“If I lie, I tell you, may heaven and earth destroy me.” Language and Legal Consciousness in Hong Kong Bilingual Common Law

Abstract

Based on an ethnographic study of courtroom interactions in the bilingual (Chinese/English) common law system in Hong Kong, this article investigates how language plays a constitutive role in shaping the ways people use, argue, and think about law. While the use of English in Hong Kong prescribes by default the supposedly universal speech act of statement‐making, the presence of Cantonese allows local speech acts to be brought into the courtrooms. Two local speech acts, “catching fleas in words” and “speaking bitterness,” are discussed. The findings of this study suggest that by studying the local practices and beliefs in postcolonial settings, researchers can gain insights into the complex ways in which Anglo American–style legal institutions are reconstituted.

After Hegemony: The Varieties of Legal Consciousness Research

“…4 However, by way of contrast with the critical approach, it is not generally preoccupied with the working class, or the welfare poor, or other disadvantaged groups. Instead, research in the interpretive tradition might focus on actors that we would not necessarily associate with being dominated or disadvantaged, such as, for example, college students (Farmer et al, 2015) or courtroom participants (Ng, 2009). Indeed, some studies set out to focus on the legal consciousness of powerful actors in specific social settings, such as business owners in relation to the regulation of public space (Ranasinghe, 2010) or tax lawyers (Cornut-St Pierre, 2019).…”

Oral English Proficiency Tests, Interpretive Labor, and the Neoliberal University

“…Popular language ideologies dismiss this complex reality, making oral proficiency testing seem natural. One such belief is that language should flawlessly conveys one person's thought‐world to another, as “a neutral, transparent medium” (Ng 2009, 370, Haviland 2003). The tests are also a product of standard language ideologies (Milroy 2001), which suggest that uniformity can be imposed upon language; that a supposedly uniform register is better than others; and that different language practices should be understood in comparison with this register.…”

Singapore's Culture War over Section 377A: Through the Lens of Public Choice and Multilingual Research

“…29 29 There is a rich literature on the role of language in the constitution of law and legal order (Conley and O'Barr 2005; Richland 2008; Hutton 2009). In a multilingual sociolegal environment, comparative linguistic research offers interesting insights on how language shapes the ways people use, argue, and think about the law (K. H. Ng 2009, an ethnographic study of courtroom interactions in the bilingual—Chinese/English—common law system in Hong Kong).…”