51

List of References ...... 53

Appendix ...... 56

Interview guide: ...... 56

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

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

vi

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 (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 Mandarin, is one of the official languages of the People’s Republic of China. It is based on Mandarin in Northern China, especially as it is spoken in the Beijing area. For formal writing, 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. 1 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

2 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

3

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 when vernacular primary education was introduced by the government, effectively making Cantonese the only ‘’ 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 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 ‘’ (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 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.

4

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 , 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 instruction and 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 ’ 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. 5 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.

6

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

7 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

8 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.

9 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). 8 In the survey by Census and Statistics Department (2019), they use ‘Cantonese’ and 廣州話 (Guangdong speech).

10

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

11 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’. 12

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 13 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

14 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

15 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). 16 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.

17

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). 18 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

19 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 20 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.

21

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.

22

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. 23 tertiary education (which has always been EMI), these CMI schools are put in a grey area between EMI and CMI in the last years of Secondary. Schools that were classified as EMI in this period truly had EMI to a large extent. From 2010 and onwards, schools have generally been classified as ex-CMI and ex-EMI. The ex-CMI schools can fine-tune14 their MOI in the first 3 years of Secondary, giving room to have both CMI and EMI. Later in Secondary, they tend to shift to a similar grey zone as seen in the preceding period. The ex-EMI schools are assumed to have continued with de facto EMI (Evans 2016, 34-36). As further discussed in section 4.2, some of the participants had a different experience. In other words, schools in Hong Kong have had several different MOIs, be it only official or genuine, and the frequent shifts in the last two decades are results of public demand.

Originally, a policy called ‘mother tongue policy’ or ‘mother tongue education’ was supposed to make all Secondary schools in Hong Kong CMI after the handover. Due to the general public’s desire of having some form of EMI in Secondary, the government chose the approach of having a ‘dual MOI streaming policy’. It was this policy that allowed CMI schools to have some classes in EMI, as mentioned above. The ones who resisted the original mother tongue policy the most were schools, students, and parents (D. C. S. Li 2017, 151- 152). In a recent study, Wang and Kirkpatrick (2018) survey parents’ and students’ perceptions of the different types of MOI in Primary school. In their conclusion, which can only hint to a general opinion among students and parents due to the limited research sample, some of their findings suggest that English still carries status of high prestige in Hong Kong because “most of the parents argued for an increased use of English as the [MOI] in teaching different subjects especially Computing, Mathematics and the science topics in General Studies” (Ibid, 16). The reasoning behind such viewpoints is that English (and more recently Putonghua) is a language of instrumental value to many Hong Kong people, while HKC is viewed in a more integrative manner (see for instance Lai 2010). These perceptions of EMI, and English proficiency in general, as being important for students in Hong Kong have been maintained ever since the public deemed English an international language rather than the language of colonial powers.

2.2.3 Language in Career Such a perception is also seen when examining the demands of the job market. Supporters of EMI education believe that English provides students “with opportunities for well-paid jobs

14 See Jim H. Y. Chan (2013) for observations from a ‘finely tuned’ Secondary school. 24 and for higher education” (Poon 2010, 34). However, the need for English at work might not be as high as some believe. In his research, Evans (2016, 65-66) discovered that Hong Kong- owned companies use Cantonese in spoken communication 74.1% of the time. If the company is China-owned or foreign-owned, the use of Cantonese is 59.2% and 50.2% respectively. Putonghua is understandably used more if the company is China-owned, with 23.3%. If the company is Hong Kong or foreign-owned, this percentage of Putonghua usage is below 3% for both. Granted, if the company is foreign-owned, the need for English is higher, and the percentage amounts to 47%. When it is China-owned or Hong Kong-owned, the use of spoken English is at 17.5% and 23.6% respectively. In written communication, the data shows that English is more frequently used across these three types of companies located in Hong Kong. The China-owned companies tend to use written English and Chinese equally, Hong Kong-owned companies tend to generally use written English, and the foreign-owned companies are closer to always using written English. Thus, there is a distinct difference in the need for spoken English and written English. Evans’ (2016) study shows that spoken English is not used as much in the workplace as one would think, yet written English is used relatively frequently. Based on students’ and parents’ notable support for EMI education, they still find English to be important in attaining a job, even though it is not necessarily important for spoken communication at work.

A study showed that among local Hong Kong people, English was ranked the highest as an important factor for getting a better job, Putonghua second, closely followed by [Hong Kong] Cantonese last (Liu 2018, 201-202). Statistics from the Census and Statistics Department (2019) show that using spoken [Hong Kong] Cantonese when interacting with colleagues and clients is by most viewed as a must, or it happens often. ‘Must’ and ‘often’ use of [Hong Kong] Cantonese amount to over 85% in all situations of language use. Using spoken Putonghua when interacting with colleagues and clients happens seldom or never, with the two constituents put together amounting to around 70% for most situations of language use. The use of spoken English was viewed as a must or something which happened often for under 20% across all situations of language use. Using written English at work was more evenly distributed across the scale, but the use of written Chinese was viewed as a must or something that happened often by more than 65% of all respondents (2019, 97-101).

Based on the numbers from both the Census and Statistics Department (2019) and Evans (2016), it seems that the demand for English in the workplace does not match the actual use of English, as HKC is used the most. Putonghua is rarely used unless the company is China-

25 owned. Nevertheless, written English is used to a notable extent. As seen in Liu (2018, 201- 202) as mentioned above, knowing spoken HKC was ranked the last as an important factor for getting a better job, even though it is the most used language at work. It is worth noting that the numbers from the Census and Statistics Department (2019) and Evans (2016) do not include CS between the different languages, both in spoken and written form. CS in writing can occur in companies in Hong Kong, and this is touched upon in section 4.1.

26

3 Research Methodology In this section, an introduction and explanation of the choice of methodology for this thesis is presented. First, the choice of research method is explained and justified, and potential shortcomings related to the given methods mapped out. Second, a presentation of the participants and the location of this study is given. Finally, a summary of the methodology is presented. It is worth noting the unique context in which this study in Hong Kong is conducted, namely the ongoing demonstrations that have occurred since June 2019. At the time of writing, the demonstrations have been going on ever since then, to a varying degree of intensity. Because of this context, and the fact that the interviews in Hong Kong were conducted in December 2019, the fieldwork was affected to some extent, as I could not seek out additional participants at universities as originally planned. The protests in Hong Kong and potential tensions because of them should be kept in mind while reading about the findings in section 4.

3.1 Research Method and Data Collection Process As this research is dependent on the experiences and feelings of the participants themselves, semistructured interviews as they are described by Bernard (2006, 212-250) are used. Semistructured interviews make use of an interview guide which provides a “written list of questions and topics that need to be covered in a particular order” (Ibid, 212). The reason for choosing this specific method is that it invites the participants to speak freely, but at the same time there is an interview guide with questions and topics to ensure that the conversations do not deviate from the relevant topics. Admittedly, an unstructured interview style would be preferred since the chances of people expressing themselves on their own terms and at their own pace are higher because of the extended time span an unstructured interview style facilitates. The purpose of the interviews is to learn more about the lived experience (including attitudes and perceptions) of people with HKC as their mother tongue, and as Bernard (2006, 213) puts it, nothing beats unstructured interviewing when trying to learn about people’s lived experience. However, given the limited time of my stay in Hong Kong, and because there was no opportunity to return to Hong Kong and interview the same participants again for this particular study, semistructured interviews were determined to be the most practical method.

The advice in Kvale and Brinkmann (2009, 132) of developing two interview guides was also partly followed. One interview guide has the thematic research questions of the project, and

27 the other consists of easily formulated interview questions to be posed to the participants. As Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) point out, the questions need to be “translated into an easygoing, colloquial form to generate spontaneous and rich descriptions” (Ibid, 133), and when forming the questions, this statement was considered carefully. An example of this is the question ‘do you ever mix the languages you use? For instance, by using some English words when speaking in Cantonese, or using some Putonghua words when speaking Cantonese’. Here, I did not use the sociolinguistic term CS but gave examples of CS to make sure the participants understood what was meant. The advice of having two interview guides were only partly followed as the second interview guide turned out to function adequately as the primary interview guide as well. The interview guide can be found in the appendix of this thesis. The questions were not divided neatly into the two aforementioned categories of personal and institutional language use and attitudes in the interview guide itself. The order of the questions was arranged in a more random manner in hopes of providing a more natural change of topics. As previously mentioned, the questions are categorized in the discussion of section 4 in the same way they were categorized in section 2. The questions presented in the appendix are precisely the same as the participants were given. Exceptions are potential follow-up questions that were not listed, and the use of Putonghua/Mandarin and Hong Kong Cantonese/Cantonese, as some of the participants tended to use Mandarin and Cantonese, to which I converged in those cases.

