Englishization in Asia 9789627707783, 9789627707622

Citation preview

Open University of Hong Kong Press The Open University of Hong Kong 30 Good Shepherd Street Ho Man Tin, Kowloon Hong Kong Fax: (852) 2396 5009 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/OUHKpress.htm © The Open University of Hong Kong, 2009 All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher and all individual copyright holders. ISBN: 978-962-7707-62-2 Printed in Hong Kong

Contents

Preface Introduction: Englishization in Asia – Language and cultural issues Kwok-kan Tam

v vii

1

English and glocal identities on Web 2.0: The case of Flickr.com

1



Carmen Lee and David Barton

2

Hybridity in language and identity: Englishization in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia



Kwok-kan Tam

3

Englishization as an aspect of building Singapore identity



Lian-Hee Wee

4

Englishization of higher education in Asia: A sociological enquiry 70



Kosaku Yoshino

5

Englishization through World English as a cultural commodity: Literacy practices in global Malaysian higher education



Koo Yew Lie

6

Linguistic, cultural and identity issues in Englishization of Putonghua



Xu Zhichang

7

Which way of life? Chinese college students’ perceptions and values in China’s Englishization



Liu Yan and Guo Yingtao

32

46

88

119

140

8

Englishization or sinicization? English in the Hong Kong cultural scene



Mike Ingham

9

Englishization in Japanese popular culture: Representation of ethnicity



Andrew Moody

10

Englishization with an attitude: Cantonese-English lyrics in Hong Kong



Angel M Y Lin

162

183

207

Notes on Contributors

218

Index

222

v

Preface

What is Englishization? What has it to do with the cultures of Asia? Does speaking English mean that people are ‘Englishized’? Such questions have been raised not only in Asia, but also in Europe, as English has now become the most important language for international communication and higher education. It has even replaced the mother tongue as the first language in some Asian countries. ‘Englishization’ is a term generally used to describe the transformation which takes place in non-English cultures and languages as a result of exposure to the English language. In literary writings as well as daily conversation, English phrases and words are adopted and used in new ways which deviate from their meanings in the original language, resulting in the increasing hybridization of languages. Englishization has become one of the major forces that shape the language and culture of the present and future world – it is a social phenomenon that affects the lives of so many people. The essays collected in this volume, which are written by experts in the field, explore a range of issues related to language, cultural changes and constructs as a result of Englishization in Asia, including the creative use of English in Asian arts, television, film, popular culture and literary writings. The essays also deal with debates on issues of politics, identity and attitude behind language use. They are brought together to shed light on how English has entered into the social fabric of life in Asia. I would like to thank the many friends and colleagues who helped coordinate the project on Englishization in Asia, including Julia Woo, Yomei Shaw and members of the Comparative Literature Research

vi

Programme at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Without their support, the project would not have become a reality. Thanks are also due to Ronnie Carr and Linda Chow of the Open University of Hong Kong Press for their editorial work on the book.

Kwok-kan Tam May 2009

vii

Introduction: Englishization in Asia – Language and cultural issues Kwok-kan Tam

Englishization refers to the process in which the English language has exerted influence upon other languages and transformed them according to the linguistic rules of English. It is a phenomenon resulting from the contact of English with other languages. Related to Englishization is the process of nativization which refers to the adoption or acculturation of English according to the linguistic rules of the native language. Both processes can be found in the contact of English with other languages. Since the age of colonialism, and recently of globalization, English has risen from the status of an interlanguage to that of an international language, and now a global language. It is the language of international business, travel, information and technology, and hence of power and dominance. As such, Englishization is not limited to language change and mix, but extends to cultural transformation and identity construction. Englishization has been examined extensively from the perspective of contact linguistics. Many studies focus on how the use of English has produced an effect on other languages, such as how English syntactic structures are used in Asian languages, or how English sounds have influenced pronunciation in Asia. These linguistic studies – which are more concerned with the language form than with language ideology and its cultural implications – are very valuable as they show how the features of an alphabetic language can have an impact upon those that are non-alphabetic. In his work on Englishization (1994), Braj Kachru has pointed out all the main features that can be examined in terms of contact linguistics, including lexicalization and grammar; and in almost all Asian languages that have come under the influence of English, at least some features of Englishization can be found.

viii

There has also been research focusing on how the use of English in nonEnglish-speaking countries has made an impact on learning processes and outcomes in educational settings, as well as attitudes and values in people’s preferences. For instance, studies that probe into the adoption of English as a second language in Singapore deal with young Singaporeans’ changes in cultural identity. Such studies are concerned with the learning or educational implications of Englishization, but they also illustrate the interesting phenomenon of how language use affects people’s cultural identity and values. Commenting on Englishization, Braj Kachru remarks: ‘It does not refer only to phonology, grammar and lexis, but goes beyond these levels into discourse, registers and styles and development of literary genres. Thus, this extended use of the term takes us into various genres of literature written in what Western scholars have generally referred to as “vernaculars” – a term loaded with attitudinal and functional connotations’ (Kachru 2005, 102).

English in global media In Linguistic Imperialism (1992, 30), Robert Phillipson comments that the ‘privileged position of English is in part perpetuated by the dominance of English in the media’. This remark is significant in understanding that much of what happens in daily life is reported, analysed and interpreted through English, a perspective that entails the cultural dominance of Anglo-American views on world affairs. The nineteenth century was marked by the formation of political and professional systems in the world that were based largely on British models. As a result of British colonialism, BBC English has for long been considered the standard world English, with Britain serving as the centre linking up not only the colonies and excolonies, but also all the other countries in Asia that have been greatly influenced by Britain. However, although the BBC remains influential in Europe, CNN (Cable News Network) has now replaced it as the preferred broadcast channel in Asia, connecting Asia to the rest of the world through English. The twentieth century witnessed the rise of the United States, gradually replacing Britain as a dominant world power, and the formation of global economic and communication systems, all of which rely on English as a medium.

ix

The emergence of the global media, particularly the Internet, makes it possible for people of different languages and cultures to be connected and communicate with each other. In Chapter 1 of this book, ‘English and glocal identities on Web 2.0: The case of Flickr.com’, Carmen Lee and David Barton show how English has become the lingua franca in the Internet, but their findings about Flickr.com also confirm that a process of nativization is going on:



Thus, an additional point we would like to make is that the growing amount of self-generated content on Web 2.0 sites is reinforcing the spread of non-English languages in an online context. In social network spaces on Web 2.0 such as Flickr it is easy to get started and ordinary Web users have unprecedented power of choice and creativity online. On Web 1.0, the choice of website language lies with the Web authors; but on Web 2.0, it is the Web users who decide which language(s) should be used on their sites. Compared to traditional webpages, these sites are indeed developing themselves into a truly multilingual space of communication. In turn, we also expect that new literacy practices on Web 2.0 sites such as Flickr and the greater space for multilingualism construct new linguistic identities (p. 9).

In their study, Lee and Barton (pp. 7–8) examine ‘the co-existence of English and other languages in the context of Flickr and the ways in which people deploy their linguistic resources’ and they also ‘consider the motivations for using English and non-English languages on Flickr’. Any user who surfs the Internet frequently will concur with Lee and Barton that there is increasing contestation between English and the local languages, with Englishization and nativization occurring at the same time. A similar phenomenon can also be found in other global media, as well as in Hollywood films, with more and more use of Englishized Asian languages. It is obvious that English is not simply a linguistic means for communication, but also a medium heavily loaded with cultural values and carries with it ideological judgements. In his book The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language (1994), Alastair Pennycook claims that the spread of English has brought with it Western cultural values and imposed them upon other civilizations. It has been argued in many sociolinguistic studies that language is accorded social values and the use

x

of a language is often associated with a certain class or caste. For example, in the Hong Kong writer Xu Xi’s novel The Unwalled City, characters who speak English denote that they are educated or have a Western background; and in D H Lawrence’s short story Odour of Chrysanthemums, characters speak different dialects of English to register their difference in class status. Also, in many advertisements in Hong Kong and Taiwan, English phrases or words are used in order to give a sense that the products are of Western origin or style. These examples are evidence that English, when used in a non-English speaking context, has additional values which may be associated with class, race, gender, style, identity, religion or culture. As Kachru (2005, 103) notes, English may be used in non-English-speaking countries ‘for maintaining an identity’. In the global media, as well as in local writings and cultural forms, ‘English is not just a language’ (Harris, 1991, 90).

Englishized Asian cultures In the broader context of postcolonial world culture, there have been various calls for a re-visioning of the representations of world cultures and world languages. With respect to the English language, it is true that its geographical spread to different parts of the world has much to do with the colonial expansion of Britain. Thus, for a long time, British English has been regarded as a desired standard variety for many parts of Asia, including Hong Kong. But on the issues of attitude and standard, some scholars have argued that the varieties used in Asia should not be treated as substandard. Postcolonial re-visioning calls for the recognition of indigenous cultures, the hybridized forms of languages and position shifts in identity construction. In Hong Kong as well as Singapore there have been attempts to nativize English by neutralizing it and making it a language free from ideological implications (Tam 1998). It is possible to use English as a neutral medium for factual communication. Arguments against this view, emphasizing that there is politics in English, usually consider language as more than a technological medium. Whatever the position taken, access to English means access to information, and hence power. Linguistic Englishization may entail cultural Englishization.

xi

In Chapter 2, ‘Hybridity in language and identity: Englishization in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia’, Kwok-kan Tam examines the phenomenon of language hybridity as a result of mixture between English and local languages in Southeast Asia. As he points out (p. 33),



Code-mixing is a language issue, but it can also be viewed as a cultural phenomenon of hybridity that has to do with the spread of English to non-English-speaking countries as a result of colonialism, and recently of globalization. For example, in many Asian cities, such as Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong, where English is a foreign language, young people wear T-shirts that have English words – which give them not only a taste of exoticism, but also a new identity of being Western and modern.

The rise of Southeast Asian Englishes has important implications for the construction of local identity and literary production. In terms of cultural production, what we can see in the case of Southeast Asia is particularly worthy of note. The Asianization of English is seen not only as a linguistic phenomenon, but also as a production of new ‘social meanings’ created as a result of its interaction with ‘a verbal repertoire consisting of several codes’ (Kachru 1990, 11). Examples can be found in the creative use of English in multicultural settings by Singaporean, Malaysian and Indian writers, much of which has to do with code-mixing and code-switching. In countries where English serves as a foreign language, it is evident that the more English is used to express local identity, the more it will become nativized, thus making world Englishes more and more diverse. New hybridized forms of language are forged as a result of ‘relexification’, which makes ‘a new register of communication out of an alien lexicon’ (Zabus 1995, 314). The creation of new hybridized forms of language actually has a long history due to the ‘relocation of languages and cultures’ in the process of European expansion (Mignolo 1998). Mignolo argues that language formation is closely tied to cultural formation, and vice versa. In the context of globalization, since cultural formation takes shape in the contestation between the local and the global, language formation is thus affected by such contacts and by the processes of nativization. To put it in another way, the more globalized the English language has become,

xii

the more creatively nativized it will be. In ‘Englishization as an aspect of building Singapore identity’ (Chapter 3), Lian-Hee Wee (p. 47) analyses how English has been nativized in Singapore for the purpose of building up a Singapore identity:



… SgE came about through a process that can only be described as ‘Englishization’ if that term is understood to mean a bi-directional process where English is indigenized and where non-English elements are Anglicized. Englishization is thus one of the key elements in understanding the formation of a cultural and social identity in Singapore. The implication behind such a conclusion is that policymakers, and grammatical purists as well as their opponents, with their different goals and agenda on linguistic issues, should complement each other by incorporating and balancing the need for global communication with the need to preserve and develop this aspect of Singapore’s cultural identity.

Whatever language becomes the medium for global communication will own the power of mediation. English is now so widely established that it can no longer be thought of as “‘owned” by any single nation’ (Crystal 1997, 21). On the one hand, diversification makes English spread to become different varieties, and on the other its unity paradoxically links up all these varieties to form a global circuit of flow. This dominance and flow of Englishes, together with other forms that characterize the globalization process, is in one way or another built on the emergence of postcolonial cultural spaces. In the reshaping of the world order, postcolonial Englishes are resources for new modes of cultural production.

Englishized higher education In Asia today, English has become not only the lingua franca, but also the language of government, law, business and education in many countries. For a century, intellectuals in many non-English-speaking countries have been educated and trained in various professions through the medium of English. In these professions that form the backbone of government and business administration, British, and therefore English, standards have become touchstones of internationalization. It is these professional standards, together with the language through which they are mediated,

xiii

that have placed English in a culturally advantageous and dominant position among Western languages. We see an instance of this in the field of English-language teaching, where English for Specific Purposes (ESP) has developed as a methodology to teach English to professionals in various fields of technical specialization. English has become the medium of international communication, for it connects different parts of the world through the various professions that are strategic in the modern advancement of society. William Grabe (1988, 65), in his work on English as an international language, points out that ‘English clearly is the dominant language of science and technology world-wide. Given this fact, it must be recognized that any country wishing to modernize, industrialize, or in some way become technologically competitive, must develop the capacity to access and use information written in the English language’. Grabe’s view affirms at least two points. First, as Widdowson (1997) has emphasized, ESP will form the basis of the registers of a global language; and second, access to information is not only necessary for a country’s development, but will also serve as a link with different parts of the world. All these views emphasize that the informationalization of society and the economy has produced great effects on language use. In his book English as a Global Language (1997), David Crystal has outlined several conditions that make English the global language, the most important of which seems to be the military and economic power that serves as a key factor in sustaining the influence of Britain and the United States. However, the reality is that there is an English-speaking culture behind military and economic power: ‘… language is the primary medium of human social interaction, and interaction is the means through which social relations are constructed and maintained’ (Block and Cameron 2002, 1). It is the English-speaking professionals in different fields of specialization that have linked up the world. It is also through the medium of English that these professionals are connected to the ‘global networks of finance, trade, industry, and higher education’, and together ‘they make up the source for new epicentres of English speakers’ (Pakir 2001, 2).

xiv

In ‘Englishization of higher education in Asia: A sociological enquiry’ (Chapter 4), Kosaku Yoshino argues from a sociological perspective that Englishization is one of the key elements in the emerging new global order. In studying this phenomenon in higher education, focusing on Malaysia, he shows that Englishization in higher education has to be examined in terms of market mechanisms. In discussing issues of Englishization in Malaysia’s ambition to become a regional hub for higher education, he comments (p. 79):

First, Englishization has had a significant impact on international flows of Chinese students. Previous studies of students going abroad to study have assumed a dichotomous relationship between the countries sending students and those receiving them, in the form of ‘Englishspeaking countries’ versus ‘non-English-speaking-countries. The establishment of a way station or hub in the flow of students, however, de-territorializes English-mediated higher education. This process is symbolic of the trend in English higher education, and the hub perspective is bound to take on added importance in future thinking and discussion about flow patterns of students in the postcolonial world.

