Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Introduction
In the case of the status of English in Hong Kong, most 'new Englishes' classification schemes have been either controversial or inconclusive. Dynamic models seem to be more promising, and these predict two things. First, a trend of 'linguistic schizophrenia', where people are exonormative in ideal - holding to the ideals of native speaker English - but endonormative in practice - in actual fact, speaking their own local variety. Second, the future ongoing development and eventual acceptance of the new variety. This article aims to shed more light on some of the complexities surrounding the issue of the status of English in Hong Kong. It undertakes an analysis of the attitudes of local English speakers towards the existence and nature of their own variety, perceptions of their own linguistic behaviour, and attitudes towards norms. The significance of the findings is evaluated in the light of dynamic models postulated by Kachru (1983) and Schneider (2003, 2007). The Hong Kong data present a classic case of Kachru's 'linguistic schizophrenia', and confirm the placement of Hong Kong English at the beginning of Schneider's Phase 3 of nativization. The future possibilities for the variety are also discussed.
The debate about Hong Kong English
Is there such a thing as 'Hong Kong English' (HKE), or is there simply an 'English used in Hong Kong'? The issue of the status and even the very existence of an entity called 'Hong Kong English' has been a subject of ongoing debate in the literature over the past twenty to thirty years. Some earlier scholars, for instance, Luke and Richards (1982), Platt (1982), Tay (1991), Johnson (1994)1 and Li (2000),2 have tended not to consider the English of Hong Kongers much more than a developmental continuum, or a learner's interlanguage developing along a cline of proficiency. Luke and Richards (1982: 55) stated outright that 'there is no such thing as "Hong Kong Englishâ[euro]'. Calling attention to the lack of intranational English communication and the non-existence of a basilectal (colloquial) style, they claimed that 'there is no societal basis for the "indigenizationâ[euro] or "nativizationâ[euro] of English in Hong Kong'. Along the same lines, Pang (2003) considers English in Hong Kong has been localized but not...