Compared to other research using questionnaires with statements such as ‘I like Putonghua’ etc., most questions in the interview guide were not as direct in that sense. The question ‘How would you feel if one of your best friends spoke to you by using Putonghua?’ invites the participant to reflect on the hypothetical situation. This contrasts with more direct statements such as ‘I do not like it when friends speak Putonghua’. The reasons behind this decision were that the participants would speak more freely, and talk about what they felt was most important to them while talking about the use and perception of languages as an HKC mother tongue speaker. As such, the questions asked the participants were inspired by some questions and statements from questionnaires of quantitative research conducted earlier, such as Liu (2018), and Lai (2012).

One of the consequences of this approach was that the participants talked more about English and its role in their daily lives than what is necessarily needed for this study. An unforeseen benefit from this kind of approach is that one can more easily identify which languages the

28 participants view as most important based on how much they talk about it. These findings can be used by other researchers to examine which languages are perceived as most important to people in Hong Kong.

Before the interviews in Hong Kong, I had the opportunity of doing a type of pilot interview in the format of a podcast (Karlsen 2019). In this podcast I was the host and asked questions to and had discussions with, two participants from Hong Kong living in Norway. Some of the questions in the podcast were the same and similar to the ones posed in the interviews in Hong Kong. Information gathered from the podcast is also taken into consideration when later discussing the findings from this study. When applicable, comparisons of the views from emigrated Hong Kong people (the participants from the podcast) and the views of Hong Kong people that are still living in Hong Kong (the participants interviewed in Hong Kong) are made. This approach is taken so that the results from the interviews might add to existing research on language use and attitudes in Hong Kong.

When it comes to the issue of openness of purpose when conducting the interview, it was somewhat transparent. Some questions were indirect, and as Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) point out, ethical guidelines of informed consent must be considered in such cases (130-131). The participants were informed that I wanted to learn more about the use of languages among people from Hong Kong with HKC as their mother tongue, but they did not know that the focus was to be placed on the use of and attitudes toward Putonghua before the interviews were concluded. The questions themselves were fairly direct, and the participants knew that the focus was languages, but because the questions were about all of the three languages, the true motive was not revealed until after the interview ended. At the end of the interviews, the participants were informed of the whole purpose of the interview, which sometimes opened up for more reflection on the subject by the participants. These reflections are presented and discussed within their respective topics, and they are highlighted as being stated post- interview. The participants were informed that if they wanted to withdraw their participation based on this new knowledge, that was completely possible and well within their rights.

3.2 Participants and Locations The four participants of this study are people from and living in Hong Kong with HKC as their mother tongue. In addition to them, two participants (Jessica and Damon)15 were

15 Names included with permission from the respective participants. 29 interviewed during a podcast (Karlsen, 2019), where one was female and the other male, both in their early thirties. All participants interviewed in Hong Kong are female, age ranging from 26-32 years old. The participants from the interviews in Hong Kong are anonymous, except for revealing age, gender, and when considered relevant, educational background. The reason for providing the participants with anonymity is that according to the University of Oslo’s guidelines, “information on attitudes to various religious or political issues that respondents in questionnaires are asked to provide”16 can be regarded as sensitive personal data. Because the nature of the topic might touch upon politics, it is safer to assure the anonymity of the participants, especially in the current state of Hong Kong. The interviews were not recorded as another means to guarantee anonymity and protection of the participants’ privacy. A shortcoming of this is that the answers given are only recorded in written notetaking during and after the interviews. However, making sure that the personal privacy and anonymity of the participants are safeguarded is considered to be of greater importance.

The gender of the participants should be noted, as several sociolinguistic studies have shown that females speak more standardized and change their speech more often than males do. Males tend to be more loyal to local norms and ‘talk more dialect’ than females, but at the same time females are most innovative with regards to introducing new forms that break with the standard. These contradictions are called ‘the gender paradox’ by Labov (2001, 292, 367 in Mæhlum et al. 2008, 120). Some sociolinguists have contested whether the gender paradox is universally applicable, as studies concerned with Arabic-speaking communities have shown that females use varieties associated with the colloquial variety of Arabic, whereas males use varieties associated with Classical Arabic (Meyerhoff 2011, 229). Findings by Lai (2007) suggested that females have higher instrumental and integrative views toward Putonghua and English than their male counterparts, and the males tend to view Cantonese more positively, both integrative and instrumental, than their female counterparts. The study confirmed the pattern of other similar studies from other parts of the world (with the aforementioned exception of Arabic-speaking communities), by concluding that females “hold consistently more positive attitudes toward the non-native languages while the male respondents are inclined more positively to the vernacular” (Lai 2007, 108), even though the differences between the genders were not great. Because of the limited scope of this thesis, and the fact that all but one of the participants are female, a gender-based comparison is not

16 https://www.uio.no/english/for-employees/support/privacy-dataprotection/more-about-privacy/about.html 30 regarded as worthwhile. As there were no clear unusual findings made from the male participant in this study, compared to the findings from the female participants, further focus on gender is deemed redundant.

Participants were assigned a randomized number for anonymity.17 The participants of the interviews conducted in Hong Kong are: P1, female and 30 years old. P2, female and 32 years old. P3, female and 26 years old. P4, female and 30 years old. The participants of the podcast (Karlsen, 2019) were female (Jessica, early 30s), and male (Damon, mid 30s).

The age of participants should be noted and considered because, as previously mentioned, Hong Kong has had different MOI policies for different years. People’s age and which years they went to school reveal which language policies they dealt with in their years attending school. Which type of school the participants attended is also important since some schools are classified as EMI, some as CMI, and some as PMI. Granted, none of the participants were former students of PMI schools. A shortcoming of this study is that it does not contain any narrative from a former student of a PMI school. This could contribute to a somewhat skewed result, as experienced MOI is expected to affect the participants’ perceptions and use of Putonghua.

The four participants in Hong Kong had not lived outside of Hong Kong, except for P2 who lived in Beijing for 10 months in her early 20s, and P4 who lived in New Zealand for one year in her early 20s, as well as recently returning from a one-year stay in England. At the time of recording the podcast, the two participants Jessica and Damon had lived in Norway for 6 and 11 years, respectively. As noted in section 2.1, language use, and especially CS for Hong Kong people, could be affected by living abroad for a longer time. This is further discussed in section 4.1.

Because I do not speak HKC, all the interviews were conducted in English, which can be a potential shortcoming of this study. Despite the participants’ proficiency in English being satisfactory, using a language that is not their mother tongue can be a limiting factor in clearly expressing their feelings and arguments, thus perhaps losing important nuances. Limiting the participants to people who can speak English can also skew the results. People from Hong Kong that only know HKC, or HKC and Putonghua, could have significantly

17 Participants are referred to as P(number), for instance P1, P2, etc., apart from participants from the podcast, who have granted permission to be referred to by first name (Jessica and Damon). 31 different attitudes toward Putonghua than those who know HKC and English, or HKC, English, and Putonghua. The participants of this present study all knew HKC, English, and Putonghua to some extent. Because the number of participants is low, a generalization cannot be made in any case. Nevertheless, this limitation, which does not include only HKC speakers, or only HKC and Putonghua speakers should still be noted when discussing the interviews in section 4. Because of limited resources, hiring an interpreter, or learning HKC myself were regrettably not feasible solutions for this study. Another option was to conduct the interviews in Putonghua, but because that could create a notion of bias, I chose English as a middle ground.

As noted by Baker (1992), language barrier is only one of the potential difficulties when measuring the attitudes of participants. There are several prominent problems for measuring attitudes, one being participants responding in a way that puts them in a more prestigious light. Giving such socially desirable answers can happen both consciously and unconsciously. Another issue is that the response of participants can be affected by the researcher herself/himself, or by the seeming purpose of the research. As already mentioned, the purpose of this study was only partially revealed to the participants prior to the interview. Furthermore, ethnic identity, gender, age, and language of the researcher can all be factors influencing participants’ answers. As the participants all quickly learned from asking questions themselves, I knew some Putonghua as well, and is a white male from Norway. These factors could have affected their answers, but that is difficult to determine. Also, when measuring attitudes, one should have a wide range of issues involved in a topic (Baker 1992, 18-19). That is why the interview guide consisted of questions on several topics. These topics are almost the same as examined in section 2. When discussing the interviews in section 4, these abovementioned concerns are considered.

