Linguistic Imperialism In Medium of Instruction Policies In Pre and Post 1997 Hong Kong

Winnie Tang, BMC 06 East Asian Studies Thesis

Table of Contents I. II. III. IV. Introduction Chapter 1: Linguistic Imperialism Chapter 2: Pre-handover a. Pre-war b. Post-war Chapter 3: Post-handover a. Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools b. Liang wen san yu (Biliterate Trilingualism) c. Native English Teachers scheme d. Benchmarking e. SCOLAR Chapter 4: The non-government sector: Language Attitude Studies Chapter 5: Linguistic Imperialism in Hong Kong a. Pre-handover b. Postcolonial Chapter 6: Explanation for Linguistic Imperialism in Hong Kong Conclusion 2 4 8 9 18 21 22 22 23 24 26 33 35 39

V. VI. VII. VIII.

I. Introduction
Mencius said to Tai Pu-shung Suppose a Counsellor of Chu wished his son to speak the language of Chi. Would he have a man from Chi to tutor his son? Or would he have a man from Chu? He would have a man from Chi to tutor his son. With one man from Chi tutoring the boy and a host of Chu men chattering around him, even though you caned him every day to make him speak Chi, you would not succeed. Mencius, Book III, Part B. 6 1

Chi represents English and Standard Written Chinese. Chu represents vernacular Cantonese. The essence of the Hong Kong identity lies in the ambivalence that comes with learning to Chi in a land of Chu. Mencius understood that the outcome of growing up in a particular speech community is learning the language of that speech community. Mencius also recognized that teaching one language when surrounded by another language is bound to be a frustrating experience. This thesis analyzes the historical process in which language in education formulated policy and how the school system has perpetuated social stratification during and even after colonialism by using language as a determinant for social and political power. There is a tension between a search for identity and unquestioned utilitarian perception toward English and its international status. Part of Britains legacy to Hong Kong was the addition of English to an already established Chinese community. Hong Kong was under British Rule from 1841 to 1997.2 English was the official language for more than a century even though the majority of the population was ethnic Chinese. Accordingly, Hong Kong is in a state of superimposed bilingualism. That is was bilingualism was imposed on Hong Kong society as a result of colonialism.3 As a result of the Chinese Language Movement in 1968, [an unspecified form of ] Chinese was made one of the

Ron Scollon, Hong Kong Language in Context: The Discourse of Chu, in Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, ed. Martha Pennington (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998), 277, quoting Lau, 1970, 112-2. 2 Hong Kong was returned to the Peoples Republic of China on July 1, 1997. 3 Anita Poon, Medium of Instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and Practice (Lanham, Maryland, University Press of America: 2000), 159.

co-official language in 1974,4 but it remained in a secondary status. Today, nearly 89% of the population of Hong Kong is Chinese and 98% speak Chinese.5 This means that only 2% speak English. English enjoys high status in Hong Kong despite the small expatriate population because the government administration, legal and judiciary, business, and education sectors all reinforce the primacy of English. English is maintained as the medium of communication in the outer domain. Historically, Chinese (vernacular Cantonese) was used out of expediency, but was typically reserved for the inner domain. This thesis evaluates whether the theory of linguistic imperialism can be applied to both colonial and postcolonial Hong Kong. I propose that linguistic imperialism can be strongly applied to postcolonial Hong Kong Special Administrative Region6 government. Ironically, linguistic imperialism is not as clear during colonial governance of Hong Kong. Chapter 1 focuses on defining the notion of linguistic imperialism. Using Joseph Boyles framework, I consider the theories of Galtung, Krachu, and Phillipson. According to these three theorists, linguistic imperialism can be manifested in three ways Compulsion, Manipulation, and Covert Control. Chapter 2 lays out important historical events related to Hong Kong and medium of instruction problem. History is interpreted as Hong Kong under colonial governance (1841-1997). The historical analysis is divided into two major sections pre-war and post-war. The war in reference is World War II. Major topics covered in the pre-war section include a comparison of Chinese style schools and western style schools. I elaborate on the four types of western style schools as well as the founding of the western style tertiary institution, University

Yao Shun Chiu, Language Policies in Post-1997 Hong Kong, in Into the 21st Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong, ed. Kang Kwong Luke, (Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1992), 15. 5 Chao Fen Sun, Hong Kongs Language Policy in the Post Colonial Age: Social Justice and Globalization, in Crisis and Transformation in Chinas Hong Kong, ed. Ming K. Chan and Alvin Y. So (London: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 2002), 290, quoting So, 1998. 6 Hereafter referred to as SAR

of Hong Kong.7 The post-war section is categorized into three subsections. These subsections touch upon the population increase (as a result of the Chinese Civil War), the founding of Chinese University Of Hong Kong,8 and the proliferation of reports and policies that ensued two decades prior to handover. Important reports and policies related to the medium of instruction problem include the Green and White papers, the Llewellyn Report, and the Education Commission Reports Number 1, 2, 4, and 6. These reports and papers contain research, opinions, recommendations and proposals such as the Expatriate English Teacher Scheme (EETS), Mixed Code usage, and the Streaming policy. Chapter 3 focuses on the current language situation in Hong Kong. Current is interpreted as anything postcolonial Hong Kong as a SAR of the Peoples Republic of China.9 The major event in this section is the new compulsory medium of instruction policy for secondary schools. Other important events that can be related back to linguistic imperialism in this period include the Native English Teachers (NET) scheme and Benchmark testing of Hong Kong English teachers. In light of historical and current events Chapter 4 presents four separate language attitude studies that have been done by academics within a twenty-year time span prior to and after 1997. The studies provide insight into how students perceive the language situation in Hong Kong. In Chapter 5, the theory of linguistic imperialism is applied to colonial and postcolonial evidence. I will assess the legitimacy of the theory linguistic imperialism against colonial and postcolonial governments. In Chapter 6, assuming that the charge of linguistic imperialism can be leveled against both colonial and postcolonial governments, I will provide possible explanations as to why linguistic imperialism exists in Hong Kong. II. Linguistic Imperialism
7 8

Will be alternately referred to as simply the University. May be abbreviated as CUHK through out the thesis. 9 Hereafter referred to as the PRC.

Gilbert Ansre, Ghanaian sociolinguist, defines the term linguistic imperialism as any situation in which the speaker of one language is dominated by another language to the point where they believe they can and should use only that foreign language when it comes to transactions dealing with the more advanced aspects of life such as education, philosophy, literature, government, and the administration of justice etc.10 Robert Phillipsons working definition of English linguistic imperialism is the dominance of English asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages.11 Structural inequality refers broadly to inequality related to material properties such as institutions and financial allocations. The term cultural inequality related to refers to unequal immaterial or ideological properties such as attitudes and pedagogic principles.12 English linguistic imperialism is a subtype of linguicism. Linguicism ensures the continued allowance of more resources, materials, and benefits to those who are proficient in English (i.e. priority in teacher training, curriculum development).13 Phillipsons theory of linguistic imperialism draws heavily on Johan Galtung.14 According to Galtung, there are six aspects of imperialism: economic, political, military, communicational, cultural, and social.15 Although linguistic imperialism is most closely related to communicational imperialism, Phillipson considers linguistic imperialism as pervading through all six types of imperialism.16 Galtung says that the world of imperialism is divided into the Center (the colonizers), which consists of powerful Western countries, and the Periphery (the colonized), which consists of countries dominated by the Center. Within both the Center and the
10

Joseph Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18, no.3 (1997): 170, emphasis mine. 11 Robert Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1992), 47. 12 Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism, 47. 13 Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism, 55. 14 Johan Galtung, The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective (New York: The Free Press, 1979). 15 Galtung, The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective, 127. 16 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 171.

Periphery there are other Centers and Peripheries.17 A pattern of imperialism exists when the Center provides the teachers and the definitions of what is worthy of being taught, and the Periphery supplies the learners.18 Galtungs theory of imperialism is threefold: colonialism, neocolonialism, and neo-neocolonialism.19 Colonialism is when expatriates from the Center physically occupy the Periphery country. When the expatriates from the Center are replaced by local elites, who are typically educated in the tradition of the colonizers, the situation becomes neocolonialism. The Center interacts with the Periphery via international organizations. Neoneocolonialism is when the colonizers are no longer physically there because they are able to exert their influence through other means, namely through international communication, or as Boyle interprets it, through media and technology.20 Phillipson argues that the linguistic imperialism of the English language can follow one or all of these phases. Linguist Dr. Alistair Pennycook, presently of the University of Melbourne, questions the passive acceptance of international English as being in the natural order of things. He points to the economic and political forces of international capitalism that have imposed international English as the natural order of things as having led to the dominating of cultures. Pennycock inverts the meaning of Orientalism and defines it as policies that favor the use of local languages in education. Orientalism bars access to English to all but the most privileged. English functions as the gatekeeper to power and prestige. Anglicism (policies favoring English) imposes English as the medium for communication. When both are at work in colonialism, the English language ultimately becomes the distributor of inequality.21
17 18

Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 170. Galtung, The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective, 130. 19 Galtung, The True Worlds: A Transnational Perspective, 131. 20 Joseph Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, in English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, ed. by Kwok-kan Tam and Timothy Weiss (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2004), 70. 21 Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, 70.