Kosaku Yoshino’s study is complemented by Koo Yew Lie’s ‘Englishization through World English as a cultural commodity: Literacy practices in global Malaysian higher education’ (Chapter 5). In this study, Koo demonstrates that English is actually an institution as well as a commodity in Malaysia. As she has summed up (p. 89):



… English in higher education has become a high-stakes cultural commodity, and is likely to bring, for some, greater chances of success in education, employability, social mobility and migration opportunities. At the same time, globalization has been viewed as endangering minority languages and cultures. English is valued as high-stakes cultural capital by actors and agents involved in neoliberal economies and in global higher education with the push for internationalization and the pursuit of world ranking. In this pursuit of global connections, the actors and agents involve employers, entrepreneurs, domestic and international students, policy-makers, educational providers, lecturers and employers.

xv

The Englishization of higher education will lead to ‘a bilingual and bicultural identity’, with the result that ‘the world will become diglossic, with one language for local communication, culture and expression of identity, and another – English – for wider and more formal communication, especially in writing (Coleman 2006, 11).

Nativization and the rise of new identities In his study of cultural imperialism as ‘the global process of structural and ideological incorporation’, Phillipson (1992, 58–59) makes the point that ‘English is the language in which this incorporation is taking place (form), and the structures and ideologies connected with English operate globally (content)’. The impact that English has exerted upon nonWestern cultures can be seen also in the fact that many English words and phrases, especially those that have to do with new ideas and technological inventions, have entered Asian languages and become part of daily usage. In some cases, these words/phrases have been nativized, but most of them remain untranslated and are integrated into the native languages. These words and phrases, such as ‘democracy’ and ‘individual rights’, are not just technical terminologies, but are ideologically loaded in their signification of new political systems and Westernized, or modernized, identity. It is in this way, when the medium plays the role of a mediating agent, that English becomes the language of cultural transmission and dominance. Take lexical borrowing as an example. When English words enter into Asian languages and become part of them, they expand not only the vocabulary of these languages, but also the concepts in their cultural repertoire – for instance, the word ‘romantic’ did not exist in Chinese culture before the twentieth century. When the concept is transmitted from English to Chinese, it brings in new elements to the Chinese sense of aesthetics and so lexical borrowing is at the same time cultural borrowing. Similarly, the use of English syntactic structures in the Chinese language does not simply mean the use of new grammatical patterns, but more importantly the adoption of a new logic of thinking. For example, the use of passive structures in Asian languages points to a process of de-subjectification, in which there is a change in ideological subject positions as a result of Englishization.

xvi

In ‘Linguistic, cultural, and identity issues in Englishization of Putonghua’ (Chapter 6), Xu Zhichang examines how Chinese Putonghua has been Englishized over the past two decades. In his study (p. 125), he brings to light the change in Chinese culture towards Westernization with the rise of a new Englishized class of Chinese people who speak Englishized Putonghua:

… they are well-educated, with a varying level of proficiency in English, and they speak an Englishized variety of Putonghua to distinguish themselves from those in the glocal and local linguistic markets in China. More important, … these professionals do not wish to ‘uproot themselves’ from their local base, and they do not construct their new social identities by simply ‘disassociating themselves’ from other local people. Instead of speaking English, or Putonghua with a regional accent, or regional dialects, they develop strategies to cope with the challenges of global-local interaction. … This gives rise to an emerging variety of Chinese Putonghua, a ‘cosmopolitan variety of Mandarin Chinese’ … or ‘Cosmopolitan Mandarin’.

From a different perspective, Liu Yan and Guo Yingtao argue in ‘Which way of life? Chinese college students’ perceptions and values in China’s Englishization’ (Chapter 7, p. 140) that ‘for many Chinese college students, the systematic study of English at school provides them with an opportunity to gain access to the Western ideology that is often associated with the language’. However, their study of two groups of students shows that Chinese students may not be Englishized, however much they study English:



The questionnaire results contradict our hypothesis that the more time one spends on learning English, the more Westernized one will become. There were no significant differences in cultural values between the two groups (60.22 and 61.31 for English majors and nonEnglish majors respectively) whose English background varied a great deal (24.96 and 16.54 respectively) (p. 148)

They further argue (p. 148) that:



other factors may be exerting an influence on the formation of cultural values apart from English study at school, although school education

xvii

remains an important source of ideological inspiration for youngsters in China. These factors may include family education, the general social and cultural environment in which one grows up and lives, the university one attends, one’s personality, and especially the extent to which one can absorb new ideas. Liu and Guo’s findings contradict the view that English has ideological associations. While it is true that English can be culturally neutral, especially when it is used for specific purposes (Widdowson 1997), it can also be argued that English can be ideologically loaded. The contradiction arises as a result of the dichotomy between global language use and global cultural formation.

Englishization and cultural reinvention On the relation between English and linguistic imperialism, Phillipson (1992, 54) argues that ‘linguistic imperialism is a primary component of cultural imperialism, though it must be remembered that cultural dissemination can also take non-linguistic forms (German music, Italian painting) and can occur in translation (ranging from highbrow works to Walt Disney comics). Linguistic imperialism is also central to social imperialism, which relates to the transmission of the norms and behaviour of a model social structure, and these are embedded in language’. The adoption of ‘the norms and behaviour of a model social structure’ in Asia, originating from the Anglo-American centre of linguistic imperialism, has the implication of identity shaping, on which a new Asia, as well as a new world order, is based. In many countries in contemporary Asia, new cultural identities find expression in Englishized popular culture and art forms, such as in the ideas of freedom, individualism, human rights, racial identity and modernity. This aspect of Englishization is explored in Mike Ingham’s ‘Englishization or sinicization? English in the Hong Kong cultural scene’ (Chapter 8). In his paper (pp. 162–63), Ingham presents Hong Kong as having a ‘linguistically and culturally diversified arts scene, which is coming to be recognized as a feature of contemporary Hong Kong’ that ‘has emerged less from specific top-down policies by the government, as for example in Singapore, and

xviii

more in accordance with Hong Kong’s time-honoured laissez faire approach to linguistic and cultural development’. He adds:

Since the city’s 1997 retrocession to China there has been the remarkable phenomenon of increased sinicization in education and culture (especially related to the exponentially developing status of Putonghua) going hand-in-hand with a somewhat less heralded renaissance in creative writing and performance in English, as well as an expansion in mixed-language and bilingual practices. This seeming paradox is … one of the most interesting aspects of Hong Kong’s often under-rated creative hybridity.

Ingham sees both Englishization and nativization in the Hong Kong arts scene, in which ‘bilingualism, biculturalism and, indeed, cultural pluralism are promoted (p. 163). One way to see how English has entered into the social fabric of Asian life is to examine the effects of Englishization in popular culture. In ‘Englishization in Japanese popular culture: Representation of ethnicity’ (Chapter 9), Andrew Moody presents cases of Japanese pop lyrics that are Englishized. In his view (p. 183), Englishization is ‘a productive linguistic and cultural process’ which can ‘affect the cultural productions of a society by inspiring new genres, expanding the functions of the language or introducing new cultural artefacts’. Moody’s study shows that the influence of English on the Japanese language and culture can be seen most profoundly within Japanese popular culture. Unlike the process of nativization of an English variety, Englishization occurs when there is iconic language contact between two languages. When this happens, the English forms are absorbed into the language (or culture) in such a way that they are no longer identifiable as English forms; and this is precisely what happens with mixed language forms within the popular genre of mondegreens, or soramimi ‘empty ear’ lyrics. As he points out (p. 184):

With the advent of J-Pop, Japanese music borrowed a number of extralinguistic cultural influences from English-speaking cultural sources: musical styles, instruments, singing styles, names of bands, thematic content for songs, formats of songs, album artwork and promotion

xix

of artists, to name only a few. When examining the process of Englishization, therefore, language is certainly one of the ways that cultural contact can take place, but the Englishization process is rarely limited to language. Over the past half-century, Hong Kong has been experimenting with different forms of popular music in which Englishization plays a pivotal role. In Chapter 10, ‘Englishization with an attitude: Cantonese-English lyrics in Hong Kong’, Angel Lin presents a case study of how new identities are created in bilingual Canto-pop. Her study of the Hong Kong hip-hop group Fama shows how English and Cantonese are intertwined in their performance (p. 211):

Fama’s two emcees draw on Cantonese-English bilingual resources in both their lyrics and in the art names that they have crafted for themselves. MC Six-wing (or ‘6-wing’, ‘Six-wing’) is the art name of Luhk Wihng-Kyuhn (his real name in Cantonese). In Hong Kong, many young people have pet names or nicknames which are formed by playing on the bilingual features of their names; and Six-Wing represents an example of this common cultural practice. The Cantonese word ‘Luhk’ (the family name of MC 6-wing) sounds the same as the word for number ‘six’ in Cantonese, and so, MC 6/Six-wing has formed his English art name by this process. In his lyrics, he proudly raps his name in this bilingual way.

Concluding comments Phillipson remarks that the spread and domination of English is a form of cultural imperialism, which he refers to as ‘the sum of processes by which a society is brought into the modern world system and how its dominating stratum is attracted, pressured, forced, and sometimes bribed into shaping social institutions to correspond to, or even promote, the values and structures of the dominating center of the system’ (Phillipson 1992, 58). Hence, it is through colonialism that English has spread to the non-Western world, but it is through English that cultural imperialism is sustained. In Asia, Westernization and Englishization go hand-in-hand in the forging of new identities and creation of new social institutions.

xx

Also, as noted earlier, David Crystal relates the dominance of a language to political power, saying ‘A language becomes an international language for one chief reason: the political power of its people – especially their military power (Crystal 1997, 7). But, as Kachru explains, besides political power, another dimension has to be taken into consideration: ‘The study of linguistic power is not exactly of the same type as is the study of the form of power by the state, in the legal system, for religious commands, and so on. Linguistic power has to be understood essentially through symbols and manipulation of the symbols. On the other hand, the understanding of linguistic power is concerned with both “relations of power” and ‘relations of meaning’” (1986, 123). Hence, in any conception of power as the basis of a global language, what should also be taken into account is its use in relation to the production of culture, meaning and knowledge. It is the cultural power that has given English the dominant position in the world, but it is also this dominant position that has given English the power to dominate in the production of culture. In this relation between power and language, English is not a culture-free medium. As pointed out by James Coleman, ‘Function determines use, so language and cultural practices are intimately connected’ (Coleman 2006, 2). Englishization of language use is also Englishization of the mind, and thus of identity and values. The contestation between English and Asian languages in the form of Englishization or nativization can be seen in almost all aspects of Asian cultural life. On this phenomenon, Roy Harris (1991, 91–92) offers the following observation:

English, as a colonial linguistic legacy, has given millions of people in the population of Asia potential access to a set of cultural values radically different from those of their own indigenous societies. English means not only London, New York, Sydney and the lifestyles characteristic, or supposedly characteristic, of these great Western cities, but it also means, … ‘the protean inexhaustible culture of the English-speaking peoples’. Of the Asian millions, many are attracted by certain features of this Western alternative, though not by all. A few are so attracted that they succumb to Anglophilia. A few feel so guilty or so superior that they succumb to Anglophobia.

xxi

References Block, D and Cameron, D (2002) Globalization and Language Teaching, London and New York: Routledge. Coleman, J A (2006) ‘English-medium teaching in European higher education’, Language Teaching, 39(1): 1–14. Crystal, D (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grabe, W(1988) ‘English, information access, and technology transfer: A rationale for English as an international language’, World Englishes, 7(1): 63–72. Harris, R (1991) ‘English versus Islam: The Asian voice of Salman Rushdie’ in Chan, M and Harris, R (eds) Asian Voices in English, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 87–96. Huntington, S P (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London: Simon & Schuster. Kachru, B B (1986) ‘The power and politics of English’, World Englishes, 5(2/3): 121–40. Kachru, B B (1990) ‘World Englishes and applied linguistics’, World Englishes, 9(1): 3–20. Kachru, B B (1994) ‘Englishization and contact Linguistics’, World Englishes, 13(2): 135–54. Reprinted in Bolton, K and Kachru, B B (eds) (2006) World Englishes: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, Oxon: Routledge, 1: 253–77. Kachru, B B (2005) ‘Englishization: Asia and beyond’ in Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 99–120. Lawrence, D H (1982) ‘Odour of Chrysanthemums’ in D. H. Lawrence Selected Short Stories, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 88–105. Mignolo, W D (1998) ‘Globalization, civilization processes, and the relocation of languages and cultures’ in Jameson, F and Miyoshi, M (eds) The Cultures of Globalization, Durham: Duke University Press, 32–53.

xxii

Pakir, A (2001) ‘The voices of English-knowing bilinguals and the emergence of new epicenter’ in Ooi, V B Y (ed.) (2001) Evolving Identities: The English Language in Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore: Times Academic Press, 1–11. Pennycook, A (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Phillipson, R (1992) Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tam, K K (1998) ‘Postcoloniality, identity and the English Language in Hong Kong’, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 8(1): 69–80. Widdowson, H G (1997) ‘EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests’, World Englishes, 16(1): 135–46. Xu Xi (2001) The Unwalled City: A Novel of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Chameleon Press. Zabus, C (1995) ‘Relexification’ in Ashcroft, B, Griffiths, G and Tiffin, H (eds) The Post-Colonial Studies Reader, London: Routledge, 314–18.

1

English and glocal identities on Web 2.0: The case of Flickr.com Carmen Lee and David Barton

Introduction The second generation of the World Wide Web, commonly known as Web 2.0, gives rise to new opportunities for reading and writing. In Web 2.0 spaces, such as weblogs, Facebook and Wikipedia, website hosts provide only a virtually ‘empty’ frame for registered users to contribute their own content to the site. As the online population becomes increasingly multinational, a growing amount of linguistics research has been devoted to language choice in computer-mediated communication (CMC) (e.g. Androutsopoulos 2006; Lee 2007; Warschauer, Said and Zohry 2007). While much emphasis has been placed on traditional forms of CMC, such as email and chatrooms, little empirical research has been done on linguistic issues related to Web 2.0. We are interested in new literacy practices in Web 2.0 spaces, with specific attention to the photo-sharing site Flickr (www.flickr.com). This paper grows out of our broader study of Flickr which aims to understand the writing practices associated with this space, drawing upon what we know about literacy as a social practice and the structure of literacy practices, about writing and linguistic identity, and about linking local and global phenomena (Barton 2007). As Web users spread around the world, it is important to examine the role of English and how people deploy their multilingual resources. This paper addresses these issues by examining the following questions: 1 What is the role of English on Flickr? 2 What is the relationship between English and identity on Flickr? To answer these questions, we describe and discuss findings from our study of language choice among a group of 20 Chinese-speaking Flickr users from Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan. We examine the ways in which

2

Englishization in Asia

their choice between English and their local languages affects their level of participation in Flickr and their linguistic identities. In this paper, we first provide an overview of Web 2.0 and introduce Flickr as a typical example of Web 2.0. We then outline the multi-method approach we took in the study. Based on our study of a group of Chinesespeaking users, we show the role of English on Flickr and users’ attitudes towards English as they participate in this photo-sharing site. While providing an explanation for users’ preference (or non-preference) for English, we also make a connection between the choice of English and the local identities of the Flickr participants. We conclude the paper with a discussion of the ways in which new literacy practices on Flickr reinforce what are referred to as glocal identities.