The Hong Kong participants were sought out by using a “snowball sample” as it is explained in Silverman (2010, 194), where I took advantage of participants’ social network to find additional participants. A negative aspect of this approach can be that the friends and acquaintances of each other have similar attitudes and language uses, thus potentially limiting the range of opinions. The starting point of this snowball sample was the people interviewed in the podcast in Norway before going to Hong Kong, as well as through acquaintances in Norway with connections in Hong Kong.

32

In the same way a researcher’s identity, gender, age, and language can affect responses, the environment and context of interviews can also influence participants’ responses. The location for the interviews was Hong Kong, with cafés and restaurants in Tsim Sha Tsui, Mong Kok, and West Central as meeting places. Cafés and restaurants were the preferred choices over for instance rented offices or conference rooms, because the participants could feel more relaxed and comfortable when giving answers. The length of each interview varied, but the length ranged from around 45 to 90 minutes. The initial plan of going to university campuses and seek out additional, younger participants was unfortunately not possible because all university campuses were shut down due to the protests at the time of my visit in December 2019. The podcast was recorded in Oslo at Soundtænk studios in November 2019.

33

4 Interviews and Discussion This section provides findings from the interviews I conducted in Hong Kong in December 2019 and the podcast recorded in November 2019. The similarities, differences, and new findings from this section are discussed and highlighted in relation to research and theories mentioned in section 2. The research findings and discussions are divided into two parts similar to the division in section 2; 4.1 Identity, Language Use, and Language Attitudes Among Participants, and 4.2 Language in Education and Career. By dividing the findings and discussions as such, it is easier to draw parallels to the research mentioned in section 2. However, as the questions oftentimes touch upon several topics, a further subdivision of the sections is not reasonable. The findings and the discussions around the topics are not divided by each participant, but rather by each specific question and topic in order to capture the similarities and differences among the participants. When participants have provided utterances that fall under a certain category after the interviews were concluded and they learned about the purpose of this research, their statements are highlighted as being given post-interview. The full interview guide is found in the appendix.

4.1 Identity, Language Use, and Language Attitudes Among Participants This section covers the answers to questions about identity, language use, and language attitudes among the participants. All participants interviewed in Hong Kong and Oslo were born and raised in Hong Kong. As mentioned in section 3.2, the participants in Hong Kong had not lived abroad for a very long time, or at all, except for P4 who had lived a full year in New Zealand in 2012 in her early 20s, and Britain for about a year up until 2019. She had just returned to Hong Kong a month before the interview. She expressed that she felt the need to return to support the protest movement that had been ongoing since June 2019. P2 had lived in Beijing for about 10 months in 2008-2009, whereas P3 had just been on some holidays in Australia, South-Korea, USA, Japan, and Dongguan. Jessica and Damon, the participants interviewed in Oslo had been staying in Norway for 6 and 11 years, respectively. When and where the participants have lived abroad are factors to examine, as these factors may affect the participants’ view on self-identity, and potentially language use.

All participants spoke HKC, English, and Putonghua. When answering, all of them used the terms ‘Mandarin’ and ‘Putonghua’ interchangeably. In this section, the term ‘Putonghua’ is used for the sake of consistency and accuracy, but ‘Mandarin’ is used in quotes to provide participants’ exact wording. That is also applied for ‘Cantonese’ and ‘Hong Kong

34

Cantonese’. P1 also knew Fuzhounese/Foochow, but allegedly just to a small extent. P3 noted that her Putonghua was fluent, but “not quite native”. When listing up all the languages she spoke, P4 concluded with “just like normal Hong Kong people”. As discovered earlier by reviewing statistics, that is not necessarily the case for all people from Hong Kong. It is increasingly normal to know all three of these languages the younger people are, much due to the language policies in education and the promotion of biliteracy and trilingualism generally in society. When asked what they would consider to be their mother tongue, all answered “Cantonese”. P3 expressed uncertainty as to what ‘mother tongue’ meant, perhaps because her mother is from Dongguan. She asked if it was “the language you learn first as a child by your parents and such”. I answered that it was something along those lines, whereupon she answered that her mother tongue in that case is Cantonese. Both participants from Oslo also said their mother tongue is Cantonese. None of the participants made the distinction between HKC and Cantonese anywhere in the interview. That does not necessarily show obliviousness to the different varieties of Cantonese, but that it is obvious that when talking about Cantonese in the Hong Kong context, HKC is the norm unless otherwise is stated.

The participants were asked if they identified as a) Hong Konger, b) Hong Kong Chinese, c) Chinese, d) other, or e) no opinion. Except for P3, who answered ‘Hong Kong people’ immediately and without further reflection, the participants recognized this question as complex. P1 said that she would normally consider herself as a Hong Kong Chinese, especially during the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, where she felt having a shared identity with Mainland Chinese. During the recent years, and especially the last few months, she would regard herself as ‘Hong Kong people’ because of political issues and the protests. After the interview, when she was informed of the purpose of this research, P1 also said that immigrants and visitors from the Mainland created tensions and conflicts between local Hong Kong people and Mainlanders. She also expressed that she was embarrassed, and even shameful when speaking Putonghua. She also noted that accent is of great importance in Hong Kong, as it can reveal where a person is from. Her overall conclusion to the question was that she is “Hong Kong people first, and Chinese after”.

P2 shared much of the same sentiments and said she experienced a lot of people asking where she was from when she lived in Beijing, making her reflect on what her identity was. During her stay in Beijing in 2008-2009, she expressed she was not negative toward being ‘Chinese’ or ‘Hong Kong Chinese’, much due to the Olympics. She leaned more toward ‘Hong Kong Chinese’ before, but now strongly identifies as a ‘Hong Konger’. When talking about

35

‘Chinese’, her impression was that it was more about ethnicity in that case. It is possible that she was thinking of Han-Chinese, and how that can be a common denominator for many people within the borders of the PRC. However, she did not make mention of ‘Han-Chinese’ during or after the interview herself. P4 would describe herself as a ‘Hong Kong citizen’, but ‘Hong Kong Chinese’ would also be fine. She said that her first response would have to be ‘Hong Konger’. She explained her answer by saying that Hong Kong people speak a different language, have different values, and a different mindset. The pop culture and internet culture also varied from that of Mainland China.

In the podcast (Karlsen, 2019), Damon expressed always feeling like a ‘Hong Konger’, other than if he were to be “cornered, […] pushed to a position that you have to say your ethnicity, then you might have to say ‘Okay, I’m Chinese then’” (Ibid, 9:45). Jessica felt the same way and said “I can’t deny that I’m ethnically Chinese” (Ibid, 11:57), but would identify as a ‘Hong Konger’. She also expressed a sense of belonging to Mainland China in 2008 because of the Olympics in Beijing, where she served as a volunteer, and after an earthquake in Sichuan. The participants turned out to all identify as ‘Hong Konger’, ‘Hong Kong people’, or similar categories. Some had previously felt comfortable with ‘Hong Kong Chinese’, but all regarded themselves as ‘Hong Kongers’ now. This change in self-identity is potentially due to political issues and the protests in Hong Kong, although it was only P1 who stated this as a specific reason. The other participants did not draw this type of parallel on record.

The language they used most in their daily lives was HKC, but P3 and P4 both said they also used some English at work. P3 used “a lot of English” at work and spoke English to about half of her coworkers. P4 said “I guess English is like my second language”, a statement that is understandable when she speaks English that much in her daily life. The participants in Oslo had understandably different answers than those in Hong Kong. Jessica used English and Norwegian for the most part, Damon used English the most. When they talked with friends that also knew HKC, they would for the most part use HKC. None of the participants mentioned using much Putonghua in their daily lives.

When asked which language they used when talking to three of their best friends, all participants in Hong Kong answered “Cantonese”, and P3 answered “Cantonese” followed by a big smile. P1 said she could sometimes use some Putonghua when telling jokes about Putonghua-speaking people if the jokes were about Putonghua-speakers’ accent, culture, and so on. She also could use some Putonghua in her HKC speech if it was a popular word from

36

Putonghua that is not easily translated into HKC. This notion of using some Putonghua in a humorous way when speaking HKC with friends was shared by other participants, and it was mentioned on several occasions throughout the interviews. P4 said she would normally use HKC when speaking with friends, but sometimes when texting with them via messaging apps on the cellphone she would write in English, as she felt it was faster. If she were to “express some complicated ideas” she would stick to “written Chinese” (SWC) in order to express herself clearly.