Braj Kachru, prominent scholar of world Englishes, co-edits a journal called World English which focuses on the new Varieties of English. According to Kachrus interpretation of linguistic imperialism, the colonizer controls international power in three different ways as well. One method of control is by displacing the native language and replacing it with English. In other situations, English does not displace the native language; rather it establishes itself as an important, official language. Hong Kong is an example of this. The third kind of control is when English has become so accepted by the colonized that they transform it into a local variety of English.22 Liberia is an example of this third scenario. When Boyle combines the three aspects of Kacrhus theory and Phillipson and Galtungs theory, he comes up with a three phases of linguistic imperialism. The first phase is Compulsion or coercion whereby the colonizer imposes their language. This is also known as the Stick or Displacement phase. The second phase is Manipulation and clever compromise. The local elite are proficient in the colonizers language and act as political and business bridges. Other theorists have called this the Carrot phase, or the Accommodation phase. The third phase is Covert Control through ideological persuasion, which can come in the form of media or [computer] technology.23 Ideology and Purifying Varieties characterize this phase. These three stages are not necessarily serial, rather they are more like types of linguistic imperialism.24 The notions of Compulsion, Manipulation, and Covert Control are useful in describing the diverse language situation in colonial and postcolonial Hong Kong.

22 23

Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 171. Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, 70. 24 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 171-172.

III. Pre-handover A. Pre-War During British occupation and prior to World War II, there were two main styles of education in Hong Kong Chinese and western. They were quintessentially separate from one another. Chinese education had existed on Hong Kong Island from an early period. Their primary purpose was to serve specific family lineages. Other small schools were linked to monasteries. Because of this, the administrative infrastructure was largely associated with lineages and monks and relied less on local government. Larger schools and colleges on Kowloon island predate British occupation. The earliest school for which there are reliable records was Li Ying College. It was established in 1075 in present day New Territories. Schooling typically started when children were older than seven. Males and elites dominated schooling. By 1860, Hong Kong had twenty village schools with Chinese instruction. Wealthier Chinese sent their children back to China for traditional Chinese education.25 Under the influence of the May Fourth Movement [of 1919], there was a resurgence of Chinese education in Hong Kong. Schools looked to China for curricula, teaching materials, and teaching staff. Aside from formal learning, the people also learned through puppet shows, music, dance, and opera. Formal and informal learning in Chinese education offered a sense of identity.26 Traditional Chinese schools were mediums of cultural transmission and identity formation. The first western schools were opened in the 1840s. Over the next one hundred years leading up to World War II, a quadripartite system27 of western schools developed. The first type was government schools. They started in 1848 and set the example for Anglo-Chinese

25 26

Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 172. Anthony Sweeting, A Phoenix Transformed: The Reconstruction of Education in Post-War Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1993), 7. 27 Sweeting, A Phoenix Transformed, 7.

(present day English medium school) education. Government Central School was established in 1862 for boys (renamed Queens College). There was a three-part curriculum for Central School: Chinese Classics, English, and Scripture. The first headmaster, Frederick Stewart had trouble achieving English standards because as soon as a student learned a little English, they would leave for employment. The ones who stayed put on airs of superiority and formed clubs excluding those who did not know English.28 The Government Vernacular Middle School was founded in 1926 (renamed Clementi Middle School in 1951).29 The second type of school was the grant School. These were usually started by Christian missionaries and competed with government schools for students. Groups like the London Missionary Society ran church schools and their main purpose was to train students for Christian ministry. There was a heavy emphasis on religious studies but they also had more general educational aims. Governor Bowring of Hong Kong (1854-1859) actually support of education for the sake of education and discouraged proselytizing. Missionary schools usually taught in Chinese, but in 1853, a Committee on Education encouraged the teaching of English.30 The third type of school was the subsidized school. They were usually of lower status and received less assistance from the government. Subsidized schools were found predominantly in rural areas and used Chinese as medium of instruction in primary schools. The fourth type was private schools. They were the largest segment of the western school system but held the lowest status. They were founded largely in urban areas and usually used Chinese as the medium of instruction.31

28 29

George Beer Endacott, A History of Hong Kong (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), 231. Daniel W.C. So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, in Into the 21st Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong, ed. K.K. Luke (Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1992), 71. 30 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 172. 31 Sweeting, A Phoenix Transformed, 8.

Informal learning in western education took place in physical education activities (i.e. swimming), western style-youth groups (i.e. scouting), debating, political and social service clubs. In the 1920s, radio broadcasts provided news and entertainment. 32 A contrast exists between Chinese and western forms of informal learning opportunities. This contrast is important because most of the Chinese forms of informal learning are either defunct of outdated nowadays, whereas western forms of informal learning are still present. Governor Frederick Lugard (1907-1912) created the University of Hong Kong in 1911. The University was founded as an English-medium tertiary institution. By making English the medium of instruction for tertiary education, Lugard inadvertently ensured that the secondary schools would also adopt English as their medium of instruction so as to help their students secure a place in the University. Even though Lugard respected Chinese culture, his decision to make the University teach in English turned the issue of language in education in Hong Kong into a critical problem. The Hong Kong government gave theoretical support to the idea of Chinese medium of instruction, but not much was done in reality to enforce this idea and secondary schools maintained the use of English as the medium of education.33 B. Post-War 1. 1945-1964 One major theme that runs through the post war period and into the 1960s is the dramatic increase in population. The population of Hong Kong rose from about 600,000 in mid-1945 to 2,317,00 in1950, about 2,400,000 in 1955, 3,129,648 in 1961 and 3,133,131 in 1964. Between 1948 and 1953, the estimated population increase was 528,000.34 Approximately half of that can

32 33

Sweeting, A Phoenix Transformed, 9. Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 174. 34 Anthony Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong: 1941-2001 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004), 142.

10

be attributed to natural growth and the post-war baby boom. The other half was from Mainland Chinese migration. The dramatic population increase led to a whole slew of problems. One of which was the provision of schooling for young children or lack thereof. During this time, the government and the private sector tried to alleviate number quantity of schools. Due to the shortage of schools, some Mainland Chinese parents resorted to tea money35 to secure places in schools for their non-Hong Kong born children. The onslaught of primary school aged children also led to a huge increase in privately owned kindergartens, which may or may not have been up to educational or hygienic standards. At first, the influx of refugees was not regarded as a permanent problem because the refugees were seen as transients. The hope was that after a few years, when the civil war in China was over, the people would go back to the Mainland. Hence, long-term plans concerning the refugees were not enacted. However, in 1955, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies made the realization that It is now clear that the refugees are here to stay, and permanent provision must be made for them.36 Aside from the actual provision of schooling, another issue that came up during this time was language in education. The pre-war Burney Report of 1935 criticized the Governments lack of sound language policy. It said that not enough attention was being given to Chinese primary education and that English was taking up too much class time in higher schools. This caused students to learn by rote. According to the Burney Report, school children would only need to be taught English to the level they would need for their careers. Furthermore, serious consideration should be given to the use of Chinese as the medium of instruction. English was to be limited to

35 36

Tea money is paid to get something done, it oils the system. Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941 to 2001, 147.

11

the satisfaction of vocational demands.37 In accordance with the Burney Report suggestions, a General Schools Circular was distributed in August 1946. Following the issuance of the Circular, the Grant Schools, who were the primary providers of secondary schools in Hong Kong at that time, became vociferous at the Circulars call to establish Chinese as the normal medium of instruction in secondary schools. To resolve this problem, the Education Department backed down and said that the circular was merely an advisory. As a result little change took place in language policy or practice until later decades.38 The Education Department enacted a bridging program known as Special Classes Center to bridge the language gap for vernacular Cantonese secondary school students trying to enter the University.39 The Special Classes Center was a 12-month scheme designed to increase the number of vernacular secondary school students moving on to the University. This program was a failure, but other efforts were not. In 1963, the Chinese University of Hong Kong was founded to provide local opportunities for tertiary education for Chinese secondary school graduates.40 The Preamble of its founding Ordinance says, the principle language of instruction shall be Chinese.41 The fouryear curriculum structure reflected the intention of authorities to have Chinese-medium secondary schools as the major feeder schools to CUHK. Three post-secondary colleges were combined to give CUHK university status. These colleges were New Asia, Chung Chi, and United College. In spite of the positive outlook stemming from the Chinese Universitys ordinance, expectations did not meet reality. Secondary school students coming from English

37

Robert Lord and Benjamin K. Tsou, The Language Bomb (Hong Kong: Longman Group (Far East) Ltd., 1985),

3.
38 39

Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 143. Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 151. 40 So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 75. 41 So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 75.