Web 2.0 and Flickr as new writing spaces A new generation of the Internet called Web 2.0 (O’Reilly 2005) has emerged with the rise of social networking websites such as weblogs, Facebook and YouTube. These sites are different from traditional websites in that users of Web 2.0 sites are involved in essentially different practices or mindsets of Web usage (Lankshear and Knobel 2006, 2007). One of the most obvious differences between these two forms of the Web is that the first generation of websites is concerned mostly with publishing information online by one particular individual or organization, but in Web 2.0 sites the aim is to connect individual Web users through selfgenerated content and knowledge. Scholarly Web 2.0 research is still in its infancy. Within the existing literature, it is a topic of interest among computer scientists (e.g. Lerman and Jones 2007) and, more recently, there has been an increasing amount of research in the fields of social sciences (e.g. van House 2007) and education (e.g. Richardson 2006; Solomon and Schrum 2007). For literacy researchers, one of the most attractive areas of Web 2.0 is the new forms of reading and writing it offers. For example, Lankshear and Knobel (2006, 2007) explore Web 2.0 as ‘new literacies’ which lead to new ideas of text and knowledge; and to Richardson (2006), Web 2.0 is an example of the ‘read-write Web’ – that is, a Web that allows users to read and to write at the same time. In his work, he explores ways in which this ‘read-write’ is useful for classroom teaching.

Chapter 1

Figure 1.1 Welcome page on Flickr.com

Figure 1.2 A user homepage on Flickr.com

3

4

Englishization in Asia

Flickr (www.flickr.com) is a Web space where people can upload and display their photos. More precisely, it is not just one single website but a network of many sub-sites, because Flickr provides all registered users with a frame or interface to create their own sites by adding their own content, primarily different kinds of images such as photos, screenshots and videos. So far our work has focused on general language use around these images. When a photo is uploaded, a title and a description of it can be added, as well as ‘tags’, which are individual labels which can be used when searching for photos. Particular areas of interest in a photo can be highlighted, and ‘notes’ can be added to annotate it; and photos can be organized into sets and also added to groups with other people. In addition, friends and family members you want to keep in touch with, known as ‘contacts’, can be listed. People can then comment on each other’s photos, join discussions of photos and send messages to other photographers. For each photo, the user can decide who can view it and make comments about it. There is also a space for people to write a profile of themselves and they may provide links with other Web 2.0 forms, such as blogs and websites. Users can write in any language they want to, and the framing is now provided in eight different languages, including Chinese. These activities can involve a considerable amount of writing, but they are all optional and people vary a great deal in how much writing they do. The written word is ubiquitous on Flickr, along with the images. Our work has been focusing on the user-generated content instead of the writing which appears on the Flickr interface. This allows us to analyse the written texts produced by users themselves. Major writing activities on Flickr include creating and updating a personal profile, giving a photo a title and description, providing tags and making comments on other photos. For the purpose of our study, we have concentrated on these writing activities, each of which offers different kinds of content and information, as summarized below and in Table 1.1. •

Profile: The profile page is where users provide information about themselves and their sites. As an option, they can include basic information such as their name, gender and country of origin. There is also a space for them to write a longer text on whatever they want to. Additional information such as email addresses, and links to blogs

Chapter 1

and other sites may also be included. They may also write about their interests such as their favourite books, music and movies. •

Title and description of photo: The title, which appears above a photo, is the name given to a photo by the user. Descriptions below the photo allow users to write longer texts. It is up to the user what to write or whether to write at all in these spaces. For many users, titles are straightforward labels for the subjects of their photos (e.g. ‘sunset’, ‘my son’); other titles are often expressions of feelings and interpretations of their photos such as ‘funny ha ha’ or ‘bored at work’.

•

Tags: After uploading a photo or a group of photos, users can add tags. Tags serve as keywords for a photo, which facilitate photo search and also provide additional information about a photo such as features of the subject, colours, where the photo was taken and with which camera it was taken. Tags are also essential elements for organizing meanings on Web 2.0 (see Marlow et al. 2006).

• Comments: The commenting system is one of the most important elements that shape the Flickr community. It is not only a space for people to praise or comment on each other’s photos, but also to interact and to carry out mini-conversations about an image or other topics of interest. Table 1.1

Spaces for writing on Flickr

Screen shot Profile page

Self-generated writing Screen name. Can include location, gender, selfintroduction, links to other sites, images

5

6

Englishization in Asia

Table 1.1 continued

Title and description

Name of the photo above it, and description below it

Tags

Keywords and labels about the photo, providing further information and to facilitate public search and organization

Commenting system

Comments by others; replies to others' comments

Chapter 1

Despite the growing interest in research on Web 2.0, there has been little empirical work devoted to Flickr. Among the few published studies, most fall within the field of computer sciences, including the work of Marlow et al. (2006) and Winget (2006) which investigated the mechanism of tagging on Flickr. From a different starting point, a number of researchers have explored the social dimension of Flickr and the ways in which usergenerated activities facilitate socialization and networking. For example, Burgess (2006) explored Flickr as a site for vernacular creativity or what she calls ‘vernacular photographic literacy’ (p. 9); and Lerman and Jones (2007) and van House (2007) looked at the impact of the Flickr network on Web user behaviour. In the field of literacy studies, the recent work of Lankshear and Knobel often cites Flickr as a typical example of new literacies (Lankshear and Knobel 2006, 2007). Also, Davies (2006) draws on Gee’s concept of affinity spaces and explores the ways in which Flickr possesses features of such spaces. Through her own experience in using Flickr, she argues that its activities help individuals to learn from each other and create meanings collaboratively. To date, however, no empirical work has been done to investigate multilingualism on Web 2.0. We believe that the globalization of Web 2.0 communities and the diverse linguistic backgrounds of users together provide new research opportunities for language and literacy researchers.

English on the Internet The relationship between English and the Internet can be described at the micro- or macro-linguistic level. At the micro level, studies focus on code-switching and code-mixing, as well as the ways in which the sentence structure and vocabulary of a local language have changed when in contact with English. Gao (2004), for example, shows how the vocabulary, syntax and discourse of the Chinese language is influenced by English. At the same time, some researchers are more interested in the macro dimension of language on the Internet, such as issues of language choice and multilingualism. These studies are mainly concerned with the use of English, the choice between English and a local language in certain situations, and the impact of English on people’s lives and the society at large. Our research has been concerned with the macro level. We are examining the co-existence of English and other languages in the context

7

8

Englishization in Asia

of Flickr and the ways in which people deploy their linguistic resources. We also consider the motivations for using English and non-English languages on Flickr. English is widely acknowledged as the common language of the Internet, but its actual status is far more complicated than it seems to be. Most CMC researchers acknowledge the global status of English as a lingua franca among netizens (e.g. Crystal 1997, 2006; Fishman 1998; Yates 1996). Over a decade ago, Crystal (1997) predicted that English would continue to be the ‘chief lingua franca’ of the Internet because of the limited availability of multilingual technologies. Fishman (1998) reported that over 80% of the content on the Internet is in English, suggesting that the Internet was essentially an English medium; and in his quantitative study of linguistic diversity on the Web, Paolillo (2007) noted that current trends of Internet use tend to favour the use of English over other languages. There is, however, no consensus on the extent to which English dominates the Internet. Views about English on the Internet can be divided into two groups. Some scholars believe that the growth of the Internet leads to ‘linguistic imperialism’, and they express concerns about the possible threat to local languages as a result of globalization of the Internet (Garland 2006; Luke, Luke and Graham 2007). Another body of work, however, shows that the trend has been changing rapidly over the years and predicts that globalization of the Internet will only encourage linguistic pluralism. Dor (2004), for instance, showed that more non-English speakers have access to the Web and at the same time the number of localized software and websites that are written in foreign languages is on the rise. Dor (2004, 99) further asserted that ‘the Net is going to be a predominantly nonEnglish-language medium’, and this seems to be happening. For example, a survey conducted by Global Reach (2004) indicated that about 64% of Internet users in the world are non-English speakers and it is believed that the number keeps growing. Also, the proportion of English Web content has dropped from 80% in 1998 to 56% in 2002 (Ebbertz 2002). Some CMC scholars have also predicted that the Internet is moving towards being a multilingual space instead of an English-dominant medium. It is expected that, although English will continue to be a global language of the Internet

Chapter 1

in the foreseeable future, the spread of Internet use also favours other ‘large’ languages such as Chinese and Spanish (Danet and Herring 2007), and, for different reasons, even smaller languages such as Catalan (Block 2004). In our study, we also share the view that as more international users get online, English will be used as an important language for intercultural communication but, nonetheless, as Dor (2004) pointed out, the greater demand for localizing the Internet is actually encouraging the use of nonEnglish languages. We are also aware that most of the existing arguments about the dominance of English are based upon data from the first generation of the Web and relatively traditional forms of CMC such as chat rooms and discussion forums. Thus, an additional point we would like to make is that the growing amount of self-generated content on Web 2.0 sites is reinforcing the spread of non-English languages in an online context. In social network spaces on Web 2.0 such as Flickr it is easy to get started and ordinary Web users have unprecedented power of choice and creativity online. On Web 1.0, the choice of website language lies with the Web authors; but on Web 2.0, it is the Web users who decide which language(s) should be used on their sites. Compared to traditional webpages, these sites are indeed developing themselves into a truly multilingual space of communication. In turn, we also expect that new literacy practices on Web 2.0 sites such as Flickr and the greater space for multilingualism construct new linguistic identities.

Methodology In linguistics, research on language diversity online has been primarily quantitative and statistical (e.g. Paolillo 2007). Most of the studies are concerned with analysing trends of multilingualism based on the number of language speakers and the languages used on websites. For many reasons these statistics are not adequate for documenting the actual use of language online. Our investigation into new language and literacy practices on Flickr requires innovative methods which offer ways of researching actual instances of language use and the role of English from an insider perspective. The methodological approach we have adopted is in many ways unlike traditional research on print-based texts. For example,

9

10

Englishization in Asia

we draw heavily on online methods of data collection as well as our own reflexive participation in Flickr. In view of this, it is important to be explicit about our research methods. Our study of language on Flickr takes a multi-method approach to data collection and analysis. These methods comprise an exploratory content analysis of 100 Flickr sites and an online questionnaire with 30 people using Flickr, followed up by focused online interviews. Alongside this, we have been carrying out auto-ethnographies of our own growing participation in Flickr. We have focused largely on Flickr activities which involve user-generated writing, although at times we also need to consider how users interact with the language of its user interface. Our starting point was a random selection of Flickr sites, that is the individual Web spaces where users can upload their photos. A series of photos then forms what is called ‘a photostream’, which displays a user’s uploaded photos or images in reverse chronological order, with the more recent uploads at the top of the page. As mentioned earlier, our study has concentrated on four areas of writing on Flickr: profiles, titles/descriptions, tags and comments. For our analysis, we considered only those sites that actually contained self-generated content in all these writing spaces. To understand the general trend of linguistic diversity and language distribution on Flickr, our first step was to conduct an exploratory observation of 100 Flickr sites. These sites were randomly selected from the group ‘Flickr Central’. Groups on Flickr are interest groups set up and administered by a user to bring together photos on similar themes. This group was selected because it is one of the largest interest groups on Flickr where anyone can contribute regardless of what their photos are about or who they are. This implies that it is likely to identify users from a wide range of linguistic backgrounds and geographical locations. More important, we assumed that members in this group are avid Flickr participants. Joining groups is an optional activity, and so those who are willing to do so and add their photos to the group pools do wish to showcase their photos to the rest of the world. In this way, we were able to identify 100 users who actually contributed a considerable amount of written text, such as descriptions of photos, tags and comments. On these 100 sites, we observed the presence and distribution of English and non-English languages on each of the areas

Chapter 1

of writing mentioned above. We then generated preliminary figures on the overall trend of language use and the distribution of geographical locations of users. The next step was to take a closer look at individual users’ language preference on Flickr. For our broader study, we concentrated on sites where English and foreign languages co-exist. To get an insider point of view, we selected a small group of Chinese-speaking users who tend to participate actively in Flickr, frequently contributing some written texts. (We are also studying Spanish-speaking users but this is not reported in this paper.) We then invited these people to complete an online survey questionnaire in order to find out their general Flickr habits. This was then followed up by a series of email interviews. The aim of the interviews was to identify different ways of participating on Flickr and ways in which these people deploy their linguistic resources on their own sites. Our Chinese informants were allowed to answer our questions in Chinese, English or mixed code. In the interviews, our questions often focused on specific areas of their Flickr sites, which allowed us to pay close attention to details about actual situations of Flickr use. The interview data were then coded and categorized according to what the participants said about their language choice on Flickr. When interacting with them, we made extensive use of Flickr’s email system (FlickrMail) which ensured that our initial invitation letter reached individual users as they logged on to Flickr. Later, as we started developing a closer relationship with the participants, we might communicate with them via our personal email accounts. Our discussion focuses primarily on the responses from 20 Chinese-speaking users from Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan. Our research interest in Flickr grew partly out of our personal participation in this site. Both of us have been active users of Flickr for more than two years – which means we regularly upload photos to our photostreams, give tags and write things about our photos, make contacts with other Flickr users and comment on their photos, etc. We thus also carried out autoethnographies of our own activities on Flickr. In addition to our familiarity with Flickr, we both know an additional language besides English: one of us is a Chinese-English bilingual and the other can speak, read and write in Spanish. We have had first-hand experience of writing in these

11

12

Englishization in Asia

languages on our own Flickr sites. Our familiarity with Flickr informs our understanding of the relationship between English and other languages on the Web, offering some insider perspectives to our research.

