The tao of identity in heteroglossic Hong Kong

Abstract

Discussions oflanguage and identity in Hong Kong havefollowed a regulär pattern of trying to determine which one from among a small ränge of sociolinguistic identities is most likely to emerge äs definitive öfter 1997. The two principal candidates are usually a Chinese identity grounded in Putonghua, and a Hong Kong identity grounded in Cantonese. Secondary to these is an international identity grounded in English. Some analysts have ventured strong predictions that one or the other of these language-identity nexuses may be lost entirely. Others assume that a Hong Kong identity grounded in Cantonese will dominate, with Putonghua and English serving merely äs auxiliary languagesfor dealing with the central government and the international business Community respectively. The present article inquires into some ofthe assumptions underlying these discussions that may bear rethinking. Recent work on the whole notion of "Chinese" identity suggests that sociolinguistic studies may not have taken account of its füll complexity. Indeed, the concept of "identity" itselfmay need to be rethought in the context of post-1997 Hong Kong. Two modes for reconceiving it will be considered, one based on the Western idea ofambiguity, the other on the Daoist ideal of transcending oppositions. The Hong Kong language Situation, including the relevant constitutional positions on language, is surveyed, and an attempt is made at characterizing it within a Bakhtinian model of heteroglossia. (Formerly) fragrant (vanishing) harborThe island of Hong Kong (Cantonese heung gong, Putonghua xiang gang 'fragrant harbor') has given its name to the colony of which it is the administrative and economic center, and which includes 235 other islands in addition to a small chunk of the south China mainland.

Heteroglossic ideologies in world Englishes: an examination of the Hong Kong context

“…We do not presume to be the first to apply the concept of heteroglossia to the Hong Kong context. For instance, Joseph (: 28) describes the region as heteroglossic, urging scholars to adopt a more nuanced and indeed ‘irreconcilable’ conceptualization of Hong Kong identity. In this paper, however, we adapt the concept of Bakhtinian heteroglossia to consider the simultaneous co‐presence and interrelatedness of varying ideologies of English within a politically defined though sociolinguistically distinct region.…”

“…For example, scholars have noted the existence of L1 Cantonese features in HKE: Stibbard : 140) observes ‘pronunciation is clearly due to transfer from Cantonese’ and Gisborne (: 166) notes that ‘HKE has a grammar system which is typologically similar to Cantonese.’ While such research is helpful in understanding the extent to which there is linguistic stability or variability within a group of speakers, approaching such studies with the assumption that HKE is a (or one) variety belies the great diversity that exists in the region (cf. Joseph ). Some researchers have taken steps to move beyond this potentially essentializing approach by arguing that ‘the problem of describing regional varieties of English is less a question of assigning linguistic features to the usage of particular speech communities and more a question of assigning them to particular sociocultural contexts of language use’ (Benson : 379).…”

Birthright Englishes

“…It might even seem that the very word 'language' loses all meaning in this processfor apparently there is no single plane on which all these 'languages' might be juxtaposed to one another. (p. 291, emphasis in original) Although Joseph's (2000) application of Bakhtin's work is helpful in understanding the Hong Kong context, an argument can be made that heteroglossia is an unusual if not inapplicable theoretical concept for the region. Namely, it can be said that heteroglossia, in the original Bakhtinian sense, references not multilingualism but rather multivocality.…”

The lesser of two evils: Atypical trajectories in English dialect evolution

“…This renewed nostalgia for the colonial era points to a markedly different trajectory from the DM's basic pattern, as it uncouples the process of growth in a local identity from the weakening of attitudinal ties to Britain. In the case of Hong Kong, it is now China rather than Britain that appears to constitute, in the terminology of Joseph (: 23), the ‘oppositional semantic referent’. Thus, the growth in a local identity is achieved at the expense of being ‘Chinese’, rather than being British.…”