12

medium schools had an easier time gaining admittance to Chinese University. This was because secondary school exit exams had an English paper component, which inadvertently disqualified many vernacular Cantonese secondary students from moving onto tertiary education. Also, Chinese University encountered difficulties in procuring Chinese textbooks and reference materials, and they lacked qualified teaching staff as well.42 2. 1965-1984 This period in Hong Kongs educational history of Hong Kong was marked by the proliferation of policy papers and an increase in the number of schools. Hong Kong identity was being strengthened as its population profile changed from predominantly refugee to predominantly local-born. Mass educational opportunities were achieved at all levels except in the tertiary level. The most tangible outcomes of this period were the corpus of policies planning for mass education. Green Papers were written to stimulate public discussion of priorities and priorities. White Papers were written in response to Green Papers. Aside from the 1963 MarshSampson Report, the first of the education policy papers was the White Paper (August 1965). This education policy called for universal primary schooling by 1971. Following the White Paper (August 1965) was the Green Paper (November 1977), which announced the Education Departments intention to provide universal secondary schooling. In the White Paper (October 1978), the intention was institutionalized with the target date for completion set for 1979.43 One of the last important reports issued in this period was the Llewellyn Report (1982), formally known as A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong colonial government realized that the use of using English as the medium of instruction had detrimental effects on educational efficacy. The Llewellyn visiting

42 43

Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 174. Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 327-339.

13

panel perceived the use of mixed code (i.e. a mixture of English and Chinese) in the classroom as one such negative response to English as medium of instruction was A visiting panel was invited to review education in Hong Kong. The report recommended the establishment of a permanent Education Commission to formulate education policy and coordinate the planning and development of education at all levels. In accordance to the Hong Kong governments realization, the panel also observed the lamentable situation concerning the use of English as a medium of instruction.44 The panel also observed, While some primary schools manage to teach English quite successfully, many do not.45 They observed that most of the teachers are by no means fluent and due to their low standards of English, the students were hindered as well. Furthermore, the panel made the observation that, most of the problems associated with schooling in Hong Kong excessive hours of homework, quiescent pupils are magnified, even if not caused, by the attempt to use English as a teaching medium for students.46 The panel also stated that [we] accept as a fact that the mother tongue is, all other things being equal, the best medium of teaching and learning.47 One of the options suggested by the panel was a shift towards complete mother tongue education in the early compulsory years a wholehearted push towards genuine bilingualism after Primary 6, including the tertiary level. From Form 1 there should be a progressive shift to genuinely bilingual programs so that by the end of Form III students are receiving approximately half of their instruction in each language.48 The panel also consider the localization of staffing policy be amended so that children in their first years of schooling might be exposed to native English speakers.49
44

Llewellyn et al., A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel (Hong Kong: Government Printer, November 1982), III.1.4. 45 Llewellyn et al., A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel, III.1.8. 46 Llewellyn et al., A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel, III.1.10. 47 Llewellyn et al., A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel, III.1.14. 48 Llewellyn et al., A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel, III.1.20. 49 Llewellyn et al., A Perspective on Education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel, III.1.9.

14

In response to the panels proposals, a permanent Education Commission was set up in 1984 to coordinate and gain an overview of education policy at all levels. Since then there have been seven Education Commission Reports (ECRs) and three of them have included a section on language in education (ECR 1, ECR 2, ECR 4). One of them is dedicated solely to the language issue. 3. 1984-1997 The ECR 1 was produce in October 1984. It proposed a number of concrete measures to improve the language standards of students. It suggested providing additional Chinese language teachers to secondary schools. It also encouraged schools to adopt Chinese as medium of instruction through affirmative action policies that favored schools that adopted Chinese as medium of instruction. The policy of affirmative action was adopted in 1986.50 It also suggested revising the English and Chinese syllabuses. Most importantly, it suggested the recruitment of expatriate lecturers of English for College of Education and local native speakers of English for secondary schools.51 This would come to be known as the Expatriate English Teachers Scheme. The ECR 2 appeared in September 1986 and made a few more follow-up suggestions to improve the quality of language teaching. The following is the text calling for the establishment of the Expatriate English Teachers Scheme:
We further RECOMMEND that the standard of English teachers and the quality of English teaching in schools be improved by the recruitment of expatriate lecturers of English for the Colleges of Education and the Institute of Language in Education (ILE). In addition, we note that although the existing code of aid for secondary schools allows schools to recruit up to three qualified expatriate language teachers, only a small proportion of schools have used this provision, largely because of the difficulty encountered over provision of housing for expatriate teachers. In our view, this problem is not unsurpassable and there is definite educational benefit to be gained from teaching English in schools by native English speakers. Accordingly, we RECOMMEND

50 51

So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 76. Poon, Medium of Instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and Practice, 159.

15

that secondary schools should be encouraged to employ locally available native English speakers with teaching qualifications to teach English.52

The ECR 4 is dated November 1990 and focused on many issues, one of which being language in education. The major difference between this report and reports in the past is the governments stronger stance on the issue of medium of education. Prior to the ECR 4, the government only encouraged Chinese as the medium of instruction in lower secondary schools, at the discretion of school authorities. The ECR 4 put forth a more clear-cut policy of grouping schools into three types: English-medium, Chinese-medium, and two-medium. Student would be required to learn through the medium of either English or Chinese, but not mixed code.53 This resulted in another proposal put forth in the ECR 4 was streaming policy. The following is the text of the guiding principles for the proposed framework for future reforms:
(i) (ii) (iii) secondary school authorities should be encouraged to adopt Chinese as the medium of instruction since, all other things being equal, teaching and learning would be generally more effective if the medium of instruction were Chinese; and individual school authorities should themselves decide whether their medium of instruction should be English or Chinese; and the use of mixed-code in schools should be reduced in favour of the clear and consistent use in each class of Chinese or English in respect of teaching, textbooks and examinations.54

Cantonese-English bilinguals in Hong Kong alternate between English and Cantonese in their speech. Such alteration is within a sentence is known as code mixing.55 Defined simply, it is the mixing of Cantonese and English in the same context (i.e. sentence, topic, lesson). In two studies John Gibbons studied the use of code-mixed variety of Chinese and English used by students in the University. According to Gibbons the variety of mixed code used by students had
52

Education Commission, Education Commission Report 1, (Hong Kong: Government Printer, October 1984), 3.13, emphasis not mine. 53 Poon, Medium of Instruction: Policy and Practice, 159. 54 Education Commission, Education Commission Report 4, (Hong Kong: Government Printer, November 1990), 6.4.1. 55 Brian Chan Hok-shing, How Does Cantonese-English Code-Mixing Work? in Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, ed. Martha Pennington (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998), 191.

16

three contributory elements: Cantonese which dominates at the phonological, lexical, syntactic, morphologic and semantic levels; a large element of borrowing from English; and an idiosyncratic element of its own.56 On the topic of mixed code, ECR 4 says:
We recognize that teaching and learning are generally more effective if the medium of instruction is either mother tongue or English unfortunately the use of mixed code is quite common in many of our classrooms. In English medium schools, while textbooks, written work and examinations are in English, teachers often use Cantonese to explain the lesson material to students and to conduct discussions with students. In some cases, this can lead to time being wasted on translation of English texts in class and, worse still, learning being reduced to rote memorization of facts in English. This time could be better spent on problem solving, analysis and discussion of issues, all of which would be of more value to students cognitive development. Clearly, students are disadvantaged if they study in a medium in which they are not proficient.57

The ECR reports consistently condemns the practice of code mixing in the classrooms of English medium schools. According to ECR 4, it would be better if one clear medium of instruction for teaching, textbooks, and examinations were used. This implied that the use of mixed code should be reduced as far as possible.58 The reports said that code mixing of the two languages would cause neither language to be learned properly. The reports made repeated suggestions and recommendations for the school to choose between one medium either Chinese or English, but not both. Despite strong appeals for a more open attitude toward code mixing, the ECRs remained adamantly against it. The guiding principles proposed a framework for Hong Kongs language-in-education policy: An objective assessment, for Primary 6 students moving onto Secondary School, was drawn from the target-related assessments in Chinese and English. The objective assessment instrument consisted of two parts one part to assess information-processing and study skills in Chinese and the other to assess achievement in English and the two assessments together will

56

Kingsley Bolton, Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 103, quoting Gibbons, 1979b: 34-5. 57 Education Commission, Education Commission Report 4, 6.4.3. 58 Education Commission, Education Commission Report 4, 6.4.4.