Findings English as the ‘first language’ of Flickr Ever since its official launch in 2004, Flickr had been an English-medium webspace. Since May 2007, its interface has also been available in seven other languages – Chinese (traditional characters), French, German, Italian, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish. This change, however, does not seem to have affected the way our informants participate in Flickr. Most of the people we studied had joined Flickr before it launched its multilingual versions, and they preferred to continue using the English interface. In fact, at the time of collecting our data, many areas on Flickr were still predominantly in English. For example, group descriptions and discussions are mostly written in English. If people navigate on an English-based interface, does that also affect the language they use in their self-generated content on Flickr? Does usergenerated writing on Flickr conform to the traditional claim of English being the main language of the Internet? And if so, to what extent does English dominate? From our initial observation of 100 sites, we discovered that about 98% of the sites contained elements of English. This means that, regardless of the users’ place of origin, they would write something in English at some point when they took part in Flickr. We also noticed that among the various writing activities, the user profile page was the most ‘Englishized’. About 75% of the profiles were written entirely in English only. For example, one of our Taiwanese participants, JadeCastle, welcomes his visitors in English only on his profile page, where he also makes links to his personal website and blog (Figure 1.3).

Chapter 1

Figure 1.3 Profile page in English

In addition to the profile page, some of their photos are named, described and tagged in English only. Figure 1.4 below is a photo page by a mainland Chinese participant called cjpanda. In English, she introduces her college library which is going to move to a new campus.

Figure 1.4 A photo with English name, description and tags

13

14

Englishization in Asia

Whether they come from Hong Kong (where most people speak Cantonese and write in traditional Chinese), mainland China (where most people speak Mandarin and write in simplified Chinese and romanized Chinese/ hanyu pinyin) or Taiwan (where most people speak Mandarin and write in traditional Chinese), our group of Chinese-speaking informants generally shared the view that English should be the common language on Flickr. In particular, our informants tended to assume that English is the only language that all Flickr users can understand. They would always, therefore, write in English first if they did not know what language their intended audience speaks. For example, they would make comments in English first unless they realized that the target audience was also familiar with Chinese or knew very little English. The ideology that English is the language of global communication on the Internet was frequently revealed in the interviews, e.g.

JadeCastle (Taiwanese):



I treat Flickr [as] an ‘international’ forum. So I thought English should be its ‘Main’ language.



Kristie (遊牧民阿靜 ) (Hong Kong Chinese):



my comments on other people’s work are also mainly in English as we see it as a universal language besides our own mother tongue.

These comments by JadeCastle and Kristie (遊牧民阿靜 ) clearly demonstrate their awareness of the multilingual population on Flickr. To them, Flickr is a global forum, which is often associated with a global language, presumably English. Their views suggest that they cannot participate fully in the global Flickr community without some knowledge of English. This does not mean that the majority of the Flickr community consists of only English speakers from English-speaking countries such as the UK and the USA. Kristie (遊牧 民阿靜 ) expects that ‘besides our own mother tongue’, most Flickr users, or at least her contacts and friends, use English as a second language. English as the language of global interaction on Flickr is also evident in the very first line of tiong’s (小吞 ) profile: ‘My English is poor, so I take photos’. Following this is a line in Chinese: ‘唉，中文都一樣......不見得是 好’ (‘well, … and so is my Chinese’). This humorous comment, which can be understood only by people who are bilingual in Chinese and English,

Chapter 1

also demonstrates that the use of the two languages is not necessarily for translating one language to the other. tiong (小吞 ) is a Hong Kong Chinese who uses more Chinese than English in his everyday life. In his profile, although acknowledging that he has not mastered Chinese or English, the fact that the English text is placed above the Chinese writing is a good illustration of ‘indexicality’ of his code preference (Scollon and Scollon 2003). That is, English seems to be the language that tiong (小吞 ) prefers to display on his profile page and the language that he expects the world to see first on his Flickr site. This also reveals his belief that English is the only language shared by other Flickr participants. Regardless of their familiarity with English, these Chinese speakers are ready to participate in Flickr in English. In general, our initial observations confirm that English is widespread in many areas of Flickr. Under the influence of globalization of the Internet, participants are well aware of the fact that Flickr members speak different languages. English is thus seen as the lingua franca on Flickr and it is also the language of social networking among international Flickr participants. Writing in English is to ensure mutual intelligibility and is a sign of active involvement in this space. All this provides further evidence that English does enjoy some special status and priority on Flickr, at least to a certain degree.

Flickr as a multilingual Web 2.0 space The next question we need to address is the extent to which English dominates on Flickr. Do non-English speakers actually favour the English language over their local languages? Does the highly multinational and multilingual population of Flickr reinforce or discourage the use of local languages? Can we expect that the dominance of user-generated writing and the development of social networks on Web 2.0 will bring about a change in the trend? Of the 100 sites we observed in stage one of the research, only 35% of the users came from a country where English was spoken as a first language, including Australia, the UK and the USA. The majority of the users in our sample, therefore, came from a non-English-speaking country, which

15

16

Englishization in Asia

probably suggests they do not speak English as their mother tongue. This, of course, does not automatically imply that they cannot write in English on Flickr. We further observed the languages of their self-generated writing on their sites. Elements of non-English languages were found on 49% of the sites, of which 4% contained more than two foreign languages (labelled as ‘multilingual’ in Figure 1.5). Eleven non-English languages were identified, as shown in Figure 1.5. Chinese and Spanish were the two most common non-English languages used, making up 34% of the sites we observed. They then became the two major languages our study has focused on, but this paper concentrates on the relationship between English and Chinese on the Chinese sites we studied. ������ �� ������� ���

������� �� ������� ����� �� �� ������������ �� ������ ��

������� ����������� ���

������ ���

�������� ��� ���������� ��� ������� ���

Figure 1.5 Non-English languages on Flickr Central

Data from our group of Chinese-speaking informants generally demonstrate that Flickr offers many opportunities for multilingual writing. We adopt a broad sense of multilingualism, that is, the use and presence of more than one language on a user’s site. The co-existence of English and Chinese occurs in all writing activities on the Chinese sites we studied. There are many cases where users actually prefer to use Chinese only, or use English as an alternative or the medium for translating a local language to

Chapter 1

the global audience. Here we discuss examples of language use in profiles, photo descriptions, tags and comments. Multilingual writing on Flickr can start with one’s screen-name and profile. For example, two of our Hong Kong informants have bilingual screennames. The screen-name tiong (小吞 ) has the Chinese characters for ‘little tiong’ in brackets. Another user who has a bilingual screen-name is Kristie (遊牧民阿靜 ). Kristie is her Christian name, and the Chinese words literally translate as ‘Zing the nomad’, in which Zing is her Chinese first name. In their profiles, many Chinese users tend to include a bilingual description or switch between languages when introducing themselves. For example, cjpanda has written something about herself in both Chinese (simplified) and English.

Figure 1.6 cjpanda’s bilingual profile

Another area on Flickr where multilingual writing is easily found is photo titles and descriptions. Tinn Tian’s site is a good example in point. Tinn Tian, from mainland China, has limited knowledge of English and does not need to use much English in his everyday life. Interestingly, of the

17

18

Englishization in Asia

920 photos on his site, 572 are described or named entirely in Chinese, and 31 are Chinese-English bilingual descriptions, such as the titles ‘爆 米花 Popcorn’ and ‘傘 umbrella’. Some of the English captions are partial translations of the original Chinese description, such as 鸚鵡贝 as ‘shell’ instead of ‘parrot shell’ as specified in the Chinese title. Another case of bilingual writing is a Chinese title annotated with a longer explanation in English. For example, one of Tinn Tian’s photos features a local dish called Maoxuewang, which he describes as follows:

毛血旺Maoxuewang, a dish of boiled blood curd and other stuff with another name: Duck Blood in Chili Sauce.

The Chinese characters express only the name of the dish. However, the English caption gives further details about its ingredients – so, in this case, English is used as a medium for translating local culture to the nonChinese world. Tagging is another area of multilingual writing on Flickr. Almost half of the sites we observed have non-English tags. For example, on cjpanda’s site, approximately 45% of her tags are written in Chinese, and about 16% of the Chinese tags are also tagged with their English equivalents or translations; for example, umbrella is tagged in English ‘umbrella’, a simplified Chinese character ‘傘’ and the romanized form ‘shan’. In some cases, even if a photo is described in English only, its tags are likely to be in both English and Chinese. For instance, a Hong Kong participant, HKmPUA, shows a photo of McDonald’s in Sai Kung, Hong Kong. The name and description of the photo is:

I’m lovin it, McDonalds in Saikung

When it comes to tagging this photo, however, both traditional and simplified Chinese tags are included in addition to the English ones: Saikung, 西貢 (Sai Kung in traditional characters), 西貢 (Saikung in simplified characters) and Hong Kong, 香港 (Hong Kong in traditional characters). A further example of multilingual writing is the switching between codes when replying to comments. The commenting system is one of the central platforms for international participants to interact and socialize on Flickr.

Chapter 1

The network of ‘friends’ and contacts also relies heavily on the activity of exchanging comments. The majority of these comments provide praise for other people’s photos or questions about the content of photos and, as a gesture of goodwill, many Flickr members have a habit of thanking those who have commented after receiving a certain number of comments. Several exchanges of comments may then gradually develop into a conversation-like interaction. It is also likely that they receive comments in different languages. When responding to these multilingual comments, most users write their replies according to the language used by the comment posters. Here is an example from the photostream of zfz0123^_^, a mainland Chinese:

Figure 1.7 Bilingual comments

This is an extract from the comments about her photo with the title ‘flickr afternoon drinks’. Here we see that zfz0123^_^ replied to rodante, cliquehappy and teachimp individually in English. What is interesting is that

19

20

Englishization in Asia

rodante first wrote his comment in Spanish. Although, other than Chinese, zfz0123^_^ knows only English, she managed to understand what rodante said by guessing its meaning and using online dictionaries, and wrote back a reply in English, which she assumed rodante would understand. Towards the end, a local Chinese friend, 人人都說我愛你 , praised the photo in English and asked a question about the material of the tea cups in Chinese. zfz0123^_^ then also wrote back ‘thanks’ in English first in response to ‘I like the shadows on the table’, followed by an answer in Chinese. There are many other instances of multilingual writing on Flickr but there is no room to discuss them fully here. The above examples, however, confirm that English is not the only language on Flickr, nor is it a language that Chinese-speaking users would favour over their local languages. There is also evidence to suggest that English is often seen as an alternative or an additional language for translating local contents to the non-Chinesespeaking world. On Flickr, and possibly on other user-oriented websites, users are given considerable freedom of choice to decide for themselves when and how to participate and in what language(s) the content should be written. They can participate monolingually or multilingually, regardless of whether they can master the English language.

Motivations for English writing on Flickr As mentioned before, our group of Chinese-speaking informants came from three different parts of the world – Hong Kong, mainland China and Taiwan. We were therefore also interested in whether they would perceive and deploy their various linguistic resources differently on Flickr because of their differences in geographical, social and cultural backgrounds. Initially, we had assumed that people from mainland China and Taiwan, where English is not an official language, might want to use less English than someone from Hong Kong, who has more exposure to English in everyday life. However, we noted that mainland Chinese and Taiwanese also used English extensively in all areas on their sites; and Hong Kong people also wrote in Chinese or Cantonese for particular reasons. For example, cjpanda from mainland China told us that she did not have to use English in her out-of-school life but, like other people in our study, she was happy to describe her photos in simple English that is ‘very ABC’ and ‘no longer

Chapter 1

than eight letters’, as she claimed in the email interview. When it came to complex ideas, she would switch back to Chinese. Also, HKmPUA, who is an English-educated Hongkonger, often included Chinese tags for his photos alongside the English ones. If using English does not have a direct relationship with people’s linguistic competence, what then is driving English writing among Chinese speakers on Flickr? Based on our observation of the sites and the information provided by the participants in the survey and interviews, the following are crucial factors to consider when deciding whether or not to write in English on Flickr: •

Imagined audience: As with any writing activity, on Flickr it is important to consider the intended audience. From the analysis of our data this can be divided into three groups: the general ‘unknown’ audience on the Web, ‘friends’ who are listed as Flickr contacts, and friends in ‘real’ life – and these people may be English speakers, Chinese speakers or speakers of other languages. The Flickr users we studied usually selected their language according to the language the primary target audience speaks. For example, if they are communicating with a ‘real-life’ friend or someone who speaks Chinese too, they are more likely to write in Chinese; and English is used for an unknown audience, or for someone who speaks only English. It is not difficult for Flickr users to find out what language another user speaks. As contradiction from Hong Kong told us, looking at the language they use in captions, titles and comments can give some clues about the language backgrounds of other Flickr members. As they get to know what language their intended audience speaks, they can employ their linguistic resources accordingly. As cjpanda mentioned to us, her profile (as seen in Figure 1.6) was originally written in English only; but as she had more Chinese contacts ‘who don’t speak English well’, she decided to spend a summer translating her profile and other English texts on her site into Chinese. When communicating with the general Flickr audience, our sample either wrote in English only or translated the Chinese text into English. As HKmPUA said, ‘I assume that all Flickr users (or Internet users for that matter) have a basic understanding of English since English is the lingua franca of the Internet AND of flickr’.

21

22

Englishization in Asia

This assumption demonstrates that English is the language they want to use when speaking to a general or imagined group of users. •

Purposes of Flickr: Flickr describes itself as an ‘online photo management and sharing application’ (‘About us’, www. flickr.com). To most users, however, Flickr is more than an online album. As it is used by more people, it is seen as a global forum where international participants exchange ideas about photography and other shared interests. For some users, the aim is to have their photos viewed by as many people as possible, and to achieve this, it is important to choose a language that can facilitate international communication. This is why English still plays an important role on Flickr. But these users also want to attract Chinese-speaking participants. There is an increasing number of localized Flickr groups, such as the ‘心台灣 Heart of Taiwan’ group, which is essentially a Chinese-language group, although speakers of other languages are also welcome. On the whole, the Chinese speakers are bound together first through photography; but to establish and sustain a social network on Flickr, they also identify themselves with their shared language and writing system.

•

Content of photos: Language choice on Flickr also depends largely on the subject matter of the photos. Many of the Chinese users are happy to describe photos just in English if the photos are of general interest, such as ‘sunset’, ‘me’, etc. However, when it comes to photos that express local culture or ideas that may be unfamiliar to nonChinese communities, further explanation in English is included. For example, one of the photos from zfz0123^_^’s photostream shows the Chinese New Year greeting ‘福’, which literally means ‘good fortune’.

Figure 1.8 A photo from zfz0123^_^’s photostream.