Jessica from the podcast (Karlsen, 2019) also shared the view of texting in English being faster than texting in Chinese. She would sometimes type out HKC words using the Latin when texting. Damon on the other hand disagreed, and believed it was because Jessica was not sufficiently adept in using Chinese characters when texting, as texting in Chinese could be just as fast, if not faster. Writing Chinese on the computer or cellphone can be quick, especially when typing out phrases or sentences that are often used.18

On the question if they ever ‘mix the languages’ they use, all participants acknowledged to occasionally use some English in their HKC speech. P1 said she would only use one or two words of English in her HKC speech, and the words used would often be particular words that are not easily translated into HKC. An example of this can be the one given by Damon, where he says that the word ‘presentation’ could be said in English in an HKC sentence because “‘presentation’ is one of the words that you can’t basically have a Cantonese word to replace” (Karlsen, 2019, 6:07). When it comes to Putonghua, P1 would never use insertions of Putonghua in HKC speech unless it is a word that does not have a translation in HKC. She also thinks CS with Putonghua seems “weird” and that she “avoids using Putonghua” altogether. Regarding P1’s CS style, it could be classified as using ‘bits’ as explained in Weston (2016). P2, on the other hand, would often CS in whole phrases, which would categorize her as code-switching in ‘chunks’. She says that sometimes it is “easier to express certain things in English”, and she would also “use English words or phrases when making some types of jokes”. Using Putonghua in HKC speech is not completely unheard of in the case of P2, as she would use Putonghua if there are certain “fashion or popular words”. These

18 If you would want to write ‘How are you today?’ in Chinese (你今天怎么样? ‘Nǐ jīntiān zěnme yàng?’) on the cellphone or computer, you could write just the first letter of every Chinese character. In this case ‘njtzmy’. Then the software can recognize that this is the phrase you want to write, as it is often written. If other options are available, you get to choose between other alternatives as well. In this case, you would only have to type 6 letters and a question mark if you were to write the sentence in Chinese, compared to the 14 letters, three spaces, and one question mark in English.

37 types of words are often picked up from TV or the Internet. It can be a part of a specific Internet jargon, where it is part of the meme,19 and she said “Mainland China often has its own kinds of memes”.

Both P3 and P4 also CS to some extent, mainly in ‘bits’, although P4 said she would sometimes CS in small phrases as well. They would for the most part use some English words in spoken HKC sentences, and P3 said she would never speak English and subsequently CS with Cantonese. This can show that having English as the matrix language is not natural for her. She would use Putonghua if it is related to pop culture from the Mainland or for making jokes, just as P2 expressed. P4 would for the most time only use English words for “more complicated words such as ‘professional’”. She also admitted sometimes having HKC insertions in Putonghua speech. Sometimes that happened because she did not know the word in Putonghua, but sometimes also to use her mother tongue to show where she is from.

Both Jessica and Damon reportedly used English ‘bits’ when CS, and Jessica said she CS “all the time” (Karlsen 2019, 4:04) when talking HKC with her friends. She also said that sometimes she could also use some Putonghua words in her HKC speech. Damon admitted doing both types of CS, using both English and Putonghua in HKC speech. When using Putonghua, he said it was “rather common to use some […] badly pronounced Mandarin words in Cantonese […] for many purposes. It could be as a joke” (Ibid, 5:07). These jokes were often made with “negative intentions”, assumedly meaning jokes directed toward Mainland Chinese. This statement coincides with similar accounts from participants in Hong Kong, regarding the use of Putonghua in jokes directed toward Mainland Chinese The use of ‘bits’ by Jessica and Damon contrasts with the findings in Weston (2016), where sojourners to a large extent tended to CS in ‘chunks’ or ‘channel-switching’. It should be noted that the narratives of Jessica and Damon were precisely that; narratives, and not observations by a researcher. Thus, they may sometimes CS in a different manner than stated.

The participants’ reported CS shows how they shift language practices based on different situations. They can shift for humorous effect, to take part in pop culture, to mark their identity, or for ‘linguistic convenience’. All participants tended to CS in ‘bits’ for the most part, except for P2 who often would CS in ‘chunks’, and P4 who sometimes would do the

19 ‘Meme’ is a cultural expression that spreads by imitation or copying and develops through selection, especially pictures, videos or texts which are spread digitally and developed along the way (Kjøll and Dahl 2019). 38 same. For the case of P4, that is not necessarily surprising, as she has lived abroad for a total of two years. As seen in Weston (2016), sojourners tended to CS in ‘chunks’, and locals tended to CS in ‘bits’. P2 had only lived in Beijing for about 10 months, so for her to CS in ‘chunks’ can be viewed as an anomaly. Again, it is worth noting that this information is based on self-reports from the participants. Thus, their actual practices can deviate to some extent. Their use of Putonghua when CS turned out to only be when making jokes that often are directed toward Mainlanders, or if they were to say words related to Mainland pop culture or Mainland Internet jargon. This can indicate that their integrative orientation toward Putonghua use is limited to when it is used in pop culture or on the Internet. Other than that, their use of Putonghua is often for mimicking or ridiculing Mainland Chinese, especially their accent when speaking HKC.

An acquaintance of mine who works in a China-owned company, said that CS happens at work as well. She noted that many reports are written in a mix of Chinese and English. Although not in her job description, she needs to translate the English words in a text supposed to be written in Chinese, or translate the Chinese words in a text supposed to be written in English, before sending the reports. If someone knowing only English were to read these kinds of reports, they would not fully comprehend the contents, as there are Chinese characters mixed in with the English sentences. Similarly, if someone knowing only Chinese were to read these reports, they would not necessarily comprehend the contents because of the English words. Although likely to be of great annoyance to people who are not fluent in the two written languages, this phenomenon shows how people from Hong Kong use the whole of their linguistic repertoire, also at work.

The next few questions were posed only to the participants in Hong Kong were how they would feel if their best friend talked to them by using Cantonese, English, and Putonghua. One of the reasons to include a question like this is to investigate in which settings the languages are used, and what would be regarded as most common and natural for HKC mother tongue speakers. All participants would feel “normal”, “good”, or “very natural” if their best friend were to speak HKC to them. No further statements were given beyond those answers, which can hint to the use of HKC with each other as the norm for the participants.

When asked how they would feel if their best friend spoke to them by using English, they replied it would feel “weird” or “awkward”. The only exception is P2 who answered it would be “OK as well”. Even though P1 and P3 stated that it would be “weird”, they would feel it

39 was reasonable if their friend were to practice for a test. Unless her friend wanted P1 to reply in English, she would most likely reply in HKC. P4 said she would feel awkward and look around to see if there was a specific reason for speaking English, for instance considering non-HKC speakers.

If their best friend were to use Putonghua when speaking to them, all participants answered that they would find it strange. P1 and P2 said it would be understandable if there was a practical reason (i.e. language practice) behind it. Even so, P1 would “absolutely not answer in Mandarin”, and P2 said that if her friend would want to change his/her language in general, that would be “another case”. P4 did not seem to view the option of her best friend speaking Putonghua with her as a conceivable one. She laughed when asked the question and suggested her friend would only do it for the sake of humor and to make jokes. These types of jokes would be “especially about immigrants from Mainland China with a special accent, and especially Beijing’s Erhua”.20 The participants seem to have a more instrumental orientation toward both English and Putonghua as they do not make the languages a part of their daily lives unless there is a practical reason behind it, be it language practice or for making jokes.

I also asked the participants in Hong Kong questions regarding hypothetical encounters with tourists from Mainland China and Europe. The questions were which language they would expect to use and which language they would prefer to use in these hypothetical interactions. Mainland China and Europe were intentionally made vague in hopes of revealing what languages their stereotypical Mainland Chinese or European would speak. In 2010, it was estimated by the Ministry of Education that around 70% of the PRC knew how to speak Putonghua (People’s Daily Online 2014). In 2006, the percentage of people that know how to speak English in the EU21 is estimated to be 51% (Eurobarometer 2006, 4). With so many people from Mainland China and Europe not necessarily knowing how to speak Putonghua or English respectively, the participants’ replies can indicate stereotypes associated with people from Mainland China and Europe.

When encountering a tourist from Mainland China, all participants replied they would expect to use Putonghua. P2 did not answer directly and just said that her “past experience was to try

20 Érhuà (儿话) is a variety of spoken predominantly in the Beijing area, which often adds the ér-ending sound to several types of words. It can also be called r-ization or r-coloring. For more on érhuà, see Canepari and Cerini (2011). 21 Please note that this number is only based on countries in the European Union, and not the continent of Europe. 40 to speak Mandarin”. She recalled a time when she and a friend were on vacation in Britain and encountered a Mainland Chinese tourist that was separated from her group. The tourist asked them for help in Putonghua, whereupon P2’s friend answered in HKC, leaving the Mainland Chinese tourist puzzled. After the encounter, P2 asked her friend why she used HKC. Her answer was “I will only speak in Cantonese, I will not accommodate. You ask me for help, you do not ask me to change language as well”. P2 continued by saying that there had been changes in Hong Kong, and she believed that most people would reply in HKC when encountering a tourist from Mainland China. On the other hand, the replies from the other participants suggest that is not the case, as all other participants answered they would expect to use Putonghua.