17

demonstrate whether a student has developed information-processing skills in the mother tongue which can then be transferred to English, and if so, whether he has enough English to start using English for study purposes in secondary school.59 Based on the results of these assessments, children will then be grouped into three groups according to their ability to learn in either Chinese or English. The three groups are as follows:
C Students who would learn best through the Chinese medium B Students who would probably learn better through the Chinese medium but who are possibly able also to learn in English E Students who are able to learn effectively in English many of whom could equally well learn in Chinese should they so wish 60

Furthermore, according to the report, only 30% of students may be able to learn effectively through English. The implications of this would mean 30% of students would be streamed into English-medium schools. The other 70% would be grouped into Chinese-medium or two-medium schools. The draft to ECR 6 leaked to the public in December 1995. It focused solely on the issue of language. ECR 6 made eight recommendations concerning (1) Formulation, monitoring and evaluation of policy; (2) Language goals and language development; (3) Teacher education and development; (4) The medium of instruction policy; (5) Teaching of Chinese and English as subjects; (6) The teaching and learning of Putonghua; (7) Support Services; and (8) Public perception and community participation.61 The authors believed that the establishment of wellfunded commissions, working groups or institutions would be best to solve the medium of instruction problem in schools. The ECR 6 set up the Language Fund and the Standing Committee on Language Education and Research,62 and formalized the Native English Teacher

59 60

Education Commission, Education Commission Report 4, 6.4.19. Education Commission, Education Commission Report 4, 6.4.19. 61 Education Commission, Education Commission Report 6, (Hong Kong: Government Printer, March 1996), 10-16. 62 Hereafter referred to as SCOLAR.

18

(NET) scheme. It also set up language proficiency standards for language teachers via benchmarking, as well as extending Putonghua teaching to all schools.63 IV. Post Handover A. Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools In April 1997, the Education Department issued a consultation document called Arrangements for Firm Guidance on Secondary Schools Medium of Instruction.64 The Firm Guidance proposed to implement the compulsory Chinese medium of instruction policy. Due to strong opposition, a revised document entitled Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools65 was issued in September 1997. A guideline for implementing the Chinese medium instruction policy was as follows:
3.2 Most secondary schools in Hong Kong should adopt Chinese for teaching all academic subjects, starting with their 1998/99 Secondary 1 intake and progressing each year to a higher level of secondary education. 3.3 Starting 1997, ED [Education Department] will provide MIGA [Medium of Instruction Grouping Assessment] information to schools in September Schools wishing to use, or to continue with, English must demonstrate to ED [Education Department] that they have satisfied the requirements: students ability, teacher capability and support strategies and programs.66

Guidance proposed to abolish two medium schools as operated within the streaming policy framework from the ECR 4. The guidelines affirmed that schools must teach all classes in Chinese starting September 1998 and that only schools that could prove that its pupils and teachers were of a high English standard could apply for exemption. At the beginning of December 1997, the Education Department announced that 100 of 124 secondary schools which had applied to be permitted to use English as medium of instruction met the requirements and would be allowed to be exceptions. Guidance prescribed that schools which intended to use

63 64

Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 371-2. Hereafter referred to as Firm Guidance. 65 Hereafter referred to as Guidance. 66 Education Commission , Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools, 3.2.

19

English as medium of instruction must demonstrate that they meet the following requirements for effective use of English to the Education Department:
Student Ability to be an average percentage of not less than 85% of Medium of Instruction Grouping Assessment (MIGA) Groups* I and III students in Secondary I in take for the past three years; Teacher capability to be based on the principals assessment and certification. (The language benchmark for teachers to be developed later, will serve as an objective basis. As necessary, ED inspectors will visit the schools to gather information on their state of readiness for using English as MOI); and Support Strategies and programs such as bridging courses give sound school-based assistance to students. * Group I: able to learn effectively in either Chinese of English Group II: able to learn more effectively in Chinese Group III: able to learn better in Chinese but may also learn effectively in English 67

Subsequently, after an appeals process, in February 1998, 14 additional secondary schools were permitted to use English as their medium of instruction. B. Liang Wen San Yu (Biliterate Trilingualism) The secondary status of Chinese was legally ended by Article 9 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR of the PRC on April 4, 1990. Article 9 says:
In addition to the Chinese Language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.68

Tung Chee-hwa, the first chief executive of Hong Kong, established in his first policy address in October 1997 the basis of the new governments language policy. The policy is commonly known as a policy of liang wen san yu (biliterate trilingualism). This means that the government is actively pursuing a language policy that enables the Hong Kong people to master written Chinese and English and speak fluent Cantonese, Putonghua, and English.69 C. Native English Teachers Scheme The Education Department intended to boost the English language proficiency of local students by recruiting 755 trained native English teachers (NETs). Under this scheme each
67 68

Education Commission, Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools, 2.4. The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the Peoples Republic of China 69 Education Commission, Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools, 1.

20

publicly funded secondary school has been provided with a NET recruited from overseas since 1998-99. This scheme was extended to primary schools in 2002-03 but due to financial constraints not all primary schools were entitled to a NET. Only those successful applicants got one and needed to share with another school.70 D. Benchmarking To ensure the quality of language teachers, the language benchmark test was first proposed in the ECF 6. The reason for setting language benchmarks is that according to the 2001 Teacher Survey conducted by the former Education Department of Hong Kong, there was a large proportion of language teachers that had not been subject-trained. It was assumed that the quality of language teaching cannot be guaranteed.71 The official language from the ECR 6 is quoted as saying, The draft of ECR 6 considered that benchmark qualifications should be developed to provide for a fully trained language teaching profession at primary and secondary levels as a long-term solution. The Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications (ACTEQ) has been invited to develop the concept. According to the report, the minimum language proficiency should be specified, which all teachers (not just teachers of language subjects) should meet, before they obtain their initial professional qualification. The standards should be designed to ensure that new teachers are competent to teach through the chosen medium of instruction.72 The benchmark tests were meant to provide an incentive to the serving language teachers. However, when the ACTEQ Task Force translated the policy into practice, the benchmark tests carried with them an overtone of penalty for the serving language teachers, who felt that their
70

Anita Poon, Language Policy of Hong Kong: Its Impact on Language Education and Language Use in PostHandover Hong Kong, Journal of Taiwan Normal University: Humanities and Social Science 49, no. 1 (2004): 61. 71 Poon, Language Policy of Hong Kong: Its Impact on Language Education and Language Use in Post-Handover Hong Kong, 61. 72 Education Commission, Education Commission Report 6, C1-C2.

21

teaching career would be threatened if they failed the test. This explained why when the first live benchmark tests for both English and Putonghua teachers were announced, they were strongly resisted by the teaching profession and 6,000 teachers took to the street in June 2000.73 Subsequently the Hong Kong government made some concessions and granted exemptions to the serving English teachers and those new teachers who are English majors. E. SCOLAR The draft of ECR 6 recommended that SCOLAR be set up under the Education Commission to conduct research into the language education needs of Hong Kong. Its mission was to develop policies designed to meet those needs and to monitor policies in a systemic manner.74 In June 2003, SCOLAR released the Action Plan to Raise Language Standards in Hong Kong (herein referred to as Action Plan). This policy reflected the biliterate-trilingual language policy since handover. The biliterate-trilingual policy from 1997 was ad hoc, but this policy is praised by Poon having more breadth and depth. The Action Plan signifies a change in the policy-makers perception of language use and in the nature of language in Hong Kong. Because SCOLAR was headed by a prominent figure in the business sector, it was natural that employers perspective is adopted in setting up language policies. The economic value of English and Chinese (Putonghua) was emphasized. V. The non-government sector: Language attitude studies Pierson et als 1980 study surveyed Hong Kong secondary students attitudes to English by asking subjects to rate statements regarding topics related to politics, interethnic relations, career, and education. They also asked students to rate the degree to which a number of stereotypes fit themselves, their ideal self, native speakers of Cantonese in Hong Kong, and
73

Poon, Language Policy of Hong Kong: Its Impact on Language Education and Language Use in Post-Handover Hong Kong, 61. 74 Education Commission, Education Commission Report 6, 2.