Chapter 1



She provides an interactive description of the image, and also invites her audience to consider the evolution of the character:

Nowaday, ‘福’ in chinese means ‘fortunate’ … but when you come to visit a traditional chinese family in the spring festival, you will notice that this ‘福’ is written in another style which has a big difference with the one we use everyday. so do you know why chinese write ‘福’ in this way? what’s it mean?



zfz0123^_^ told us that ‘福’ is ‘a character with rich culture’, so she would like the photo to reach as many people as possible. The best way of doing so is to provide descriptions in both Chinese and English. With the English description above, she would be able to introduce this word to the English-speaking world. This is then followed by a lengthy description of the history of the character in Chinese, which would be of interest to her local Chinese friends.

•

Technological affordances of Flickr: Flickr provides many opportunities for its members to reach out and network with people. Notably, its mechanism of ‘interestingness’ and its search engine encourage users to participate actively in various ways. Some of the criteria for a photo’s popularity include its view counts, how many people choose it as their favourite, and the number of comments it receives. Adding more tags and descriptions, and contributing photos to different groups, are some of the ways of making a photo more ‘interesting’. One way to attract more visitors is to increase its chance of being searched for when people type a keyword in the search engine. Many Chinese users write tags in both Chinese and English to ensure that their photos show up among the results when somebody performs a keyword search in either language. For example, HKmPUA tagged his ‘Queen’s Pier’ photo in English, traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese. He said ‘I want to get more views (by adding tags in different scripts)’. This ensures that the photo is accessible to English and Chinese speakers around the world when they perform searches with keywords in English, and traditional or simplified Chinese.

The above factors show that the decision on whether or not to use English on Flickr has very little to do with knowledge of English. We have found that

23

24

Englishization in Asia

a person who is highly fluent or educated in English may not necessarily use more English than someone who only knows a few English words; and likewise, someone who knows little English can participate actively, if not fully, in Flickr. Whether English should be used or not depends largely on the various factors we have described in this section. Considering these factors helps widen participation on Flickr. This argument is not only valid for the Chinese-speaking community. A similar phenomenon exists among our group of Spanish participants which we do not cover here.

Web 2.0 and glocalized linguistic identities

… I want a wider group of people to know me. Not that the Chinese won’t know me if I call myself just Kristie but if I attached a more ‘graphic’ Chinese word (that’s how I always see the language) , we can connect quicker and better. The name also says alot about who I am in my whole darn life. [Kristie (遊牧民阿靜), email interview, unedited]

Kristie’s (遊牧民阿靜 ) explanation for her bilingual screen-name reveals a close relationship between her language choice and her sense of self. As we have already shown, the extent to which English is used on Flickr does not necessarily reflect the users’ competence in English. Language use on Flickr, we argue, is closely related to the ways in which participants project their linguistic identities, and the extent to which they intend to participate as global members of Flickr. The relationship between English and globalization has been widely discussed in recent years (e.g. Crystal 1997; Phillipson 2004; Tam and Weiss 2004; Wright 2004). However, little attention has been paid to online contexts. Two meanings of ‘global’ can be identified in our study of Flickr. Generally, we have noted that the relationship between English and the global Flickr community is shaped by a relatively traditional, homogeneous view of globalization. This view suggests that English is the universal language of the Internet and thus it should be the common language of international interaction on Flickr; and presumably this is the only language that all Flickr users share. To many of the Chinese participants, writing in English is also a key marker of global identity and an indication of active involvement in Flickr. This view of identity is strongly supported by the fact that mainland Chinese such as cjpanda and zfz0123^_^, who

Chapter 1

do not need to use English in other areas of life, or those who have little confidence in English such as tiong (小吞 ), are ready to interact with other members in English. Another sense of the notion is that globalization leads to heterogeneity of culture. That is, instead of seeing the Web as a culturally and linguistically unified space, a truly globalized community should be a dynamic and diversified one, thus allowing space for a wide range of cultures and languages to develop. One of the mainland Chinese in our study, sating, apparently holds such a view of globalization. She associated her global Flickr identity with the Chinese language instead of English. She explained:

If Flickr is a global website, as a Chinese, why must I use English, a language that I am not good at? Besides, most of my photos reflect the reality of China. So Chinese has to be the most suitable tool of communication (sating, email interview, original text in Chinese).

Her view challenges the claim that English is the only language of the Internet, suggesting that globalization already goes beyond the English language. Whichever sense of the global is taken, sating’s self-reflection about her Chineseness and her resistance to English demonstrate her awareness of her local identity on Flickr. Writing in Chinese allows her to retain her local identity and to promote this to international Flickr participants. Such a tension between English and Chinese is also evident in tiong’s (小 吞) case. Although he feels that it is more ‘polite’ to use English when interacting with English-speaking people, he insists that he should write in Chinese if he knows that his audience understands Chinese writing. He said: ‘… when two Chinese people communicate, what else should we use if not Chinese? I would not communicate with a Chinese friend if he speaks English to me without any reason’. Although these users generally see English as the medium of global participation in Flickr, they frequently reflect upon, project and retain their local identities by describing photos, tagging and making comments in Chinese. We suggest that the switching between global and local languages and identities on Flickr is best described as glocalization. This term originated in Japanese business in the 1980s but the best-known academic

25

26

Englishization in Asia

discussion of the concept is perhaps provided by Robertson (1995) who criticizes the traditional characterization of globalization, believing that the term glocalization is a better alternative for describing the hybridity of local and global cultures in our contemporary world. Koutsogiannis and Mitsikopoulou (2007) apply this concept in their study of online language use in Greece, in which they define glocalization as ‘a dynamic negotiation between the global and the local, with the local appropriating elements of the global that it finds useful, at the same time employing strategies to retain its identity’ (p. 143). On Flickr, participating as a glocal person is an important way for people who do not speak English as a first language to maximize the accessibility of their sites. We thus further argue that writing multilingually is one of the essential literacy practices for people to project glocal identities on Flickr. For example, on Tinn Tian’s photostream, a photo is described as:

同心鎖 means love each other for ever.

To Tinn Tian, describing his photo in this way is the strategy he chose to use to retain his local Chinese identity while at the same time achieving mutual understanding between Chinese and non-Chinese speakers. Such a bilingual description also attracts comments from other language communities. In view of this, other languages continue to co-exist with English on Flickr. In the context of Flickr, users’ linguistic identities are no longer associated with static categories such as their nationality, geographical location or whether or not they are bilingual in out-of-Flickr life. We suggest that, on Flickr, linguistic identities are constantly changing and appropriated in different instances of use, and are shaped by constant negotiation between their local, global and glocal identities.

Conclusions Our study of Flickr strongly suggests that the Internet is not as Englishized as was once expected. Initially, English was assumed to be ‘the language of the Internet’, but it is now one of the many lingua francas on the Web, coexisting with other languages, big and small. English may continue to be seen as a common language of global online communities but the spread

Chapter 1

of the Internet does not seem to pose a threat to local languages. Our analysis demonstrates that, on Flickr, the role of English is not as simple as being the language for intercultural communication; it is often used as an additional language that complements a local language, or a language for translating local culture to the rest of the world. Our focus on Flickr provides evidence to predict that greater linguistic diversity can be expected in such Web 2.0 spaces. The move towards a multilingual Internet is in part due to the increasingly multinational background of Web users worldwide, especially with the help of multilingual translators and dictionaries. More important, language choice online depends largely on what Web users want to achieve when they participate in different situations of Internet use. Getting online is no longer simply about browsing or looking up information. Web 2.0 spaces such as Flickr encourage Web users to contribute new content, to network with people worldwide who share common interests and to participate collaboratively. Such new practices on the Web provide users with unprecedented space and power of choice. As we have seen in this paper, the majority of Chinese-speaking Flickr users in our study deploy their Chinese and English resources strategically according to various factors such as who their intended audience is, what they use Flickr for, what their photos are about and the technological affordances of Flickr. We have also seen ways in which Web 2.0 spaces help construct new linguistic identities. We have shown that one of the most important practices for non-English-speakers participating in Flickr is to project themselves as glocal participants – that is as global people with a strong local identity. On the one hand, they expect that by interacting with their audience in a global language such as English, they can project themselves as global people. On the other hand, Flickr also allows space for nonEnglish-speakers to establish networks with people who share similar local identities. One of the most obvious markers of local identity on Flickr is the use of local languages. Our data showed that Chinese Flickr users frequently employ local linguistic practices to reflect and retain their ‘Chineseness’ when they communicate with Flickr members who share parts of their offline identities (e.g. place of origin, nationality, first language, and cultural traditions and values). Such multiple senses of ‘self’ reinforce more glocalized netizenships. This paper has focused primarily

27

28

Englishization in Asia

on data from Chinese-speaking participants. Further empirical research on language use online should aim to observe multilingual practices in other linguistic communities and examine the extent to which the trend of glocalization will spread on other social network sites and Web 2.0 at large.

References Androutsopoulos, J (2006) ‘Multilingualism, diaspora, and the Internet: Codes and identities on German-based diaspora websites’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4): 520–47. Barton, D (2007) Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Block, D (2004) ‘Globalization, transnational communication and the Internet’, International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(1): 13–28. Burgess, J (2006) ‘Vernacular creativity, cultural participation and new media literacy: Photography and the Flickr network’ in Proceedings of Internet Research 7.0: Internet Convergences (AoIR), Brisbane, http://eprints. qut.edu.au/archive/00007828/01/7828.pdf. Crystal, D (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D (2006) Language and the Internet, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Danet, B and Herring, S C (eds) (2007) The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Davies, J (2006) ‘Affinities and beyond!! Developing ways of seeing in online spaces’ in e-learning – Special Issue: Digital Interfaces, 3(2): 217–34. Dor, D (2004) ‘From Englishization to imposed multilingualism: Globalization, the Internet, and the political economy of the linguistic code’, Public Culture, 16(1): 97–118. Ebbertz, M (2002) ‘Internet statistics: distribution of languages on the Internet’, http://www.netz-tipp.de/sprachen.html.

Chapter 1

Fishman, J (1998) ‘The new linguistic order’, Foreign Policy, 113:26–40. Gao, L (2004) ‘The Englishization of Chinese in computer-mediated communication’, 28th Penn Linguistics Colloquium, University of Pennsylvania. Garland, E (2006) ‘Can minority languages be saved? Globalization vs culture’, The Futurist, July–August 2006, http://www.omniglot.com/ language/articles/minority_languages.php. Global Reach (2004) Global Internet Statistics, http://www.glreach.com/ globstats/index.php3. Koutsogiannis, D and Mitsikopoulou, B (2007) ‘Greeklish and Greekness: Trends and discourses of “glocalness”’ in Danet, B and Herring, S C (eds) The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture and Communication Online, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 142–62. Lankshear, C and Knobel, M (2006) New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Classroom Learning, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Lankshear, C and Knobel, M (2007) ‘Sampling “the new” in new literacies’ in Knobel, M and Lankshear, C (eds) A New Literacy Studies Sampler, New York: Peter Lang, 1–24. Lee, C K M (2007) ‘Affordances and text-making practices in online instant messaging’, Written Communication, 24(3): 223–49. Lerman, K and Jones, L A (2007) ‘Social browsing on Flickr’ in Proceedings of International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Boulder, CO, USA. Luke, A, Luke, C and Graham, P (2007) ‘Globalization, corporatism, and critical language education’, International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(1): 1–13. Marlow, C, Naaman, M, Boyd, D and Davis, M (2006) ‘HT06, tagging paper, taxonomy, Flickr’ in Proceedings of the 17th Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1149941.1149949. O’Reilly, T (2005) ‘What is Web 2.0?: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software’, http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228.

29

30

Englishization in Asia

Paolillo, J C (2007) ‘How much multilingualism? Language diversity on the Internet’ in Danet, B and Herring, S C (eds) The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 408–30. Phillipson, R (2004) ‘English in globalization: Three approaches’, Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 3(1): 73–84. Richardson, W (2006) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms, CA: Corwin Press. Robertson, R (1995) ‘Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneityheterogeneity’ in Featherstone, M, Lash, S and Robertson, R (eds) Global Modernities, London: SAGE Publications, 25–44. Scollon, R and Scollon, S W (2003) Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World, London: Routledge. Solomon, G and Schrum, L (2007) Web 2.0: New Tools, New Schools, Washington DC: International Society for Technology in Education. Tam, K K and Weiss, T (eds) (2004) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. van House, N A (2007) ‘Flickr and public image-sharing: distant closeness and photo exhibition’, Computer/Human Interaction Conference 2007, San Jose, California. Warschauer, M, El Said, G R and Zohry, A A (2007) ‘Language choice online: Globalization and identity in Egypt’ in Danet, B and Herring, S C (eds) The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture, and Communication Online, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 303–18. Winget, M (2006) ‘User-defined classification on the online photo sharing site Flickr … or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the million typing monkeys’, Proceedings of the 17th ASIS&T SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, University of Texas at Austin.

Chapter 1

Wright, S (2004) ‘Introduction’, International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 6(1): 13–28. Yates, S (1996) ‘Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing’ in Herring, S C (ed.) Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 22–46.

31

2

Hybridity in language and identity: Englishization in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia Kwok-kan Tam

Quoting George Steiner, Braj Kachru remarked in 1995 that ‘the linguistic center of English has shifted’ (p. 1). Statistics show that today there are more non-native speakers of English than native speakers. According to David Crystal (1997), there are 320–380 million native English speakers living in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but there are 250–1,300 million non-native English speakers living in other parts of the world. English has become a world language, owned by both native and non-native speakers. However, Kachru was referring not just to population figures for English speakers. As he said (ibid.):

… this shift of the linguistic center involves more than statistics. It does look as if the principal energies of the English language, as if its genius for acquisition, for innovation, more metaphoric response, has also moved away from England.



What is important here is where the center is shifting to. Steiner was not thinking of the shift to North America or to Australia only, but to East, West, and South Africa, India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), and the US possessions in the Pacific. He is actually referring to the unprecedented global presence of English, its internationalisation, and its increasing pluralism.



This cross-cultural and pluricentric shift of the language demands that we begin with a distinction between English as a medium and English as a repertoire of cultural pluralism, one referring to the form of language and the other to its diverse functions.

It is true that in terms of number there are more non-native speakers of English than native speakers, but the norms and standards are still set (or

Chapter 2

controlled) and provided by the major native varieties, such as British and American English, the influence of which the international media play an important role in perpetuating. In matters of economy and politics, the wealthier First World countries also have a greater influence in the control of world resources, including the language resources. Hence, in international communication British and American English dominate.