Their preferred language choice varied. P1 preferred using English with tourists from the Mainland. P2 would prefer to use HKC. P3 and P4 would prefer to use Putonghua, and P4 elaborated this choice by saying that sometimes the tourists “would try to speak Cantonese, but it sounded a bit weird”.

These answers can help us in determining integrative and instrumental orientations toward HKC and Putonghua. For the case of P3 and P4 who both expected and preferred using Putonghua, their instrumental and integrative orientation toward Putonghua can be said to be relatively high. They recognize that the tourists from Mainland China most likely do not know how to speak HKC, and they are willing to use Putonghua to communicate, which shows a solution-oriented approach to language. The fact that they would even prefer to use Putonghua can indicate that they do not feel Putonghua imposes on their identity to a large degree, which can hint to Putonghua already being part of their identity to some extent, or at least a part of their linguistic repertoire. P1 showed the same kind of instrumental orientation toward Putonghua in this case, as she would accommodate the tourists from Mainland China for the sake of effective communication. She would prefer to use English, which can suggest that her Putonghua proficiency is not high enough to be the preferred choice, or that her sense of self-identity is linked to the use of English. On the same note, it is possible that she has a strong integrative orientation toward English, and would like to use it when encountering people who presumably do not know HKC. The reason for not choosing HKC as the preferred language can be because she does not expect it to be a realistic option. P2 expressed a strong integrative orientation toward HKC, and not too much toward Putonghua, as she both expected and preferred to use HKC with tourists from Mainland China.

41

When asked which language(s) they would expect and prefer to use when encountering a tourist from Europe, all participants expected to used English. P1 noted that if the European tourists were to use Putonghua, she would reply in Putonghua. With a big smile, P2 said she “would not expect the European tourists to understand Cantonese”. All participants, except P1, would prefer to use English when encountering European tourists. P1 would prefer to use Putonghua. She said it was not to expect people to know HKC, as “Cantonese is just a dialect”. As mentioned in section 1.1, some people see HKC as a dialect/topolect, whereas some regard it as its own language. P4 said she would prefer using English “just to show that Hong Kongers are global citizens”.

One of the reasons for P1 to choose Putonghua as the preferred language can be that she is not that comfortable using English, although somewhat doubtful, as the whole interview was conducted in English. Another reason can be that her integrative orientation toward Putonghua is quite high. Her answers to these two questions about encountering tourists from Mainland China and Europe are somewhat contradictory. When encountering Mainland Chinese, she would expect to use Putonghua, but prefer to use English. When encountering European tourists, she would expect to use English, but prefer to use Putonghua. In both cases, she expects using the assumed mother tongue of the tourist, but prefers using a language the tourist is more unlikely to know. This can be an identity statement, as the tourist from Mainland China would in a sense be forced to meet halfway by using English, the lingua franca of the world and co-official language in Hong Kong. For the case of the hypothetical European tourist, the reasoning can be somewhat similar. As she believes that HKC is “just a dialect” and does not expect people to know it, preferring speaking Putonghua with a tourist from Europe could also be a matter of meeting halfway and with regards to identity. These hypothetical language choices could be made for several reasons. As shown earlier, P1 said she would avoid using Putonghua, but in this case, it is her preferred choice. It seems that for the case of P1, her language choices can shift easily, but there might be an underlying cause. Regrettably, as I did not catch the uniqueness of her preferred language choices in these hypothetical situations during the interview, I did not ask her to further elaborate on these choices.

When asked which language(s) they expected people living in Hong Kong to know, the answers were unanimously “Cantonese”. P1 said she would expect someone living in Hong Kong to know “Cantonese first, English second, and then maybe Putonghua”. According to P2, knowing HKC was important to learn and understand Hong Kong culture. P4 would like

42 people to know “at least a little bit” of HKC to show respect, and she felt that “many people see Hong Kong as just a money city”, meaning they are there for business and nothing more. P2 ascribed several attributes to HKC and compared it to Putonghua. In her comparison, she noted that HKC is a very flexible language, not as formal, down to earth, and it brings people together. She also described HKC as warm, funny, interesting, and has many dimensions, and that it “carries wisdom and understands human nature and some parts of life better”. She reflects on Putonghua being designed for a large population and that “all the different cultures and ideas cannot be fully captured” [by Putonghua]. This kind of description of HKC shows that her integrative orientation toward the language is quite high and that HKC has significant meaning to her.

In further attempts to reveal their degree of integrative orientation toward different languages, I asked them the question “if you could choose to be very fluent in one language, somewhat fluent in a second language, and only have very little knowledge in a third language, what languages would you choose when living in Hong Kong?” and later followed up with the question “would the chosen languages be different if you lived in, say, Britain or America?” The aim of these questions is to reveal if HKC is such a big part of their identity that they would use it despite them being located in areas where it is not the majority language. If they tend to choose the majority language (English) in these areas, they might value instrumental orientation higher in those specific cases. I did not suggest any languages in the questions to allow the participants to choose freely. It should be noted that at the time of asking these questions, HKC, English, and Putonghua had been the reoccurring languages in questions, so their answers may have become somewhat influenced by this.

P1 chose being very fluent in “Cantonese”, somewhat fluent in Putonghua, and only have a little knowledge of English when living in Hong Kong. She reasoned that she barely uses English in her daily life as it is, and said that “English is not necessary in my life”. She worked as a teacher, but despite that, English turned out to play an insignificant role in her life. This coincides with some of the literature reviewed in section 2.2.3, where people in Hong Kong do not necessarily use English that much at work. Based on her answer, she seems to have a high integrative orientation toward HKC and possibly also Putonghua to some extent. Choosing Putonghua second can also be because of the instrumental value it can have for her as a teacher. After the interview, she stated that “Putonghua is more important than English in Hong Kong”. By placing English last and saying she does not use it much in her daily life, her instrumental orientation toward English is not high, and the integrative

43 orientation toward English is not high enough to place it higher on her list of languages when living in Hong Kong.

P2 chose English, “Cantonese”, and Japanese (in that order) when living in Hong Kong. She showed an appreciation of Japanese culture, and was of the opinion they were “more creative, and have more creative thinking”. That is similar to the answer given by P4, who also chose English, “Cantonese”, and Japanese after some pondering. She felt Japanese could “look cool” and that she could “show off” by speaking it. Choosing “Cantonese” was justified by her belief that it could “show humor”, and “Cantonese can be cute to speak, maybe especially to foreigners”. Their answers can reflect the perception of English being regarded as important for instrumental value in for instance work and education. Having Japanese instead of Putonghua shows that their integrative orientation toward Putonghua is relatively low, and that they are more fascinated by Japanese culture. This can be linked to the notion of having culturally relevant variables determining people’s integrative orientation toward a language, as explained in section 2.1. P4 can also be said to show a somewhat instrumental orientation toward HKC, as she thinks it can be a charming feature when talking to foreigners.

P3 answered she would chose to be very fluent in English, somewhat fluent in “Cantonese”, and have very little knowledge in Putonghua when living in Hong Kong. She did not reflect further on her answers. Based on her previous answers of using English and HKC equally in her work (at a museum), and not having lived much abroad, which can form a more integrative orientation toward a language, it can be assumed her answer is more instrumentally oriented.

When asked if they would change the list of languages when living in for instance Britain or America, their answers changed to some extent. P1 chose English first, Putonghua second, and “Cantonese” third. This shows the instrumental orientation toward English, as it would be helpful mastering the language of the majority. Equally, she shows an instrumental orientation toward Putonghua as there is a large percentage of the world’s population who speaks it, and that it is increasingly used in business with for instance the PRC. Maintaining “Cantonese” on her list can indicate an integrative orientation toward the language, and that it is a part of her identity.

P2 chose the same distribution and order of languages as she did earlier; English, “Cantonese”, and Japanese. That can show the instrumental value of English in a predominantly English-speaking country, and the integrative orientation toward “Cantonese”

44 as a part of her identity. The reasons behind her wish to still know some Japanese are assumedly the same given in the last question. P3 chose English, Putonghua, and Japanese. In both answers, her choices seem to be based on instrumental value. She shows some integrative orientation toward Japanese in her answer, as she assumedly has some interest in the language and/or culture.