22

native English speakers in Hong Kong.75 The results showed that on the one hand, students were generally not in favor of English as the main official language of Hong Kong. They saw no specific social value attached to the use of English. Moreover, they felt that use of English threatened their Chinese identity.76 The research indicated that students saw the use of English and, by implication, Western values as a threat to Chinese identity. The students also had a fear of loss of their Chinese cultural identity in speaking English in that it covertly signaled their aversion to Cantonese.77 Before the Joint Declaration of 1984, Cantonese-speaking bilinguals held some negative views about the use of English and the associated Western cultural values. After 1984, there is some evidence of a possible shift in attitudes resulting form the weakened position of the British.78 The Pennington and Yue conducted a study in 1994 to measure the attitudes of Hong Kong Secondary School students as well, but they modified the Pierson et al study conducted in 1980. The research suggested that there was a change of language attitudes in light of significant political and social changes. The Pennington and Yue results indicated a strong motivation to learn English and an increased tolerance to the use of English in Hong Kong. Secondary Schools in this study did not associate the use of English with implicit threats to their Chinese identity. Nor did they feel English medium of instruction should be abandoned. Use of English was no longer associated with a loss of ethnolinguistic identity.79 These results indicated a change in language attitudes that may have been related to the changes that were anticipated the decade

75

Martha C. Pennington and Francis Yue, English and Chinese in Hong Kong: Pre-1997 Language Attitudes, World Englishes 13, no.1 (1994): 3. 76 Pennington and Yue, English and Chinese in Hong Kong: Pre-1997 Language Attitudes, 4 77 Pennington and Yue, English and Chinese in Hong Kong: Pre-1997 Language Attitudes, 5. 78 Pennington and Yue, English and Chinese in Hong Kong: Pre-1997 Language Attitudes, 6. 79 Maria Axler, Anson Yang, and Trudy Stevens, Current Language Attitudes of Hong Kong Chinese Adolescents and Young Adults, in Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, ed. Martha C. Pennington (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998), 330.

23

prior to handover to the PRC.80 Hong Kong people expressed greater eagerness to learn English while theres still time, in order to acquire a position that would ensure upward and outward mobility in the future.81 Axler et als replication study of Pennington and Yue reaffirmed that Hong Kong young people would not feel un-Chinese when using English. English no longer carried the connotation of the colonizers language. Instead, it was considered an international language for wider communication.82 There is a consistency in the response patterns across the Pennington and Yue investigation and Axler et als as opposed to the Pierson et al investigation. The pattern indicated with high probability that attitudes towards language in Hong Kong have changed during the past two decades (in reference to 1980 to 1998 timeframe). Axler et al attributes this change to the political and social transition that caused young people in Hong Kong to see themselves as distinct and characteristically bilingual group who do not feel un-Chinese when called upon to use English. They consider English an international language and no longer a primarily colonial language.83 Further more, whereas English is associated with outer values having to do with success, stylishness, and academic achievement, vernacular Cantonese has been relegated to the inner domain associated with values having to do with tradition, home.84 The Lai study, completed in 2001, compared the language attitudes of two groups of Hong Kong students the middle-class elite and the working class low-achievers. Her findings show that the middle-class elite group was more inclined to use English whereas the working class low-achievers tended to use vernacular Cantonese. However, an overall finding was that

80 81

Pennington and Yue, English and Chinese in Hong Kong: Pre-1997 Language Attitudes, 4. So, Language-based Bifucation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, Future, 78. 82 Mee-ling Lai, Hong Kong Students Attitudes Towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English After the Change of Sovereignty, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22, no.2 (2001): 115. 83 Axler et al., Current Language Attitudes of Hong Kong Chinese Adolescents and Young Adults, 337. 84 Pennington, Introduction: Perspectives on Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, 13.

24

students attitudes towards the three languages (Cantonese, Putonghua, and English) were positive. They perceived the most useful language to be English, Cantonese was the mother tongue and language of their local identity, and Putonghua was used for nationwide communication and gave them a sense of Chineseness.85 VI. Linguistic Imperialism in Hong Kong A. Pre-handover The Colonial-Policy Hypothesis can explain the development of a language-based bifurcation in the secondary school system in light of manipulative linguistic imperialism.86 That is, the colonization of Hong Kong led the local colonial administration to cultivate a class of bilingual people to bridge themselves with the native people of Hong Kong.87 Language bifurcation is linguistic imperialism because this division of language inherently places one language in a higher status than the other. Whether this was the intended effect or not, the cultural background of Hong Kongs language situation lent itself vulnerable the implications that would follow language bifurcation. Missionary schools can be considered an instrument of imperialism. Christianity is the indirect means to provide colonizers with a cheap, honest, God-fearing workforce, who also possess enough English ability to communicate with their superiors.88 However, according to Boyle, there is little evidence in Hong Kong missionary schools using them for this purpose. He cites Endacott saying, There is no reason to doubt that the churches were interested in education for its own sake.89 It was not until after the 1860s that two changes occurred. The first: because

85

Lai, Hong Kong Students Attitudes Towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English After the Change of Sovereignty, 130. 86 So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 72. 87 So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 71. 88 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177. 89 G.B. Endacott, A History of Hong Kong, 133.

25

the colony grew, the small expatriate civil service needed support from local Chinese with competent English skills to act as a bridge between the colonial administration and the local people.90 The second was the Hong Kong people realized the importance of knowing English. The British colonial government did not coerce the people of Hong Kong to learn English; they simply made it so that social conditions imparted importance and higher status to English. Learning English was appropriated as a pragmatic skill in the minds of the parents who willingly sent their children to English-medium schools. If parents wanted their children to be educated in a good government school, they had to accept English-medium. There is little evidence that parents felt oppressed by this policy.91 The early leavers of Government Central School who headed to the market place once they acquired some knowledge of the English language demonstrate pragmatism. Boyle says, Two early lessons, in fact, about English in Hong Kong can be learned from the story of Central School: first, Hong Kong Chinese have always seen English very pragmatically as a means of doing better business; and secondly, those with English quickly felt a sense of superiority over others.92 This is witnessed in the student clubs that excluded non-English speakers. There was no compulsion to learn English, especially considering education was voluntary during this time period. The commercial usefulness and social prestige bestowed by English simply made it a highly desirable commodity.93 Accordingly, language-based bifurcation can be dated back to the 1926 founding of the Government Vernacular Middle School. At the time of its founding, there were already sixteen English-medium secondary schools. The colonial administrations measures resulted in the

90 91

Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 173. Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177. 92 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177. 93 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177.

26

dominance of English schools. The government reallocated large amount of resources to English-medium schools to cultivate a Westernized English-speaking elite among the local population. However, Daniel So disagrees and finds complicates the linear logic of the ColonialPolicy Hypothesis. He pointing to another factor that he claims to have contributed to the development of language-based bifurcation. So points to the rise and fall of the Chinese Nationalist Government in Nanjing in 1928 and 1949, respectively. The development of Chinese medium secondary schools in Hong Kong was driven by developments in Mainland China. According to Whelpton, the promotion of a uniform spoken language became a major government objective in the twentieth century. In 1932, a standard Chinese based on Beijing pronunciation was officially promoted.94 During the Nationalist period in China, modern Chinese medium education found a national structure, a semblance of national unity which facilitated in the implementation of a national curriculum, as well as the popularization of a national language guoyu, or Putonghua.95 Due to patriotism and the influence of the Nationalist Chinese government, Hong Kong students favored Chinese middle schools, which used Chinese medium of instruction. Expansion of Chinese-medium secondary education in Hong Kong peaked as a result of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). When the war came, many Chinesemedium schools moved into Hong Kong, which became a haven for refugees from China.96 However, Sos discussion is moot after World War II and the subsequent collapse of the Nationalist regime led to the dramatic decline of Chinese-medium middle schools. After the Communist takeover of Mainland China in 1949, students were no longer willing to further their

94

Whelpton, Cantonese, English and Putonghua in a Hong Kong Secondary School: Language use and language attitudes, 81. 95 So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 72. 96 So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 73.

27

studies in the Mainland.97 The socio-economic transformation of Hong Kong and the post-1949 situation in China contributed to Hong Kong peoples perception that Chinese middle schools were anachronistic, and led these same people to over-select Anglo-Chinese Secondary School.98 The founding of the English-medium University was practical rather than ideological: the Administration needed its English-speaking elite and the University was an obvious way of getting this.99 In the context of linguistic imperialism, the founding of the University as an English-medium paved the way for Englishisation.100 The decision to make the University English-medium had a trickle down effect on the secondary schools and weakened the prospects of proliferation and growth for Chinese medium schools because having an English-medium tertiary institution increased the need for English-medium feeder secondary schools.101 The colonial administrations self-sustaining infrastructure of education produced an Englishspeaking elite, but did not over-educate the population at large.102 In accordance to the second type of linguistic imperialism, the education system of neocolonialism is that the colonizers are replaced by local elites who are educated in the tradition of the colonizers. The founding of Chinese University of Hong Kong seemed to be a milestone for vernacular education. The founding of CUHK can also be an example of clever manipulation, which is one type of linguistic imperialism. The colonial government called it the Chinese University to appease the Chinese-medium promoters while knowing that the University would actually strengthen the cause of English-medium education.103 As stated, secondary students coming from English medium middle schools had an easier time gaining admittance. Their
97 98

Poon, Chinese Medium of Instruction Policy an its Impact on English Learning in Post-1997 Hong Kong, 133. So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 79. 99 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177. 100 Wimal Dissanayake, Symposium on Linguistic Imperialism; Perspective 1, World Englishes 12 no.3 (1993): 339. 101 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177. 102 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 178. 103 Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177.