Bilingual creative code-mixing and cultural hybridity The first observation one can make about the international language scene is that, while in today’s world a very large number of people use, or speak, English as a non-native language, they have to learn the norms derived from the native varieties of English. Hence, in many countries in which English is used as a second or foreign language, speakers have to learn both the standard and the colloquial varieties. The former is used for international and formal communication, and the latter for casual conversation. In Hong Kong and Singapore/Malaysia, people learn British or American English for standard use in international or formal communication, but in less formal conversation people tend to use a colloquial style of English with plenty of code-mixing, in which elements from native languages/dialects are mixed with English syntax. Code-mixing is a language issue, but it can also be viewed as a cultural phenomenon of hybridity that has to do with the spread of English to non-English-speaking countries as a result of colonialism, and recently of globalization. For example, in many Asian cities, such as Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong, where English is a foreign language, young people wear T-shirts that have English words – which give them not only a taste of exoticism, but also a new identity of being Western and modern. Also, the Japanese language is famous for its capacity to absorb loan words from foreign languages, such as Chinese and English. In Hong Kong, the Cantonese dialect has long been Englishized, with loan words from English – such as ‘basi’ (bus), ‘siduo’ (store) and many, many other examples – having become part of the Cantonese language and culture. The Cantonese that Hong Kong people speak is a hybrid language, with syntax and lexical items Englishized and then re-nativized so that they sound like Cantonese, but they are actually of English origin.

33

34

Englishization in Asia

Code-mixing in Asia has now taken on a new form by directly incorporating English words and phrases into native languages. For example, in Hong Kong, even when people speak or write in Cantonese/ Chinese, they may be using terms from English in their original form, rather than in translation or transliteration, especially in technical writing (Yau 1993). However, other than for practical purposes and in technical use, Hong Kong people like to speak Cantonese with English words and phrased mixed in it, and this code-mixing in language use reflects, to a certain extent, their identity-mixing. There is also the phenomenon of switching between Cantonese and English in speech: two language systems and two cultural identities are unconsciously at work in many Hong Kong people’s mind, as well as their psyches, when they switch between Cantonese and English. From the perspective of postcolonial studies, code-mixing in the use of English in ex-colonies serves a function of resistance. In The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures, Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin (1989, 17) argue:

one of the main features of imperial oppression is control over language. The imperial education installs a ‘standard’ version of the metropolitan language as the norm, and marginalizes all ‘variants’ as impurities. … Language becomes the medium through which a hierarchical structure of power is perpetuated, and the medium through which concepts of ‘truth’, ‘order’, and ‘reality’ become established. Such power is rejected in the emergence of an effective post-colonial voice.

The language hybrid is thus a cultural hybrid, which deviates from the norm and resists being categorized. Code-mixing is not accepted in the education system in Hong Kong, which still follows a colonial policy that maintains purity in language, but it is widely used in society, in the media and in creative work. Such a phenomenon marks the cultural and linguistic hybridity that has been developed in Asia.

Chapter 2

Hong Kong and identity-mixing Code-mixing is not just a language phenomenon. It is social and cultural, and behind it is an expression of identity. In creative writing, code-mixing has been adopted by many authors in Asia as a strategy for creating new uses of language that reflect not just the sociolinguistics of Asia but also the complexities in Asian identity. Here is an example taken from a Cantonese/Chinese play (Lam 2000, 193) in which code-mixing is used to reflect not just the language reality in Hong Kong but also the impossibility of avoiding the use of English even when one is speaking in Cantonese:

好，現在大家拿c h a p t e r 1 7那些筆記出來。我們打開上次開始了的那個 chapter，Elasticity of Demand。今堂我們會繼續上次的討論 – 甚麼是 Elasticity of Demand 呢？（望向觀眾）有沒有人記得呢？（靜止了一會， 作等待回答狀）是沒有人記得的。到底有沒有人認真上課的呢？



[Hou, yenjoy daiga la chapter 17 la se butgai chui loy. Ngo mun da hoy sheung chi hoy chi liu dik lago chapter, Elasticity of Demand. Gumtong ngo mun wui gaichuk sheung chi dik tou lun – shummo si Elasticity of Demand lei? (Mong heong gwun chong) yau mood yau yan geidak lei? (ching ji liu yat wui, chok deng doy wui dap chong) yau mood yau yan geidak dik. Do dai yau mui yau yan ying jen sheung fo dik lei?]



[Good, let’s take out the notes on Chapter 17. Let’s turn to the chapter, ‘Elasticity of Demand,’ which we started in the last class. In this class we will continue our discussion – what is Elasticity of Demand? (Look at the audience) Does anyone remember? (Silence, waiting for response) No one remembers. Is there anyone serious in his study?]

This example shows how the two languages, Cantonese/Chinese and English, work in a classroom situation in Hong Kong. People are bilingual in the sense of code-mixing between the two languages. The teacher uses mixed code in his language, and students also learn to use mixed code. The textbook is written in English, but the medium of oral instruction is Chinese. This seems to be a contradiction, but is perfectly mixed and becomes a hybrid language.

35

36

Englishization in Asia

On the other hand, one may also observe the dissociation between the written and the oral in language use. The written, if it is formal and official, is often in English: legal and official documents are always in English. But in conversation, Cantonese-speaking lawyers speak to each other in Cantonese. Another phenomenon one can find in code-mixing in Hong Kong is the use of Cantonese/Chinese in English, a practice which is particularly common among native English speakers in the city. The following extract is taken from an English play, ‘Face’ (1998, 318), by Veronica Needa:

In Hong Kong whether I am shopping or in a taxi, people say to me ‘Wa nay sik gong Gongdonghua, ga?’ ‘Oh you speak Cantonese?’ ‘Nay dee Gongdonghua haih been do hok ga?’ ‘Where did you learn it?’ ‘yu-gwor ngo m geen do lay, ngo joong yee-way nay hai JungGwokyun teem!’



[In Hong Kong whether I am shopping or in a taxi, people say to me, ‘Wow, you know how to speak Cantonese, don’t you?’ ‘Oh you speak Cantonese?’ ‘Where did you learn it?’ ‘If I did not see your face, I would have thought that you were Chinese!’

English speakers, particularly Eurasians, who are identified with Hong Kong always have to face the issue of identity. They speak English, and they think that they are Hongkongers, but in the eyes of the local Cantonese/ Chinese people they are Westerners. It is in code-mixing that they express their language identity by using Cantonese/Chinese expressions. In the novels by the Hong Kong writer Xu Xi, such as The Unwalled City: A Novel of Hong Kong (2001), much of the creative energy lies in the use of code-mixing. Here is an example:

‘Meih dou gau chat.’ ’97 hasn’t arrived, he declared in Cantonese. ‘Putonghua has bu shi Xianggang de mu yu.’ Putonghua isn’t Hong Kong’s mother-tongue yet, he added, in Mandarin.



Andanna understood the exchange, but felt a little awkward. When she’d visited Colleen, the latter declared that if she didn’t speak Putonghua, she really ought to take classes, especially if she wanted to sing. Many of the big name performers could handle both dialects.

Chapter 2

Some of the Taiwan and Mainland singers even sang in Cantonese now (p. 200). In this example, Cantonese and Mandarin expressions are used in an English speech. In another place in the novel, Xu Xi even used doublemeaning Cantonese compound terms, such as ‘dung-sai’ (literally ‘East– West’, ‘thing’) (p. 258) to refer to the identity of Hong Kong as a ‘thing’ caught in between the East and the West. Such an identity confusion among Hong Kong people cannot be adequately expressed in English. In recent uses of code-mixing in daily language, there are more and more such attempts to nativize English expressions. Some similarity to ‘identity dung-sai’ can be found in the expression ‘thank-you nay’ (literally ‘thankyou you’), a compound expression mixing English and Cantonese/Chinese. Despite the awkward and redundant repetition of ‘you’, the purpose is to nativize an English expression so that it becomes half English and half Cantonese. Why is there the attempt to retain their Chinese identity when writers write in English? On this issue, Andrew Parkin made the following observation:

Like most Chinese intellectuals exposed to and well versed in both Western and Chinese literature, the poets [featured here] have a common desire: to make a significant contribution to Chinese culture. This is apparent in their poems. The poets’ education and professional lives seem very modern and Western in outlook (and this is especially true …); but their sensibility and temperament tell us that each of them reserves in the chambers of the heart a special décor, atmosphere, and sense of proportion that is of China and Asia. There is a certain helplessness because, while they can visit China, reach out, and touch it, they may live there only in the heart. They ask questions, like all immigrants, such as ‘Where is home?’ ‘What am I doing here?’ ‘Where should I stand on this or that issue?’ In some ways they are mentally far from the changed and changing motherland, even in Hong Kong – a city more modern in some ways, more traditional in others. (Parkin and Wong 1995, xiv)

37

38

Englishization in Asia

Singapore/Malaysia and identity construction Although Singapore and Malaysia are two countries, they share a very similar literature in English in terms of experimentation with the nativization of English. The major native languages, Chinese, Malay and Tamil, have all entered into the daily use of English. Singapore and Malaysia are places where much cultural fusion between English and Asia is going on, and these countries can be seen as a miniature of cultural globalization. The postcolonial developments in Malaysia and Singapore make necessary a search not just for national identity but also for linguistic identity:

The nerve to knock English about, and re-tune it for creativity, came with the founding of the University of Malaya in Singapore in October 1949. It started with the poetry, chiefly, of Wang Gungwu and Goh Sin Tub. A few short stories emerged as offshoots of the experiment and search for a common identity and national language/idiom.



(Thumboo 1990, xvii)

As I have argued elsewhere (Tam 2003), language is identity, and in the case of Singapore and Malaysia the attempt to use nativized forms of English is to create a new identity that can reflect the cultural mix in the region, as illustrated in the following quotation:

‘Why rich man want to buy pig to shit in his house?’ He asked, like want to pick a fight with people kind. ‘Trying to be funny with me, is it?’



‘No lah,’ I protested. ‘Why you always think so bad of people? The rich they just different from us, can or not? Everyday they eat sharks fin and bird’s nest until they get so sick they want to eat porridge and salt fish. Anyway, what do you and I know about being rich? Towkay told me nowadays in America very fashionable to have pigs for pets. Towkay Kia wants to be the first in Singapore to have one, for face lah.’



(Wee 1998, 48)

Chapter 2

In this example, one can see the use of Chinese expressions, such as ‘for face lah’, and ‘can or not?’ Such expressions have now become characteristic of the new English, not just in Singapore and Malaysia but also in Southeast Asia in general. In Mary Loh’s story ‘Rice’, food and language are used as images to represent the conflicts between the East and the West in contemporary Singapore identity. In terms of food, the protagonist, who is a newgeneration Singaporean from a traditional Chinese family, thinks that she is Westernized and prefers pasta to rice. Rice serves as a symbol of the Chinese ethnicity and Chinese culture that is treasured by the parents and grandparents in the family. The tradition in Chinese culture, as symbolized by rice, has also become a tradition in the family where every member has to treat it with respect: rice has to be eaten ‘in reverent silence, slowly and with meaningful silence’ (p. 190). As the protagonist says, ‘But this I long remember of a family ritual; we’ve always had rice for dinner. Rice served even when we had turkey at Christmas’ (ibid.). Rice is not just food; it provides a cultural link between three generations of the family. However, for the narrator, rice has lost its cultural meaning:

I hate eating white rice. White rice is bland and boring. It has to be made more interesting with a variety of other dishes. One hardly eats rice on its own, to savour its full-bodied flavour, simply because it has none. It is a staple, a stomach filler, little else. I make concessions for brown rice, which I eat sparingly, more as a health fad rather than as real food. I am, as Ma says, ‘western-educated’ and prefer hong-mo sek.



(Loh 1998, 192)

For the protagonist who is Western-educated, rice is not as tasty as pasta, lasagna or cheese. Her new identity is defined by her personal taste for Western food. Although the story focuses on food as a marker of identity, the language used by the protagonist reflects her cultural preference between English and Chinese. In the story, whenever there are Chinese expressions, they are used to refer to things that are believed to be conservative and superstitious. The Chinese expression ‘fan-thong’ (literally ‘a rice container’)

39

40

Englishization in Asia

is used to refer to people who eat plenty of rice without any contribution to the family or society. All swear words used in the story are from Chinese. The irony, however, is that after the protagonist has married an Englishman she discovers that she can never deny her Chinese ethnic identity and her husband loves her mainly because she is Chinese. In the Malaysian English story, ‘A Sense of Home’ by Kee Thuan Chye, there is the theme of quest for self-identity. The story is written in standard English, but in the dialogue there is the use of colloquial Malaysian English, in which expressions from Chinese can be found:

By the time I got to Form One, seven years later, I was already wise about the fundamentals of reproduction. One day, in English class, the teacher took us through A. J. Cornin’s Hatter’s Castle, which we read in its abridged version. At the end of one chapter, the young man and his girlfriend walked along a canal, holding hands, and enjoyed the night and the twinkling stars, then at the beginning of the very next chapter, it was revealed that she had become pregnant. I felt cheated and complained to my classmate Siang: ‘I doan believe it! How can she get pregnan? The book diden day they did anyting waat!’



Siang, in all innocence, replied, ‘What do you mean? The book said they were holding hands.’



‘You can’t get pregnan just holding hands!’ I cried.



‘Can lah!’ he asserted with the confidence of his ignorance. ‘Jus hold hands only can get pregnan.’



‘No laaah! You got to more dan dat,’ I said.



‘Like wat?’ he asked.



‘You go and ask your parents lah!’ I said, and laughed a superior laugh.



(Kee 2002, 104)

In this example, one can see that code-mixing is used to represent child language, and also that the narrator switches between standard and colloquial English. But the main part of the story is narrated in standard

Chapter 2

English. From this example, one can see that there is a lesser degree of nativization of English in Malaysia than in Singapore.