In the case of P4, she had different answers for different English-speaking countries. If she were to live in the USA, she would list English first, Putonghua second, and Japanese or Spanish third. She said that if she were to live in London or New Zealand, she would choose English first, “Cantonese” second, and Japanese third. Her reasoning behind choosing “Cantonese” second in this instance was because she had experience in using it with friends at those places. She goes on to say that “[Chinese] communities in these areas often use traditional characters to showcase that they are from the Canton area”. However, that is not only the case in London and New Zealand, as there is a vast Hong Kong diaspora living in for instance the USA as well. Based on her answer in the context of the USA she seems to not have knowledge of the Cantonese-speaking population living in the USA. Her answers indicate an instrumental orientation toward the two first languages on her list, and she maintains her integrative orientation toward Japanese. If she were to choose Spanish for the case of the USA, that could be instrumental orientation, as there is a large population of Spanish-speaking people in the USA. She did not specifically mention any fascination for Mexican and/or Spanish culture and language, so further examination of her integrative orientation toward Spanish is difficult.

The last three questions in this section were “if someone living in Hong Kong knows how to speak Cantonese/English/Putonghua, which level of education would you presume they have?” These questions were asked to attempt to reveal attitudes or stereotypes associated with each language in the context of Hong Kong. For the case of people knowing HKC, it did not seem to be related to education for most participants. P1 said that “everyone knows Cantonese” and that she would expect them to be anywhere on that specter. P2 shared the same sentiment and said that it is “not related to education”, that it was “a part of Hong Kong”, and “Cantonese is spoken by people from all walks of life”. Yet, she differentiated between the type of HKC they spoke in an area like Central, and in an area like Mong Kok. Both P3 and P4 expected people speaking HKC to have education from at least Primary. If someone living in Hong Kong knew how to speak English, all participants answered they expected them to have attended at least Secondary education. They did not further reflect on

45 this matter. The participants’ answers showcase how it is expected that people in Hong Kong know how to speak HKC no matter the education. If they know English, it is assumed they have attended at least Secondary education.

If someone living in Hong Kong knows how to speak Putonghua, P1, P3, and P4 expected them to have attended at least Primary education. P4 believed HKC and Putonghua to be two languages that are “pretty similar”. She noted that it was difficult to speak Putonghua fluently, and it is difficult to learn new Internet jargon and other popular culture words in Putonghua. She was also of the impression that Putonghua had a “very official writing style”. When texting and writing on the Internet, she would often use HKC to express herself, which often confused her Taiwanese friends who did not always understand her, as the “languages are so different”. She felt that HKC has more “lively expressions” compared to Putonghua. That is similar to the belief of P2 who provided similar descriptions when discussing which language(s) they expected people living in Hong Kong to know. P2 herself thought people who knew Putonghua had attended at least Secondary education. She also noted that people from Hong Kong “love Mainland TV and songs”, and “one can learn much Mandarin from that”. These assumptions can show that, at least in the case of these participants, the stereotype of Mainlanders/Putonghua-speakers as uneducated is not necessarily warranted. This can be a result of the inclusion of Putonghua in Hong Kong schools since the handover, as discussed in section 2.2.

So far, the participants have not expressed using any Putonghua in their ordinary daily interactions, other than for humorous effect or when using popular words from Putonghua that are not easily translated to spoken HKC. Their integrative orientation toward Putonghua seems to be low, as they do not have a very strong sense of belonging to the same group as Putonghua-speakers. This was also visible when self-identity was examined. The participants tended not to identify as Chinese, an identity the stereotypical Putonghua-speaking Mainland Chinese are considered to have.

4.2 Language in Education and Career In this section, questions related to education and career are presented. First, I asked which languages the participants learned in school. P1 learned English from Primary 1, and Putonghua from approximately Primary 5. She said that Chinese class and Chinese history were “taught in Chinese”, and as I asked what she meant by Chinese, she clarified it by saying “Cantonese”. P2 had learned English since Primary and attended EMI schools in both

46

Primary and Secondary. She said they used Chinese (later clarified to mean “Cantonese”) in Chinese class. She only learned Putonghua for 3 years during Secondary, and it was approximately just one hour per week. P3 had a similar amount of Putonghua classes, and claimed that a great part of her Putonghua proficiency came from interactions in her daily life, watching TV, and the Internet. She had learned English and HKC since kindergarten. P4 had also learned English since kindergarten, where they learned simple things “like the alphabet”. She was born before the handover in 1997 and started learning Putonghua at the age of 7. She said that these Putonghua lessons were not obligatory, and only once a month. When talking about Chinese culture class and Chinese literature and history class, she said that they were “Chinese lessons”. After questioning the term ‘Chinese’ in this context, she also clarified that she meant “Cantonese”. She said that some schools now use PMI for those classes.

Their integrative and instrumental orientations toward Putonghua can be affected by the amount and environment of Putonghua classes they attended. As seen in section 4.1, none of the participants showed significant integrative orientation toward Putonghua, which can be a result of lack of Putonghua classes. As explained in section 2.1, the integrative orientation toward a language can be affected by language anxiety which can present itself in language class contexts. If the participants had bad experiences with Putonghua classes, that would explain the low integrative orientation toward Putonghua. In an attempt to reveal how they experienced language classes, I asked how they liked the different language classes.

It seemed that P1, P2, and P3 had not made any reflections on the topic prior to this question, and they provided little input on the matter. P3 noted that for her it was difficult to learn English as a young child, and she wanted to learn Putonghua for the sake of understanding Putonghua-speaking pop culture. P4 elaborated a bit more, and she expressed a different experience for learning Putonghua. To her, learning Putonghua “was pretty painful”, and especially when it came to memorizing the words and pronunciations. She said that they used to have dictation, and she recalled that to be particularly difficult, mostly because she felt that the pinyin22 had no meaning compared to Chinese characters. For her, listening to and understanding Putonghua was easier. The difficulty in learning Putonghua in school experienced by P4 can explain why she did not demonstrate much integrative orientation

22 Pīnyīn (拼音) is a transcription system for Standard Written Chinese created in 1958. The system uses the to write all syllables in Chinese, marking tones with accent above vowels (Johansen 2018). 47 toward Putonghua. This troublesome experience when learning Putonghua could have created language anxiety, thus leaving her with a negative attitude toward Putonghua.

On questions regarding MOI and which languages were used in school, the participants’ answers varied, showing the diversity of MOI in Hong Kong schools. When asked about their schools’ MOI, P1 and P2 answered EMI, but P1 said they used HKC in some classes. P2 said they “tried to use English during classes in Primary”, and students and teachers used HKC when speaking with each other “during breaks and after class”. The teacher would sometimes explain some difficult terms and concepts by using HKC in class as well. She said they used English in Secondary. P3 had CMI in Primary, and EMI in Secondary, as well as at the university. She said that they would use HKC in Chinese history class and in Chinese language class in Secondary. P4 went to CMI schools, but as higher up in Secondary she got, the more English was used. These narratives testify that the MOI of schools in Hong Kong varies, and even though some schools are regarded as EMI, they often still use HKC to some extent. None of the participants reported having any kind of PMI, but P4 noted that some schools used PMI for Chinese literature and history classes. P2 said that some “teachers and parents would feel some kind of way if classes were conducted in Mandarin”, as it would be difficult for the students to follow. She claimed that most teachers and parents would be dissatisfied if the school they are associated with has PMI. However, she did not believe that was the case if the classes were given in English.

Damon had mixed MOI when he attended school in Hong Kong. He said they used English for most of the subjects, apart from history, which was CMI. Damon also noted that Hong Kong has “changed the education system continuously”, showing that he is well aware of Hong Kong’s shifting language policies in education. Jessica’s Primary school was CMI, and her Secondary school was EMI (excluding Chinese language classes (CMI) and Putonghua classes). Both Jessica and Damon started having Putonghua around the time of Primary 3 up until Secondary 3, although it was only about 1-2 hours per week.

P1, P2, P4, Jessica, and Damon started in Primary 1 prior to the handover and the new MOI policy, and the variation of MOI they experienced is partly due to MOI policies shifting in general. It can also be because they specifically chose an EMI school when starting Secondary. P3 started Primary 1 shortly after the new policies and graduated shortly after the new policies in 2010. As she was at the end of Secondary with EMI at that time, she did not experience a change of MOI. It would be interesting to examine younger people’s

48 experiences with the new policy in 2010 further, and possibly compare their answers to the answers from my participants. As mentioned in section 3.2, I could not enter universities to seek out younger participants due to the shutdown of universities.