28

advantage stemmed from the fact that the exit exams for [English and Chinese medium] secondary schools were had an English paper component. Furthermore, there was a lack of proper teaching materials and teaching staff for CUHK. According to Boyle, government reports published prior to handover can be read as genuine efforts to find a balanced solution to Hong Kong medium of instruction problem, but these Education Reports were verbose and ineffectual.104 Poon says, There was, in fact, no implementation plan included in this medium of instruction policy, thus rendering it a policy on paper only.105 Phillipson also identified this problem in his analysis of colonial linguistic inheritance. He says, many of the analyses and reports over the years have, with considerable insight and sensitivity, raised the relevant issues (the role of the mother tongue, integrating education into the community, getting relevant research don), but there has not been effective action thereafter.106 The Expatriate English Teachers Scheme was one of the more obvious examples of linguistic imperialism. According to Boyle, the local Chinese Teachers Union had given a rational, explicit critique of the scheme to the Education Department. But their comments were note taken seriously and the EETS was pushed forward. It ran into the problems that were predicted by the local teachers. However, the scheme was deemed successful by the Education Department. Not surprisingly, they had to ask the Legislative Councils Finance Committee for more funding to recruit more teachers.107 In a document circulated within the provisional legislative councils finance committee, the Government planned to spend HK$22.15 million on

104 105

Boyle, Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong, 177. Poon, Language Policy of Hong Kong: Its Impact on Language Education and Language Use in Post-Handover Hong Kong, 56. 106 Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism, 132, emphasis mine. 107 Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 408.

29

a recruitment campaign for 755 native English teachers in the following year. The scheme, known as the scheme would cost a total of HK$1.2 billion.108 With the issue of code mixing, the governments stance has been stringent and vociferously intolerant. What the government may realize is that if code mixing is accepted, it can complicate the whole language dynamic. Diglossia is a model of bilingualism where two languages can coexist in a community only when their functions and domains are different and complementary.109 Historically, Hong Kong has been a speech community classified as diglossic. Diglossia results from a combination of factors: government mandates concerning the use of a particular language in official contexts, and social influences pressuring the use of another language with different audiences in different communicational contexts. A community has little need for two languages that serve the same function.110 When the political and social conditions change and a community no longer has reason to maintain two separate language, the reality of the conditions of language use may overwhelm actual legal constraints. One language will take over the domains of the other, or else compromise code into a mixture of the two original languages. According to Pennington and Ballas research on education insight, which provides into language use among graduate and undergraduate TESL students in Hong Kong,111 the older group of post-graduate students was more inclined to use English. However, both graduates with secondary teaching experience and undergraduates who have not taught before reported mixed language use. Furthermore, both languages are used in the tutorial context by both groups of TESL students. One language, generally the most politically correct/socially useful one, will
108 109

Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 532-33. Martha C. Pennington, Introduction: Perspectives on Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, in Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, ed. Martha Pennington (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998), 4. 110 Martha C. Pennington and John Balla, Our Future English Teachers: Language Use Among Graduate and Undergraduate TESL Students in Hong Kong, in Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, ed. Martha Pennington (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998), 243 111 Teachers of English as a Second Language

30

serve as the syntactic base/matrix language, of the mixed code, while the other serves as a source of lexical items.112 Basically, legitimating code mixing would render the diglossic model defunct and complicate the implementation of the streaming policy. The streaming policy represents the closest Hong Kongs colonial government has ever come to compulsion and linguistic imperialism. It could be said that the colonial government was being pragmatic and laissez-faire in allowing heads of schools to choose the medium of instruction for their own school. But on another interpretation, it could be said that the colonial government was being cleverly manipulative again. The colonial governments refusal to act decisively on the question of the medium of instruction was deliberate and intentional. The colonial administration did not want to face the controversy that would ensue if it decreed Chinese to be the mandatory medium of instruction.113 The Linguistic Society of Hong Kong laid out an argument that objected to the streaming policy because if [the streaming policy is] adopted and implemented, the plan would have the self-defeating consequence of lowering the status of Chinese-medium education.114 But in spite of their objections, the Education Department went ahead with implementation in the 1994-1995 school year. B. Postcolonial Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools was seen as a restoration of mother-tongue education, but in reality, it was an elitist language policy. In terms of linguistic imperialism, this was the first time in Hong Kongs history that compulsion in the matters of language was used. It was more forceful than the streaming policy proposed in ECR 4. Parents

112

Pennington & Balla, Our Future English Teachers: Language Use Among Graduate and Undergraduate TESL Students in Hong Kong, 244. 113 Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, 77. 114 Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, Education Commission Report No. 4: A Response, in Into the 21st Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong, ed. K.K. Luke (Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1992), 172, emphasis mine.

31

were forced to accept Chinese-medium against their will because schools no longer had the freedom to choose the medium of instruction policy that was appropriate for their specific school. The Education Department maintained that parents did not know what was good for their children. P. K. Choi says that government propaganda promoting the educational benefits of learning in the mother tongue was contradictory. What was best for children educationally was NOT what was desired by parents. 115 Most parents knew that there was a large element of political motivation in the new policy.116 Like the parents, Poon also understands this out of character compulsory language issue in light of the political context. She says, Why did the Education Department make such an abrupt move (issuing Guidance) while implementation of the streaming policy is in full swing? I argue that it was a political move a gesture to appease China.117 By abolishing two-medium schools, the Education Department created a two-language dichotomy that did not accurately reflect the language situation in Hong Kong. Guidance called for all secondary schools to teach in mother tongue except for those 114 secondary schools that met strict requirements to remain English medium. Poon says, The impact of the Chinese medium of instruction policy on the public was immediately felt. At once schools are dichotomized into English-medium schools and Chinese-medium schools. The former are perceived as first class schools and the latter are second class schools. The dominant social value that English is superior to Chinese is further reinforced.118 Furthermore, Choi says, that Guidance was flawed for two reasons, one of which being Guidance was drawn up without

115

P.K. Choi, The best students will learn English: ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic imperialism in education in post-1997 Hong Kong, Journal of education policy 18 no. 6 (2003): 674. 116 Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, 78. 117 Anita Poon, Chinese Medium Instruction Policy and its Impact on English Learning in Post-1997 Hong Kong, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 2 no. 2 (1999): 139. 118 Poon, Medium of Instruction in Hong Kong, 357.

32

taking into account that English [is] a signifier of power and wealth in the post-colonial context of Hong Kong, and hence language selection was blatantly segregationist and socially divisive.119 Upon careful examinations of the implications, Guidance actually reinforces the bifurcation of language in society by segregating Chinese medium schools and English medium schools to opposite extreme. It is not a coincidence that all 114 of the English medium schools in Hong Kong right now are Band 1 schools as opposed to Band 3 schools (which are comprised of Chinese-medium secondary schools). Furthermore, Lais study in 2001 showed that the middleclass elite group was more inclined to use English whereas the working class low-achievers tended to use vernacular Cantonese. The use of English and the ability to use English has inherently become associated with people in the elite group, whereas use of vernacular Cantonese is associated with low achievement. The change to Chinese medium had benefited Hong Kongs growing number of international schools as well. The number of applications for Hong Kongs various international schools has increased exponentially despite their high costs.120 In the years following handover, parents and students placed pressure to gain admittance into schools that used English as the medium of instruction. An example of this point of view in action would be the Jockey Club Ti I College. Jockey Club Ti I College was one of fourteen schools granted the right to teach in English in February 1998, but the principal said that the school was likely to have to cut class sizes for the following academic year due to inadequate student applications. They received more applications after the committee announced they were now an English medium school, but the number of applications was still drastically fewer than they had received the year before. The school had a 95% drop in
119

Choi, The best students will learn English: ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic imperialism in education in post1997 Hong Kong, 675. 120 Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, 79.