Englishization of Asian identity and nativization of English Identity in Hong Kong and Singapore/Malaysia is an issue of ethnicity, culture and also language. In Hong Kong, many people are trilingual in English, Cantonese and Mandarin, while in Singapore/Malaysia people are bilingual in English and their mother tongue. English is an official language in Hong Kong because of its colonial legacy and its advantage of being a global language, but it is the lingua franca in Singapore/Malaysia for political reasons. As in the case of many multilingual societies, language is an important issue in the postcolonial construction of a nation, or the identity of a place. In identity politics, language plays a significant role in differentiating people of different linguistic origins, and hence different racial and cultural backgrounds. However, the construction of a national identity in Singapore, which has to go above and beyond racial differences, poses a theoretical challenge, for it works against the differentiating function of language. Language groups individuals who speak the same language, but differentiates people who speak different languages. Grouping is a basic pattern of politics, which unites its members but also differentiates its non-members (Huntington, 1997). However, if people who speak different languages can mix their language and can still understand each other, then language will not form a wall to differentiate those who don’t speak it. In Hong Kong, code-mixing between English and Cantonese/Chinese is so common in people’s speech that it has become a natural phenomenon; and there is not much nativization of English, or much Englishization of Cantonese/Chinese. The language identity in Hong Kong is not that of a dilemma, for the conflicts and differences are overcome in code-mixing. The dilemma that can be found in contemporary identity politics in Singapore, especially in the conflicts between ‘communal/individual, traditional/modern, indigenous/foreign (Asian/Western), and ethnic/ national orientations’ (Chua and Kuo 2000, 35) may be reformulated as

41

42

Englishization in Asia

conflicts between the pure and the hybrid, the self and the nation. Within the self, this dilemma becomes an inner conflict in the individual. The construction of a national identity necessarily entails a construction of the self, for in the processes of identification a person has to see him/herself as part of the nation, which comprises other ethnic groups and cultures. The construction of identity, be it national or cultural, after all involves a construction of the self. The first step in building up a new national identity in Singapore is to break down the linguistic barriers of ethnic politics by nationalizing the use of English, which has to be depoliticized and deculturalized. While the depoliticization of English succeeds in making it possible for use as a lingua franca of society, concerns are raised about the cultural consequences of the dominance of English:

First, while English proficiency gave Singaporeans greater access to global economic opportunities, it also rendered them more susceptible to cultural influences from Western sources, whose effects were discursively labelled ‘Westernization,’ which was behaviourally concretized by the government as an individual Singaporean’s inclination to such acts as drug abuse, sexual permissiveness, consumerism, and political liberalism. Cultural discourse in Singapore from then on took on an increasing disparaging portrayal of the ‘West’ as an imaginary unitary entity, eliminating differences between the people of Europe, America, and Australia. Second, it was argued in essentialist fashion that the domination of English is emotively problematic because it remains a ‘superimposed’ Western language, thereby lacking cultural authenticity and legitimacy. The Prime Minister stated: ‘English will not be emotionally accepted as our mother tongue’. [Strait Times, 22 September 1984, quoted in Chua and Kuo (2000), 52–53]

Here a crucial issue about language and identity is raised: if English serves as the lingua franca in Singapore, it has to be depoliticized and deculturalized, but the opposite seems to be the case. Since the early 1980s there have been debates in Singapore on the contradictions underlying the depoliticization of English in the country: ‘The government’s success

Chapter 2

in actively propagating a very particular notion of the “practical” and in “convincing” even academics and intellectuals to accept this conception of “practical’ is indicative of its ideological success and not of the end of ideology nor the end of politics’ (Chua 1996, 40). Huntington also raised a similar point on the relation between language and identity: ‘A lingua franca is a way of coping with linguistic and cultural differences, not a way of eliminating them’ (Huntington 1997, 61); and he added, ‘The use of English for intercultural communication thus helps to maintain and, indeed, reinforces peoples’ separate cultural identities. Precisely because people want to preserve their own culture they use English to communicate with peoples of other cultures’ (p. 62). In English writing in Singapore, one sees that the use of English as a lingua franca has created problems for the writers, one of them being the authenticity of his/her voice. For example, in ‘A Poem Not Too Obiang’, Jason Leow expresses the difficulties he finds in establishing his voice (and place/identity) in using the English language. The images of cultural hybridity expressed in the poem, like ‘teh tarek’, and the identity of in-betweenness, like ‘the prata man’s/flips and flaps of the dough’, are presented also as code-mixing in language, with ‘alamak’ as relexification of English. Yet, what is more interesting is the cultural mix of the speaker’s self, which falls between the culture of English and that of Chinese in the image of hybridized food. At another level, the poem presents a dilemma between the local and the foreign. Instead of speaking of one’s identity as ethnic and cultural, what is delineated here is that of the ‘local’, which transcends the older ‘North-South’ or ‘East-West’ distinctions and contestations. In Malaysia, Bahasa Malaysia is the official language, but English is the lingua franca between different language communities and ethnic groups, and Chinese is the next most important language. Because of the need to build up a Malaysian national identity, Bahasa Malaysia is replacing English, making English a foreign language. There is a strong attempt to nativize English and spell it in the Malay way, and there is almost no Englishization of local languages and local identity in Malaysia. As a foreign (sometime ago, second) language, English does not present any identity problem to the people.

43

44

Englishization in Asia

References Ashcroft, B, Griffiths, G and Tiffin, H (1989) The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-Colonial Literatures, New York: Routledge. Chua, B H (1983) ‘Re-opening ideological discussion in Singapore: A new theoretical direction’, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 11(2): 31–45. Chua, B H and Kuo, E (2000) ‘The making of a new nation: Cultural construction and national identity in Singapore’ in Dominguez, V R and Wu, D Y H (eds) From Beijing to Port Moresby: The Politics of National Identity in Cultural Politics, Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers, 35–67. Crystal, D (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huntington, S P (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London: Simon and Schuster. Joseph, J E (2004) Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Joseph, J E and Taylor, J T (1990) Ideologies of Language, London and New York: Routledge. Kachru, B B (1990) ‘World Englishes and applied linguistics’, World Englishes, 9(1): 3–20. Kachru, B B (1995) ‘The intercultural nature of modern English’, Proceedings of the 1995 Global Diversity Conference, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/ publications/multicultural/confer/04/speech19a.htm. Kee, T C (2002) ‘A Sense of Home’ in Mukherjee, D, Singh K and Quayum, M A (eds) The Merlion and the Hibiscus: Contemporary Short Stories from Singapore and Malaysia, New Delhi: Penguin, 100–104. Lam, Y W 林奕華 (2000)《我X學校》(‘I-deal school’) in Xiao, X 小西 (ed.) 《千禧以前香港戲劇2000》(Before the Millennium: Hong Kong Drama 2000), Hong Kong: International Association of Theatre Critics, 186–240.

Chapter 2

Leow, J (1995) ‘A Poem Not Too Obiang’ in Thumboo, E et al. (eds) Journeys: Words, Home and Nation, Anthology of Singapore Poetry (1984–1995), Singapore: UniPress, 138. Loh, M C K (1998) ‘Rice’ in Leong, L G (ed.) More Than Half the Sky: Creative Writings by Thirty Singaporean Women, Singapore: Times Books International, 190–96. Needa, V (2000) ‘Face’ in Cheung, P K (ed.) Yanhua guohou 煙花過後： 香港戲劇1998 (After the drama: Hong Kong drama 1998), Hong Kong: International Association of Theatre Critics, 273–322. Parkin, A and Wong, L (1995) ‘Introduction’ in Parkin, A (ed.) From the Bluest Part of the Harbour: Poems from Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, xiii–xix. Tam, K K (2003) ‘Negotiating the self between cultures and nation in Singapore English writings’ in Ahrens, R, Parker, D, Stierstorfer, K and Tam, K K (eds) Anglophone Cultures in Southeast Asia, Heidelberg: Winter Universtätsverlag, 85–96. Thumboo, E (1990) ‘General introduction’ in Thumboo, E et al. (eds) The Fiction of Singapore (Anthology of ASEAN Literatures, vol. II), Singapore: The ASEAN Committee on Culture and Information, i–xx. Wee, K (1998) ‘Pearls on swine’ in Leong, L G (ed.) More Than Half the Sky: Creative Writings by Thirty Singaporean Women, Singapore: Times Books International, 47–60. Xu, X (2001) The Unwalled City: A Novel of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Chameleon Press. Yau, M S (1993) ‘Functions of two codes in Hong Kong Chinese’, World Englishes, 12(1): 25–33. Young, R J C (1995) Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race, London: Routledge.

45

3

Englishization as an aspect of building Singapore identity Lian-Hee Wee

In this paper, I examine the linguistic aspect of the formation of Singapore identity. This is particularly interesting not only because Singaporeans can be identified easily by the way they speak but also because they have mixed 1 reactions to their linguistic endowment. To foreigners, Singaporeans are highly multilingual, having proficiency in at least English and a combination of the Chinese languages, the Indian languages and also Malay. This is not to say that the average Singaporean speaks so many languages, but he/she would certainly have access to and familiarity with all or some of these languages. This gives rise to the impression that the average Singaporean is effectively multilingual, even though native competence may not have been attained for all the languages that Singaporeans claim to speak. In other words, if person A speaks only English and person B only Mandarin, then even if person C speaks English half as well as A and Mandarin half as well as B, C will be revered by both A and B as an effective multilingual. The average Singaporean is like person C. Among Singaporeans, there is an increasing awareness that their competence in all the languages they lay claim to speak does not match up to the standards of standard varieties. In other words, Singaporeans do not speak English as well as the British, the Americans or the Australians, and they do not speak Mandarin as well as the Chinese. For example, the typical Singaporean often finds him/herself in the awkward position of having to replace words from one language with those from another. Whether one sees this as deliberate code-switching or unconscious code1

This research is supported by FRG/05-06/I-51, Faculty Research Grant of the Hong Kong Baptist University. The author is also immensely grateful to Kwan Nga Tang, Kam Hiu Ying and Liu Hoi Pui for painstakingly checking the manuscript for errors.

Chapter 3

mixing, there is something to be said about the extra effort needed by Singaporeans to avoid having multilinguistic codes even in a short discourse. After all, one would expect a true multilingual to require no additional effort in using just plain English (or any other language) without having to resort to makeshift borrowings from other languages. To some people in Singapore, this code-mixing/-switching is undesirable and is looked upon with disdain. The Singaporean government appears to be an ardent supporter of this view as may be seen in the various campaigns it has initiated to promote ‘good’ English or Mandarin. Such campaigns include the ‘Speak Good English Movement’ which began in 2001 (http:// www.goodenglish.org.sg/SGEM/) and the ‘Speak Mandarin Campaign’ which started in 1979 (http://www.mandarin.org.sg/smc/home.html). Both campaigns are still running. To other Singaporeans, the peculiar type of speech which is peppered with elements from all the languages that came into contact in this small island is part of cultural heritage and is what makes a person Singaporean. In this study, I present examples of the English used in Singapore, affectionately referred to as ‘Singlish’ or, more commonly, Singapore English (henceforth SgE). In these examples, I hope to show how SgE came about through a process that can only be described as ‘Englishization’ if that term is understood to mean a bi-directional process where English is indigenized and where non-English elements are Anglicized. Englishization is thus one of the key elements in understanding the formation of a cultural and social identity in Singapore. The implication behind such a conclusion is that policy-makers, and grammatical purists as well as their opponents, with their different goals and agenda on linguistic issues, should complement each other by incorporating and balancing the need for global communication with the need to preserve and develop this aspect of Singapore’s cultural identity.

Singapore’s linguistic scene To understand the Englishization that brought about SgE and its impact on Singaporean national and cultural identity, it is necessary first to study the Singapore linguistic scene. Until the arrival of Stamford Raffles in 1819, Singapore was a remote fishing village. Little of what happened before this

47

48

Englishization in Asia

period is of relevance to the development of SgE, quite simply because English was not spoken there then. Raffles is commonly described as the founder of modern Singapore because he established it as a free port, thereby attracting the first waves of immigrants from the region as traders flocked in. (For a brief and comprehensive account, see Singapore 1972 and Backhouse 1972.) Given the location of Singapore in the heart of Southeast Asia, it is unsurprising that most people who emigrated there were from the southern provinces of China, India and the neighbouring lands. Thus Singapore came to have languages from all the following sources.

The Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian group Native to the region is the Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian group of languages, which includes Malaysian Malay and Indonesian Malay, as well as Sundanese, Javanese, Acehnese, Chamorro and many others. Of particular interest is Malay (Malaysian or Indonesian regardless, since they are very similar) which is recognized in Singapore as her national language, along with three other official languages: English, Mandarin and Tamil. The lyrics of the Singaporean National Anthem, ‘Majulah Singapura’ (‘Onward Singapore’) is written in Malay, composed by an ethnic Malay (Zubir Said, 1907–1987) with Malay folk musical themes and idioms. Malay continues to be important in Singapore even though it is hardly spoken outside Malay families. SgE includes many examples of the Malay language [e.g. lobang (hole), suka (like), gila (crazy)] and continues to be used in place names (e.g. Bedok, Katong, Eunos, Kembangan, Bukit Timah) and street names (e.g. Jalan Sembawang, Geylang Lorong 28, where Jalan means ‘road’ and Lorong means ‘lane’). (The author used to live in Lorong K in an area called Telok Kurau which is right beside Katong.) Also, in the military, parade commands are given in Malay, such as Senang Diri (stand at ease), Sedia (stand to attention) and Hormat (salute).

Chapter 3

The Chinese group The majority of Singapore’s population is ethnic Chinese.2 Most of them can trace their ancestry to the Fujian and Guangdong provinces and so are familiar with Min, Yue and Hakka Chinese languages, including Hokkien, Teochew and Hainan (all of the Southern Min cluster), Cantonese (from the Yue cluster), Hakka and possibly other Chinese languages such as Fuzhou and Fuqing (Northern Min) and Shanghai (Wu). (For more on the classification of Chinese languages, see Yuan 1959/89 and Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing and Australian Academy of the Humanities, Canberra 1987–90.) An interesting effect of having so many different Chinese language communities within the confines of the small island that is Singapore (640 square kilometres, two-thirds the size of Hong Kong) is the variety of pronunciation of Chinese last names. Take, for example, the common last name 陳, which is uniformly ‘Chan’ in Hong Kong by virtue of transliteration from the Cantonese pronunciation. In Singapore, ‘Chan’ is not the only transliteration, but is ‘Tan’ if your ancestral home is in Fujian, ‘Tang’ if Teochew, or ‘Chan’, ‘Chen, ‘Teng’ or ‘Ten’ depending on where your ancestral home is. The table below shows some samples of common Chinese last names in Singapore and their variation. Table 3.1

2

Examples of Chinese last names and their varied transliteration

Chinese last name

Ancestral home in Fujian

Ancestral home in Chaozhou

Ancestral home in Guangdong

黃

Ng, Ooi, Oei or Wee

Ng

Wong

吳

Goh

Goh

Ng

梁

Neo

Neo

Leong

王

Ong

Heng

Wong

Since the early 1960s, ethnic Chinese have constituted 75–80% of the population, with 10–15% ethnic Malays, less than 10% ethnic Indians and a small minority of other ethnicities.

49

50

Englishization in Asia

As can be seen from the above table, variation is rather substantial. In 黃, for example, differences are evident even within the Fujian province as it includes many different speech communities. Similarly, though much less so than in Fujian, there are variations in the Cantonese spoken in different areas of the Pearl River Delta. Clearly, if there is any sense of identity within the Chinese community, it would be rather weak. In fact, many associations and clan houses were formed along speech community lines by the Chinese population, and these were then further subdivided into groups sharing the same ancestral home.