When asked if they were to change anything regarding language in school, their answers and reasonings differed. P1, P3, and P4 would want to keep CMI. Their reason was simply that it was the most suitable, as it is their mother tongue. P3 said that it is difficult to express oneself in English, although there is a practical use for the language. For the case of P4, she wanted to keep CMI through Secondary. Despite that, when she started at the university she appreciated having EMI during her last years in Secondary. P2 would choose EMI in school. She believed that “language shapes our way of thought and our identity”. She also noted that English could be used to connect to other parts of the world and to “understand other cultures”. This points to an integrative orientation toward English. This can in turn help explain why she chose to be very fluent in English regardless of where she lived. Thus, that choice was not necessarily entirely instrumentally oriented.

The participants’ MOI could have influenced their instrumental and integrative orientation toward the different languages, as it can play a part in the variable of language anxiety. As all of the participants have experienced different MOI, and most have not attended school for over 10 years, accurately mapping out their potential sources for language anxiety is a problematic task. Nevertheless, the statements of Putonghua being “painful”, and English being difficult to learn as a young child, made by P4 and P3 respectively, show that language anxiety is a relevant variable.

Next, the participants were asked which language(s) they believed to be the most important when taking higher education or applying for a job. For higher education, all participants answered English without hesitation. P1 answered “English” fast and determined, and P2 answered “English, definitely”. That is not necessarily groundbreaking, as all universities in Hong Kong are EMI, and if one would like to attend a renowned university abroad, chances are that they also use EMI. The greatest exception would be the universities in the PRC, which tend to use Putonghua. P4 said that English is the most important because “if you have a bad score in mathematics, but a good score in English, that would help you in obtaining a good job”. These perceptions are similar to the ones discussed in section 2.2.

On the question of which language(s) they believed to be the most important when applying for a job, most participants answered English. P2 said that English was particularly important

49 if you were to apply for a “professional job”. P3 said “English and Chinese” (i.e. Cantonese) would be important, and perhaps Putonghua. She believed that knowing HKC and English was “basic” but knowing Putonghua and English would be regarded as “a privilege”. P4 answered that employers value English writing proficiency, and that she would seize every opportunity to improve her English skill or stay abroad as long as possible. P1 said that “Chinese” was the most important when applying for a job. Yet again I had to ask for clarification of the term ‘Chinese’, and yet again ‘Chinese’ referred to ‘Cantonese’. Nevertheless, she noted that her work (as a teacher) demanded some degree of English proficiency. She said that when applying for a teacher position, knowing both HKC and Putonghua is beneficial. She noted that “if there are two candidates, and one of them knows Putonghua, that person would most likely be chosen”.

Their answers reflect many of the same sentiments observed in section 2.2.3, where English proficiency is seen as an important asset when applying for a job, although not necessarily used to a great extent for all. The participants’ MOI in school, and their experience of it, can be a factor that determines the degree of language anxiety, a variable connected to the integrative orientation toward a language. As their MOI varied, and the experiences happened in the past, it is not possible to draw a parallel between their MOI and perception of a language. As the participants did not have any PMI, other than in Putonghua classes, PMI was not brought up as a topic often, and was not viewed as something particularly positive when brought up. Based on participants’ answers, the potential use of Putonghua in Hong Kong is overshadowed by English, both in education and career.

50

5 Conclusion In this thesis, how people from Hong Kong with Hong Kong Cantonese as their mother tongue perceive and use Putonghua in their daily lives has been examined. This was done by considering the historic and current context of Hong Kong, reviewing existing literature on relevant topics, interviewing participants who were born and grew up in Hong Kong, and discussing the findings from the interviews in light of the existing literature. Language use and language attitudes were divided into personal and institutional categories and further analyzed by making use of Gardner’s (2010) socio-educational model with integrative and instrumental orientations. None of these categories were viewed as independent of each other, as variables in both personal and institutional contexts affect how an individual perceives and uses a language.

The focus was placed on Putonghua, but as discovered from the interviews, the participants from Hong Kong did not necessarily use Putonghua all that much in their daily lives. They also tended to talk the most about English and HKC, and the least about Putonghua. By examining existing literature, and the interviews, English was still perceived as one of the most important languages in Hong Kong. Putonghua became overshadowed by English in both instrumental and integrative orientations toward language. HKC seemed to become forgotten and taken for granted by some, as it is “just a dialect” and “everyone knows Cantonese”. Nevertheless, the overall integrative orientation toward HKC has consistently been higher than that of both English and Putonghua. This is the case both in existing literature, as well as for the participants interviewed for this study.

Even so, the participants of this present study tended to express their opinions as English was most important for both higher education and work. Despite this, they would for the most part prefer their mother tongue as MOI in school. Putonghua was not considered as a viable MOI, nor as being important for higher education or work. Despite this, the participants had some instrumental orientation toward Putonghua (e.g. the choice of knowing Putonghua when living abroad), although it was not as high as the instrumental orientation toward English. This coincides with the findings in the existing literature mentioned in section 2.2.

Putonghua seems to still play a role in Hong Kong. It is to be expected that Putonghua’s role will strengthen toward 2047 when Hong Kong is scheduled to lose its status as a SAR, although that can happen at a sooner time as well. The increased use of Putonghua, at least in schools and at work, points to the future trend of ‘pragmatic trilingualism’ in Hong Kong as

51 mentioned by Lai (2012). The keyword to this term is ‘pragmatic’, as people from Hong Kong tend to have a more instrumental than integrative orientation toward Putonghua. Until they use Putonghua in a more integrative manner, Hong Kong is arguably not to be regarded as trilingual, but rather triglossic.

Most of the participants would use some Putonghua in their HKC speech, essentially revealing that CS with HKC and Putonghua does occur. That could happen in ‘bits’, or in ‘chunks’, to use the terms of Weston (2016). This type of CS happened mostly if it was for humoristic effect, or to capture popular culture (i.e. TV and Internet jargon) from the Mainland. When using Putonghua for jokes, these jokes were often negatively directed toward Mainland Chinese and the stereotypes associated with them, be it cultural differences, or accents. Further investigating how Putonghua is used when CS in HKC could be an interesting topic for further research, as I did not personally have the chance to observe any actual cases of it.

Even though Hong Kong could lose its status as SAR sooner than first anticipated, the participants’ identity was defined as ‘Hong Konger’ or similar, and being ‘just Chinese’ was not considered by the participants at the time of the interview. This can indicate that being a citizen of Hong Kong is a strong identity marker for the participants, and the protest movement has shown an increase in identifying as ‘Hong Konger’. How people identify has been shown to be shifting, and whether people choose to identify as ‘Hong Konger’, ‘Hong Kong Chinese’, or ‘Chinese’ depends largely on societal issues, such as the current protests. The people of Hong Kong have shown significant resistance to many of the PRC’s policies, including language policies.

Further research is required before it is possible to draw any type of conclusions regarding the use and perceptions of Putonghua among people from Hong Kong. More participants, participants who only speak HKC, HKC-speaking researchers, more direct questions posed to participants, and unstructured interviews could be methods for further investigation of the use of and attitudes toward Putonghua among people from Hong Kong with HKC as their mother tongue.

52

List of References Baker, Colin. 1992. Attitudes and language. Vol. 83. Multilingual Matters. Bernard, H. Russell. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press. Bolton, Kingsley. 2011. "Language policy and planning in Hong Kong: Colonial and post- colonial perspectives." DOI: 10.1515/9783110239331.51. Canepari, Luciano, and Cerini, Marco. 2011. "Mandarin: the-r grammeme and the so-called érhuà phenomenon." Accessed June 10, 2020, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.738.8031&rep=rep1&type= pdf. Census and Statistics Department Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 2019. Thematic Household Survey Report No. 66. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp370.jsp?productCode=C0000086. Chan, Jim YH. 2013. "A week in the life of a ‘finely tuned’secondary school in Hong Kong." Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34 (5): 411-430. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2013.770518. Chen, Ruiduan 陈瑞端. 2016. "普通话在香港语言生活中的定位问题 (Changes in Biliteracy and Trilingualism and the Role of Putonghua in the Language Life of Hong Kong)." 语言战略研究 Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning 1 (4): 25- 31. DOI: 10.19689/j.cnki.cn10-1361/h.2016.04.004. Chow, Paksing 周柏胜, and Liu, Yi 刘艺. 2003. "从教师, 学生与学校的课程论香港推普问 题 (On the Difficulty of Popularizing Putonghua in Hong Kong: From Teachers, Students to Syllabus)." 语言文字应用 Applied Linguistics (1): 27-34. Accessed April 20, 2020, http://hdl.handle.net/10397/40176. Civil Service Bureau. "Appointment Requirements". Updated 16 May 2018. Accessed October 30, 2019, https://www.csb.gov.hk/english/admin/appoint/35.html. Coulmas, Florian. 2013. Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers' choices. Cambridge University Press. Ellis, Rod. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press. Evans, Stephen. 2016. The English language in Hong Kong: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Springer. Accessed June 6, 2020, https://www.ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/759/759844_Europeans_and_their_Languages_- _EC_2006.pdf. Fishman, Joshua A. 1967. "Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism." Journal of social issues 23 (2): 29-38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00573.x. Gao, Xuesong. 2012. "‘Cantonese is not a dialect’: Chinese netizens’ defence of Cantonese as a regional lingua franca." Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33 (5): 449-464. DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2012.680461. García, Ofelia, and Li Wei. 2019. Transspråking, språk, flerspråklighet og opplæring. Translated by Inger Sverreson Holmes. Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akadmiske.