33

applications for Secondary 1 places for the 1998/99 school year. The principal commented that some parents were fearful that the lessons would be in Cantonese. Even after winning the appeals process, parents were still unclear of the schools language policy.121 On the other hand, schools that had been granted the exemption from the Medium of Instruction Policy were inundated with applications from anxious students and their parents.122 In reference to the Liang Wen San Yu (Bilingual Tri-literate) policy, Chao quotes five points from Tungs speech. Some of the more memorable and relevant ones include
84. Confidence and competence in the use of Chinese and English are essential if we are to maintain our competitive edge in the world. The education commission Report No. 6 has already laid down a framework to achieve our goal for secondary school graduates to be proficient in writing English and Chinese and able to communicate confidently in Cantonese, English, and Putonghua 85. Greater use of mother tongue teaching will help raise the standard of teaching in non-language subjects. It will also allow more time to be given to teaching of English and Chinese so that all language standards may be raised. 86. To make an immediate impact on improving the English language standard of our students, we will implement a new Native-speaking English Teachers Scheme123

The emphasis on competence in the use of Chinese and English sets up a hierarchy of English capacity, whereby the native English speaker naturally stands on top. And because this hierarchy is taken to be universal, this view has an imperialist slant.124 The newly repackaged Native English Teachers scheme also reinforces linguistic imperialism. A substantial amount of money is spent on recruiting foreign English language teachers to come to Hong Kong and local teachers are being made to feel inadequate when compared to foreign teachers. Furthermore, there were English language teacher shortages, which meant an unequal distribution of NETs certain schools had NETs and others did not. This further perpetuated the dichotomy between high band schools and lower band schools.

121 122

Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 537. Sweeting, Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001, 541. 123 Sun, Hong Kongs Language Policy in the Post Colonial Age: Social Justice and Globalization, 285. 124 Choi, The best students will learn English: ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic imperialism in education in post1997 Hong Kong, 685.

34

Schools that did not have a strong English language program were subject to parents distaste and did not attract as many high aptitude applicants as schools that had their own NET. Lai explains that the NET scheme carries sociopolitical implications as a product of neocolonialism and a buffer for the implementation of compulsory Mother Tongue Education.125 In terms of linguistic imperialism, benchmark testing of causes language teachers to feel inadequate and threatened by the possibility of failure of the test. The alternative is training courses. Benchmark testing of Hong Kong language teachers is coercing teachers to submit to an imperialistically motivated standard. Benchmarks fall into the first category of linguistic imperialism compulsion. It basically undermines the governments confidence in its local language teachers and puts increasing pressure on the teachers to perform to a standard that they had no voice in establishing. Some are longtime language teachers who may or may not teach purely in English due to the level of their ability. In testing them, the government is able to ascertain where the higher performing teachers are located and to give remedial help to the lower performing teachers. The very fact that they have to perform to a certain standard is indicative of the adherence to purist standard British English practices. The implication of benchmarking is an intolerance of Hong Kong English as a legitimate variety of English. This is disconcerting news for long-time teachers who did not have to adhere to this language standard when they began teaching during the period of Anglo-Chinese schools proliferation just a couple decades earlier. VII. Explanations for Linguistic Imperialism in Hong Kong Why are Hong Kong parents not happy with the governments policy of promoting mother tongue education? Why on earth do Hong Kong parents not want their children to learn in their mother tongue? As has been propagated by academics like Poon, Pennington and Yue, and Sweeting, that language-in-education policy does not happen within a vacuum. There are
125

Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, 80.

35

social, cultural, political, and economic factors that play into language planning. The answer lies in the cultural background the English language in Hong Kong. Visionary scholars in Hong Kong already recognize that Cantonese is no use outside southern China and pockets of Chinese immigrant communities worldwide. Professor Cheng Kaiming of University of Hong Kong says, Im not quite sure the majority is the choice, you also have to think of the utility of the language. Cantonese is leading us no where.126 The dominance of English is evident in Professor Chengs statement. This reflects back on Dr. Pennycooks questioning of passive acceptance of international English. English ideology has saturated public discourse to the extent that even people in Hong Kong who are unable to speak English naturally accept its importance. According to So, during the last thirty years of economic growth, anybody who possesses English skills and secondary education qualification will become a white collar professional. Furthermore, English-medium secondary education has become the principal determinant of upward and outward mobility for the people of Hong Kong.127 Although Cantonese is a means of identification amongst Hong Kong people, it has never been the language of social mobility. The power structure of the SAR has changed very little from its colonial form. It has made a point, as demonstrated in its Basic Law, to be different from the PRC. The retaining of this colonial form of government reinforces the publics belief in English as the key to a successful career. A disconnect exists between government rhetoric about the benefits of mother tongue education and the reality of society that rewards English-speakers over mother tongue speakers. The salaries of university faculty are three to ten times higher that the average incomes of people

126 127

Sun, Hong Kongs Language Policy in the Postcolonial Age, 303. So, Language Based Bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present, and Future, 78.

36

from different occupations.128 A teaching position in the universities is considered to be a good job. As medium of instruction in Hong Kongs universities is primarily English, a high level of English proficiency is a prerequisite for a teaching position in a Hong Kong university. There is a correlation between a persons English language ability and his/her career prospects.129 Another possible reason for linguistic imperialism in Hong Kong can be explained by the business sector. Business interests draw on the utilitarian discourse of pragmatism and claim that English is key for Hong Kongs economic survival. Aside from the fact that Hong Kong was politically run by the British colonial government for over 150 years, the sociocultural environment has also developed in such a way as to induce certain economic factors one of which being Hong Kong as an international business and finance center. The British were able to turn Hong Kong from an intellectually backward fishing village in the 1840s into a thriving Asian metropolis of today. It is precisely due to such economic factors that the push to maintain the purist English standard is so strong. Choi says, The role of business in shaping language policy grew to such an extent that they actually found their way into official documents.130 In 1989, the English Language Campaign was launched by a group of the largest most influential business in the territory in 1989 to promote greater use of English. The Federation of Hong Kong industry and 10 Chambers of Commerce founded the Coalition on Education in the Business Sector in 1999. The English in the Workplace Campaign was launched in February 2000 by the government as a response to the business sectors call for higher standards of English.131 The present SAR government is very much oriented towards the world of business, which always tends to favor elitist methods in education. Much of the impetus for the forceful methods that the
128 129

See Appendix 1 Sun, Hong Kongs Language Policy in the Postcolonial Age, 295-96. 130 Choi, The best students will learn English: ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic imperialism in education in post1997 Hong Kong, 684. 131 Poon, Medium of Instruction: Policy and Practice, 168.

37

government has been displaying in education has come from Hong Kongs business community, not the education sector.132 The second possible reason is drawn from attitude studies. Attitudes to language are strongly responsive to contextual conditions. Alternatively called the Religious Economies Theory when it was used to explain religious commitment, the Rational Choice Theory can explain the attitudes that Hong Kong students hold towards language in education. Take for example the Irish Catholics of Quebec. When the British seized Canada from France, French Canadian attendance of Mass became inseparable from political and cultural resistance. The church was the only major organization under French Canadian control. The Church became equivalent to French Canada. For French Canadians, the Catholic Church protected their rights, guarded their institutions, and preserved their French culture and language. History Elizabeth Armstrong in The Crisis of Quebec writes, Doubtless there are many people who do not accept the teaching of the Church, but they are apt to go to mass and keep their opinions to themselves.133 Beginning with the quiet revolution from 1960 to 1966, French Canadians began to acquire rights over their own institutions and in 1974 the National Assembly adopted French as Quebecs official language. The Church was no longer the sole guardian of French Canadians institutions and culture. Sociologists of religion, Finke and Starke write:
Stripped of its significance as the organizational basis for resisting outside domination, the Catholic Church in Quebec quickly began to display inefficiencies Catholic Church generates greater commitment in places where it is a minority faith. If religious firms become significantly less important as vehicles for social conflict, they will be correspondingly less able to generate commitment. No longer the guardian of French institutions and culture, the Church is generating less commitment.134

132 133

Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong, 83 Elizabeth Armstrong, The Crisis of Quebec: 1914-18 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1937), 38 134 Roger Finke and Rodney Starke, The Dynamics of Religious Economies, in Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, ed. Michelle Dillon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 108.