53

Gardner, Robert C. 2010. Motivation and second language acquisition: The socio- educational model. Vol. 10. Peter Lang. Hong Kong Basic Law 基本法. Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国香港特别行政区基本法 of July 2018. https://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/gb/basiclawtext/index.html. Johansen, Pål: pinyin in Store norske leksikon. Accessed June 10 2020, https://snl.no/pinyin Joseph, John E. 2006. Language and politics. Edinburgh University Press. Accessed June 4, 2020, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r2d76. Karlsen, Eirik Slinning, host. "Talking About Languages With Hong Kongers." (Podcast), recorded November 26, 2019. Produced by Soundtænk. Accessed May 12, 2020, https://www.hf.uio.no/ikos/english/studies/voices-middle-east-asia/voices-from-east- asia/talking-about-languages-with-hong-kongers.html. Kjøll, Georg, and Anne Dahl: mem in Store norske leksikon. Accessed June 10, 2020, https://snl.no/mem. Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage. Lai, Mee Ling. 2007. "Gender and language attitudes: A case of postcolonial Hong Kong." International Journal of Multilingualism 4 (2): 83-116. DOI: 10.2167/ijm068.0. ---. 2010. "Social class and language attitudes in Hong Kong." International Multilingual Research Journal 4 (2): 83-106. DOI: 10.1080/19313150903500945. ---. 2012. "Tracking language attitudes in postcolonial Hong Kong: An interplay of localization, mainlandization, and internationalization." Multilingua 31 (1): 83-111. DOI: 10.1515/mult.2012.004. ---. 2013. "Impacts of medium of instruction on language attitudes: A case of Hong Kong." The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 22 (1): 61-68. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-012-0025-1 Li, Baozhu 李宝珠. 1998. "普通话: 香港教育必须跨越的一道难关 (Putonghua: A Barrier Hong Kong's Education Must Overcome.)" 国际关系学院学报 Journal of University of International Relations 1 (1): 51-53. Accessed April 20, 2020, http://gjaqyj.cnjournals.com/gjaqyj/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?file_no=19980110&ye ar_id=1998&quarter_id=1&falg=1 Li, David C. S. 2017. Multilingual Hong Kong: languages, literacies and identities. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-44195-5. Littlewood, William, Ngar-Fun Liu, and Christine Yu. 1996. "Hong Kong tertiary students' attitudes and proficiency in spoken English." RELC journal 27 (1): 70-88. DOI: 10.1177/003368829602700104. Liu, Xiaokai. 2018. "A comparative study of language attitudes in Hong Kong: Towards English, Cantonese and Putonghua." International Journal of English Linguistics 8 (3): 195-209. DOI: 10.5539/ijel.v8n3p195. Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2011. Introducing sociolinguistics. Routledge. Mæhlum, Brit, Gunnstein Akselberg, Unn Røyneland, Helge Sandøy,g. 2008. Språkmøte: innføring i sosiolingvistikk. Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.

54

Pennington, Martha C. 1998. Language in Hong Kong at century's end. Vol. 1. Hong Kong University Press. Accessed April 2, 2020, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jc7vf. People's Daily Online 人民网. 2014. "我国仍有 30%人口不会说普通话. (30% of Our Population Still Cannot Speak Putonghua.)" September 24 2014. http://finance.people.com.cn/n/2014/0924/c1004-25720746.html. Pierson, Herbert D., Gail S. Fu, and Sik-yum Lee. 1980. "An analysis of the relationship between language attitudes and English attainment of secondary students in Hong Kong." Language learning 30 (2): 289-305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1980.tb00320.x. Poon, Anita Y. K. 2010. "Language use, and language policy and planning in Hong Kong." Current issues in language planning 11 (1): 1-66. DOI: 10.1080/14664201003682327. Silverman, David. 2010. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. Los Angeles: Sage. Special Eurobarometer. 2006. "Europeans and their Languages." European Commission. Accessed June 9, 2020, https://www.ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/759/759844_Europeans_and_their_Languages_- _EC_2006.pdf. Steinberg, Danny D., and Natalia V. Sciarini. 2006. Introduction to Psycholinguistics, 2/e, An. Pearson Education. Svartvik, Jan, and Geoffrey Leech. 2006. English–One tongue, many voices. Palgrave Macmillan. Tian, Xiaolin 田小琳. 1995. ""我是中国人, 应该会说普通话"——香港普通话推广面面观 ("I am Chinese, I should be able to speak Putonghua"——An Overview of the Promotion of Putonghua in Hong Kong.)" 北京观察 Beijing Observation (3): 40-42. Accessed 20 April, 2020, http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFD1995- BJGC199503016.htm. Wang, Lixun, and Andy Kirkpatrick. 2018. "Students’ and parents’ perceptions of trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools." International Journal of Multilingualism: 1-18. DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2018.1509980. Weston, Daniel. 2016. ""Bits", "chunks" and "channel-switching": Perceptions of Cantonese- English code-switching." Journal of Chinese Linguistics 44 (2): 384-414. DOI: 10.1353/jcl.2016.0015. Zhang, Qi. 2013. "The attitudes of Hong Kong students towards Hong Kong English and Mandarin-accented English: What are the current status and future developments of Chinese Englishes, in particular, Hong Kong English and Mandarin-accented English?" English Today 29 (2): 9-16. DOI: 10.1017/S0266078413000096. ---. 2014. Investigating Hong Kong English. Peter Lang AG. DOI: 10.3726/978-3-0353-0651-4.

55

Appendix Please note: The term ‘Cantonese’ refers to ‘Hong Kong Cantonese’. The term ‘Mandarin’ refers to ‘Putonghua’. The terms ‘Cantonese’ and ‘Mandarin’ are used in the interview guide, as these terms were most frequently used by the participants.

Interview guide: 1a) Where were you born and raised? 1b) Have you ever lived anywhere else? 1c) When and where? 2a) What language(s) do you speak? 2b) What would you consider to be your mother tongue? 3) Which language(s) do you use the most in your daily life? 4) How would you describe your identity? A) Hong Konger B) Hong Kong Chinese C) Chinese D) Other E) No opinion 5) Which language(s) did you learn in school? 6) How did you like the different language classes? 7) Which language(s) did you use during classes? 8) Did you go to a school that used Cantonese in class, English in class, or Mandarin in class? 9) If you could decide that anything could be done different in school with regards to language, what would you change? 10) Which years did you go to school? 11) Which language do you use when talking to three of your best friends? 12) Do you ever mix the languages you use? For instance by using some English words when speaking in Cantonese, or using some Mandarin words when speaking Cantonese, and so on. 13a) How would you feel if one of your best friends spoke to you by using Cantonese? 13b) How would you feel if one of your best friends spoke to you by using English? 13c) How would you feel if one of your best friends spoke to you by using Mandarin? 14a) Which language(s) do you feel is most important when taking a higher education? 14b) Which language(s) do you feel is most important when applying for a job? 15a) If you encounter a tourist from Mainland China, which language would you expect you use when talking to them? 15b) Which language would you prefer to use?

56

16a) If you encounter a tourist from Europe, which language would you expect you use when talking to them? 16b) Which language would you prefer to use? 17) Which language(s) do you expect people living in Hong Kong to know? 18a) If someone living in Hong Kong knows how to speak Cantonese, which level of education would you presume they have? 18b) If someone living in Hong Kong knows how to speak English, which level of education would you presume they have? 18c) If someone living in Hong Kong knows how to speak Mandarin, which level of education would you presume they have? 19a) If you could choose to be very fluent in one language, somewhat fluent in a second language, and only have very little knowledge in a third language, which languages would you choose when living in Hong Kong? 19b) Would the chosen languages be different if you lived in, say, Britain or America?

57