38

In the same way, Hong Kong Chinese were the powerless group. Quantitatively they were in the majority, but in relation to power, they were the minority. To draw a proper analogy, the French Canadians in the previous example represent the Hong Kong people. Their going to mass represents Hong Kong people holding onto the usage of vernacular Cantonese. French Canadians acquiring political rights is analogous to Hong Kongs return to the PRC and the drop in mass attendance represents the influx of English into language use in Hong Kong. This includes the general acceptance of code mixing and the change to positive attitudes towards English use in all domains, not just the outer domains. As shown by the Pierson et al study, there were strong inclinations to Cantonese and Chinese heritage. So much so that Pierson said the surveyed people held negative opinions of English. However, Pennington and Yue, Axler et al, and Lai revealed a change in attitudes toward English. Over the course of two decades, Hong Kong people were less negative because the threat to their Chinese-ness has dissipated with the Joint Declaration of 1984 and the assurance that they would be reunified with their heritage, with China. The need to cling onto Cantonese was lessened because their Chinese ethnicity could be affirmed in another way. They no longer needed to rely on language to affirm their ethnicity. Rather, their nationality was officially affirmed in the political realm. Hong Kong was going to revert back to whence they came and whence their history originated they were reverting back to the sovereignty of their cultural roots back to the Peoples Republic of China. Under this political change, vernacular Cantonese language identity was no longer the vehicle for social change. Pennington & Ballas results of the difference between new undergrad language teachers and older postgraduate language teachers, results prove that diglossia is no longer an applicable model, especially in the context of education. English is no longer necessarily reserved for high functions. Instead, it

39

seems to have become socially acceptable, even amongst language teachers, to use a mix mode of teaching language. This means the younger teachers have seemingly appropriated English for themselves, creating a variety of Hong Kong English. VIII. Conclusion The construct of linguistic imperialism has been applied to selected episodes of language in education in Hong Kong. These include the founding of missionary schools, Government Central School, Government Vernacular School, University of Hong Kong, and Chinese University of Hong Kong. The theory of linguistic imperialism has also been applied to government reports such as the Education Commission Reports 1, 2, 4, and 6. Although the charge of linguistic imperialism can be leveled against colonial administrative government, it is not completely helpful in understanding the language situation. There are other confounding factors such as Hong Kong pragmatism and the events happening in Mainland China at that time. It has been seen that the accusation of linguistic imperialism can be leveled only at some aspects of the colonial governments language policy. Linguistic imperialism of the second type in the form of manipulation and clever coercion was most characteristic of pre-handover Hong Kong. Moreover, the notion of linguistic imperialism can also be extended to Hong Kongs postcolonial government as well. The SAR government commits the first type of linguistic imperialism - in the form of compulsion. The examples of the SAR governments compulsory actions include Guidance which stipulated all but 114 secondary schools had to teach in the medium of Chinese. Recent politics that reinforces language bifurcation include the NET scheme and the benchmark tests. These go beyond manipulation and into the phase of compulsion.135 Furthermore, they have not remedied the social stratification that has occurred due to their language in education policy. For the future, academics such as Poon and So are
135

Boyle, Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong,83.

40

calling for language planning a corpus plan that would entail true bilingual education. Bilingual education for all would minimize the dichotomy that exists between English medium and Chinese medium schools, and would provide equal opportunity and social justice for the students in Hong Kong. Prior to Chinese being made a co-official language, Chinese and English stood in opposition to one another but oppositional tendency has subsided. In certain contexts English is no longer perceived as colonial language, but as an international language permitting universal communication instead. However blind acceptance of the pragmatic value of English ought to be questioned. Academics have failed to problematize dominant language ideologies that have justified a socially unjust language policy. Economic and political forces that may not necessarily be the natural order of things have imposed the establishment of English as a lingua franca. However, the overall pattern of language in education in Hong Kong has reflected Ansres definition of linguistic imperialism: Hong Kong people still believe they can and should use English when it comes to transactions dealing with more advanced aspects of life. The postcolonial government may use rhetoric that supports the propagation of Chinese, specifically Cantonese, but the reality is they want to create a biliterate trilingual society. The creation of a biliterate trilingual society may come at the expense of one language over another. The majority of students are barred from sufficient exposure to English the language of upward and outward mobility and this stems from the unquestioned privileging of the access to the learning of English. Bibliography Primary Sources Education Commission. Education Commission Report No. 1. Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1984.

41

Education Commission. Education Commission Report No. 2. Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1986. Education Commission. Education Commission Report No. 4. Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1990. Education Commission. Education Commission Report No. 6. Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1996. Education Commission. Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools. Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1997. Secondary Sources Armstrong, Elizabeth. The Crisis of Quebec. New York: Columbia University Press, 1937. Axler, Maria, Anson Yang, and Trudy Stevens. Current Language Attitudes of Hong Kong Chinese Adolescents and Young Adults. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 329-338. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998. Bacon-Shone, John and Kingsley Bolton. Charting Multilingualism: Language Censuses and Language Surveys in Hong Kong. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 44-91. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998. Bolton, Kingsley. Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Boyle, Joseph. Imperialism and the English Language in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 18, no. 3 (1997): 169-181. Boyle, Joseph. Linguistic Imperialism and the History of English Language Teaching in Hong Kong. In English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, ed. by Kwok-kan Tam and Timothy Weiss, 65-83. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2004. Bruce, Nigel. Language in Hong Kong Education and Society: A Bibliography. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, 1996. Choi, P.K. The best students will learn English: ultra-utilitarianism and linguistic imperialism in education in post-1997 Hong Kong. Journal of education policy 18 no. 6 (2003): 673694. Dissanayake,W. Symposium on linguistic imperialism. World Englishes 12, no. 3 (1993): 336341.

42

Endacott, George Beer A History of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1973. Finke, Roger and Rodney Starke, The Dynamics of Religious Economies. In Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, ed. Michelle Dillon, 96-109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 108. Lai, Mee-ling. Hong Kong Students Attitudes Towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English After the Change of Sovereignty. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22, no. 2 (2001):112-133. Lee, Wing On. Social Class, Language and Achievement. In Schooling in Hong Kong: Organization, Teaching and Social Context, edited by Gerard A. Postiglione and Wing On Lee, 155-174. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997. Lin, Angel and Champa Detaramani. By Carrot and by Rod: Extrinsic Motivation and English Language Attainment of Hong Kong Tertiary Students. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 285-302. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong. Appendix I: A Blueprint for Linguistic Chaos: A Critique of the Report of the Working Group Set up to Review Language Improvement Measures. In Into the 21st Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong, edited by Kang Kwong Luke, 157-165. Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1992. Linguistic Society of Hong Kong. Appendix II: Education Commission Report No. 4: A Response. In Into the 21st Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong, edited by Kang Kwong Luke, 167-177. Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1992. Lord Robert, and Benjamin K. Tsou. The Language Bomb. Hong Kong: Longman Group (Far East) Ltd, 1985. Luke, Kang Kwong. Introduction to Into the 21st Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong, edited by Kang Kwong Luke. Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1992. Pennington, Martha C. Introduction: Perspective on Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 340. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998. Pennington, Martha C. and John Balla. Our Future Teachers: Language Use Among Graduates and Undergraduate TESL Students in Hong Kong. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 243-264. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998.

43

Pennington, Martha C. and Francis Yue. English and Chinese in Hong Kong: pre-1997 language attitudes. World Englishes 13, no. 1 (1994): 1-20. Phillipson, Robert. Linguistic Imperialism. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pierson, Herbert . Societal Accomodation to English and Putonghua in Cantonese-Speaking Hong Kong. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 91-112. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998. Pierson, Herbert D., Gail S. Fu, and Sik-yum Lee. An analysis of the relationship between language attitudes and English attainment of secondary school students in Hong Kong. Language Learning 30 (1980): 289-316. Poon, Anita Y.K. Chinese Medium of Instruction Policy an its Impact on English Learning in Post-1997 Hong Kong. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 2, no. 2 (1999): 131-146. Poon, Anita Y.K. Language policy of Hong Kong: Its impact on language education and language use in post-handover Hong Kong. Journal of Taiwan Normal University 49, no. 1 (2004): 53-74. Poon, Anita Y.K. Medium of Instruction in Hong Kong: Policy and Practice. Maryland: University Press of America, 2000. Postiglione, Gerard A. The Decolonization of Hong Kong Education. In Education and Society in Hong Kong: Toward One Country and Two Systems, edited by Gerard A. Postiglione, 3-38. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1991. Postiglione, Gerard A. Schooling and Social Stratification. In Schooling in Hong Kong: Organization, Teaching and Social Context, edited by Gerard A. Postiglione and Wing On Lee, 137-153. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1997. Scollon, Ron. Hong Kong Language in Context: The Discourse of Chu. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 277-282. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998. So, Daniel W.C. Language-based bifurcation of Secondary Schools in Hong Kong: Past, Present and Future. In Into the 21st Century: Issues of Language in Education in Hong Kong, edited by Kang Kwong Luke, 69-95. Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong, 1992. Sun, Chao Fen. Hong Kongs Language Policy in the Postcolonial Age. In Crisis and Transformation in Chinas Hong Kong, edited by Ming K. Chan and Alvin Y. So, 283306. London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2002.

44

Sweeting, Anthony. A Phoenix Transformed: The Reconstruction of Education in Post-War Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1993. Sweeting, Anthony. Education in Hong Kong, 1941-2001. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004. Walters, Steve and John Balla. Medium of Instruction: Policy and Reality at One Hong Kong Tertiary Institution. In Language in Hong Kong at Centurys End, edited by Martha C. Pennington, 365-390. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1998. Whelpton, John. The future of Cantonese: Current Trends. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, no. 1 (1999): 43-58. Whelpton, John. Cantonese, English and Putonghua in a Hong Kong Secondary School: Language use and language attitudes. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 4, no. 2 (1999): 71-91.

45