The Indian group Ethnic Indians in Singapore comprise only 7.6% of the entire population, according to the Census 2000 (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/people. html#census). Most of the ethnic Indians in Singapore are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from the southern part of India. In India, there are two major families of languages: the Indic languages (e.g. Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi and Gujarati) and the Dravidian languages (e.g. Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada and Telegu). In Singapore, all of these languages are found, but Tamil is spoken by the majority of the ethnic Indians there (64%). Even though they have been a component of Singapore since the early days of settlement, ethnic Indians have remained a small minority, and so their impact on SgE has been rather limited.

English Though English is not native to Singaporean soil, it came with the colonial power and has been playing a crucial role since then. As one would expect, English was not spoken or used beyond the British circles in the early days. This situation should be familiar to the people of Hong Kong where even after 150 years as a British colony, English remains an unpopular language among the locals.

Chapter 3

Little is known about the way the Chinese, Indians and Malays communicated with the British in early Singapore. Obviously some pidgin (a make-shift language) must have evolved during the period and, though fragmentary, there is some evidence for this – such as the expressions in Table 3.2. Table 3.2

Possible early Singapore pidgin expressions

Expression

Meaning

Remarks

Gostun

reverse

From the naval expression ‘go stern’

Godown

warehouse

The warehouse is generally located near the port which would be downhill.

Chop X

X Company

The company stamp was called a ‘chop’. Some shops inscribed ‘Chop X’ on their signboards and, though increasingly rare, such signboards can still found today.

Today, English is the language of administration and the language for interracial communication in Singapore. In addition, English allows Singapore to communicate with the rest of the world where English is the de facto lingua franca. Not surprisingly, English is used in schools for all subjects except second or foreign language classes. Today, every Singaporean knows enough English to carry on a conversation, albeit with distinctive Singaporean characteristics (about which more is said later). The linguistic and racial diversity of Singapore since its early history is significant because of its early immigrant population, who did not identify themselves as Singaporeans. The loyalties of the Chinese and the Indians, for example, were not to this island but to their homelands to which they hoped to return some day, and to which they sent much of their hardearned money every time they received their wages. In other words, there was no such thing as a Singapore identity. That had to wait until the 1960s, when Singapore gained independence and faced all kinds of challenges (see Lee 1999, 2000 for an interesting and insightful account of these events). Eventually, this complex and rich linguistic make-up of early Singapore was

51

52

Englishization in Asia

to weave itself into a crucial part of modern Singapore identity: Singapore English (SgE).

Englishization in Singapore The term ‘Englishization’ can loosely be understood to be the process of becoming English (Kachru 1994 and also Kachru and Nelson 2006, 336). Simple as this may sound, there is clearly some difference between taking a non-English word and making it part of English and taking an English word and making it part of local culture. In the first case, we have examples such as ‘mango’ and ‘curry’ which were borrowed into English. We also have, in the case of Hong Kong, Asian names such as ‘Chan’ which ends up sounding like [tʃhεn] rather than [tshan]. Examples of this kind are typically described as ‘Anglicization’ – the making of non-English items English. In the latter case, we have examples like [si.tik] for ‘stick’ or [ba. si] for ‘bus’, both common words in Hong Kong speech (Yip 1993; and for more on Hong Kong English phonology, see Hung 2000). In these cases, we see English creeping into Cantonese, making Cantonese more English than before the two languages came into contact. In such instances, English is ‘indigenized’. This link between Englishization and indigenization of English is hardly new. Li (1998) describes it as ‘non-native speakers’ attempts to use L2 in such a way as to conform to their L1 pragmatic norms and cultural values’. With the combination of Anglicization and indigenization, one eventually arrives at varieties of English called ‘Singapore English’, ‘Indian English’, etc. Hence Englishization cannot be understood independently of the two component processes. In whichever direction one thinks about the issue of ‘Englishization’, one is left wondering: becoming what kind of English? Does English here refer to the English language or does it refer to English culture? What is the English language or the English culture anyway? Crystal (1997) suggests a more global interpretation when he explains that ‘English as a global language’ is a headline that continues to make news daily in many countries; and so he asks rhetorically if that means that everyone in the world speaks English or if every country recognizes English as an official language. In the case of Singapore, English is an official language. In the next section, I look at

Chapter 3

some of the characteristics of English in Singapore, and demonstrate that this English is so very different and distinctive that it deserves the name ‘Singapore English’ (SgE).3 SgE is the vessel that carries all the linguistic and cultural inheritance from all the ethnicities that have made up Singapore and therefore deserves careful consideration by policy-makers and grammatical purists who seek to destroy it.

Phonological evidence from Singapore English Anyone who has met a Singaporean or has seen the film ‘I Not Stupid’ (Neo 2002) would have found the Singaporean accent somewhat difficult to handle. The assignment of tone in SgE phonology is one of the key elements in the ticklish properties of SgE. From studying it, one can see that Englishization is a combination of Anglicization and indigenization. Non-English elements such as tone and English words combine to produce this peculiar pattern of tone in SgE. In SgE, there are three levels of tone: high, mid and low. The distribution of tones is predictable as may be seen from the regularity of tone assignments in the examples below. (1) Tones in Singapore English words i

‘cat’

[khEt55] h

v

‘origin’

[O11.ri33.dZin55]

ii

‘intend’

[in11.t En55]

vi

‘original’

[O11.ri33.dZi33.n@55]

iii

‘manage’

[mE33.neidZ55]

vii

‘dictionary’

[[email protected]]

iv

‘managing’

[mE33.nei33.

viii

‘originally’

[O11.ri33.dZi33.n@33.

dZiŋ55]

li55]

In (1), pronunciations are given in IPA, using Chao’s (1930) tone letters to indicate tonal contours on each syllable. In Chao’s system, ‘1’ denotes the lowest tone on a scale and ‘5’ the highest. Hence, [55] is a high flat tone, [33] 3

With its roots as a contact language, and also since English is so highly esteemed in Singapore, there exist a number of varieties which have been described as ‘educated’, ‘colloquial’, ‘high’, ‘low’, ‘acrolect’, ‘mesolect’ or ‘basilect’ [see Platt (1975); Platt and Weber (1980); Platt, Weber and Ho (1985); Gupta (1991); Pakir (1991, 1995); and Ho and Platt (1993); cited in Bao and Wee (1998), footnote 1. Also see Bao and Hong (2006) for an updated discussion]. This paper does not concern itself with these fine distinctions, but rather refers to the variety that is generally used in Singapore in all walks of life.

53

54

Englishization in Asia

is a mid-flat tone and [21] is a very low falling tone, etc. As can be seen in (1), when there is only one syllable, that syllable will carry a high flat tone [55]. Disyllabic forms optionally begin with a low tone [11] or a mid-tone [33], but in polysyllabic strings, all non-edge syllables are pronounced with a mid-flat tone [33]. Like disyllabic strings, the initial syllable has the option of a low flat tone [11].4 One can also see that the assignment of the [55] tone occurs after suffixation of both derivational (‘-al’ and ‘-ity’) and inflectional (‘-ing’) morphemes. The pattern in (1) can be generated by the following procedure: (2) Tone assignment in Singapore English Input

Step 1

‘cat’

Morpheme

‘origin’

‘manage’+ ‘-ing’

h

[k Et]

[O.ri.dZin]

[mE.neidZ] +[iŋ]

[khEt]

[O.ri.dZin]

[mE.nei.dZiŋ]

[khEt33]

[O33.ri33.dZin33]

[mE33.nei33.

concatenation Step 2

Assign [33] to all syllables

Step 3

Assign [11] to

dZiŋ33] n/a

[O11.ri33.dZin33]

n/a

[khEt55]

[O11.ri33.dZin55]

[mE33.nei33.

initial syllable in specific cases Step 4

Assign [55] to final syllable

Output

dZiŋ55] h

[k Et55]

[O11.ri33.dZin55]

[mE33.nei33. dZiŋ55]

Except for the tone of the initial syllable which requires some amount of specification, tone assignment in Singapore English is highly predictable. In a sense, this tone assignment procedure is very much like the stress/ accent assignment found in a number of languages, including Standard English, Indonesian and other varieties of Malay (Cohn 1989; Cohn and McCarthy 1994; Dellikan 2005). However, unlike English or Malay where 4

The low tone is in fact predictable with reference to the Standard English source. If the initial syllable is unstressed in Standard English, then the SgE counterpart would carry a low tone, e.g. ‘professor’ has an unstressed initial syllable ‘pro-‘; it has a low tone in SgE. If the initial syllable carries either primary or secondary stress, then the SgE counterpart carries a mid tone, e.g. ‘information’.

Chapter 3

stress is assigned to the final trochee (e.g. cali-FORnia and singa-PUra), Singapore English assigns a high flat tone to the final syllable. Given (2) above, one might expect high tones to be assigned only to ‘-ry’ in ‘strawberry’ and ‘-board’ in ‘blackboard’, since these are the word final syllables. No other syllable would carry the high tone. This prediction is not borne out. (3) Compounding i

‘strawberry’

[strO55.bE33.ri55]

ii

‘blackboard’

[blEk55.bOd55]

iii

‘blackbird’

[blEk55.b@d55]

iv

‘teapot’

[ti55.phOt55]

v

‘everything’

[E33.vri55.tiŋ55]

vi

‘everybody’

[E33.vri55.bO33.di55]

In (3), we see that the high tone does occur word-initially and -internally, except that the words here are compounds; that is, they are words made up of smaller words, e.g. ‘black’ + ‘bird  ‘blackbird’. The procedure in (2) only needs minimal modification to accommodate this fact. Quite simply, step 1 is constrained to affixation. (3) is especially interesting when compared with Standard English where stress assignment happens after compounding, and so ‘black bird’ and ‘blackbird’ would sound different: ['bl{k 'b:d] in the former and ['bl{kb:d] in the latter. The case of tonal manifestation is not unique to SgE. In Hong Kong English, for example, tone is related to stress so that stressed syllables are manifested as a high tone (sometimes high-falling) and unstressed syllables are manifested as low tones. So the indigenization of English is not unique to Singapore, though Singapore is the focus of this study. The points made above show that Singapore English has its own phonological rules and that reflects its own phonological system. The source of this system is opaque, though researchers have variously credited it to English, Chinese, Malay or any of the many languages that came to

55

56

Englishization in Asia

Singapore with immigration since as early as the 18th century (Lim 1996; Lim and Tan 2001; Ng 2004). Whatever the source of this phonological pattern, it obviously allows one to identify a Singaporean, and thus serves the building of a Singapore identity.

Grammatical evidence from Singapore English We now turn to the syntax of SgE. As with phonology, it is argued that SgE is the product of Englishization on the basis that its syntax is quite unlike that of English or of other local languages. Relative clauses: Alsagoff and Ho (1998) studied noun phrases (NP) that are modified by relative clauses (RC) in SgE and presented interesting evidence for the non-simplistic interaction between English and Chinese in the making of a whole new Singapore English syntax. Consider first a typical English RC: (4) [NP The boy who pinched the elephant]

Nominal head



Attributive clause

Relative pronoun

As may be seen in (4), the three elements of an NP modified by an RC are ordered such that the relative pronoun (RP)5 is sandwiched between a nominal head on its left and the attributive clause (AC) on its right. Here are some examples from Malay, Chinese and Singapore English (data from Alsagoff and Ho 1998): 5

Tony Hung (personal communication) suggested that the clause final ‘one’ could be a pragmatic particle (as in ‘you so stingy one!’ meaning ‘you’re so stingy’ or ‘so good one!’ meaning ‘this is so good!’) rather than a relative pronoun. One piece of evidence for the distinction between the pragmatic ‘one’ and the relative pronoun ‘one’ is the optionality of the former but not the latter. It is not possible to have a SgE relative clause without the ‘one’ marker, but the pragmatic ‘one’ can be freely omitted. However, Alsagoff and Ho did not present strong evidence that ‘one’ is a relative pronoun either, since non-optionality does not define relative pronominals. The same may be said of the Chinese ‘de’ which certainly does not exhibit any qualities of pronominality in any context. In addition, it is noteworthy that Singapore English has the entire range of wh-words that can serve as RP in the position between head and AC.

Chapter 3

(5) Malay Budak itu yang mencubit ibu saya Boy that RP pinched mother my ‘The boy who pinched my mother’ (6) Chinese

Nie wo mama de na-ge hai-zi Pinch my mother RP that-CL child ‘The child who pinched my mother’

(7) Singapore English

The boy (who) pinch my mother one The boy (RP) pinch my mother RP

The parenthesis in (7) indicates optionality, so in Singapore English the noun phrase is acceptable with or without the relative pronoun ‘who’. If one extracts the order of the elements that make up the relative clause NP, a clearer but puzzling picture emerges, as in (8): (8) Order of elements in a relative clause NP Language

Order

English

head

RP

AC

Malay

head

RP

AC

Chinese

AC

RP

head

Singapore English

head

(RP)

AC

RP

It can be seen in (8) that Singapore English allows the relative pronoun (RP) to occur at the end of the NP, a situation unattested in the superstrate language English as well as in the substrate languages Malay and Chinese. Alsagoff and Ho (1998) noticed that the RP occurs post-head in English and Malay but post-AC in Chinese. On the basis of this observation, they proposed that NP-final RP in Singapore English is really the result of substrate influence from Chinese. Notice that in (8) the NP-final RP follows the AC. However, Alsagoff and Ho also pointed out that the influence is not a simplistic one in that the choice of RP is restricted. While both ‘who’

57

58

Englishization in Asia

and ‘one’ are possible RPs in Singapore English, ‘one’ may not be used in the place of ‘who’ and vice versa. The ungrammaticality is indicated by the asterisks in (9). (9) a

*The boy one pinch my mother one/who

b *The boy (who/one) pinch my mother who If one were to simply combine the grammars of English and Chinese, it is not possible to explain why (9) is unacceptable. Thus, while it is possible to identify the sources from which Singapore English gets its characteristics, it is necessary also to recognize its ‘independence’ in how those sources are to be used. The passive: Another area of syntax where substrate influences are strong is in the passive construction of Singapore English. Bao and Wee (1999) identified two forms of passives: the kena passive and the give passive. (10) a

kena passive John kena hit by the elephant. ‘John was hit by the elephant.’

b give passive John give the elephant hit. ‘John was hit by the elephant.’ Etymologically speaking, kena is the Malay passive morpheme which also exhibits verb-like properties with respect to reduplication. However, the use of kena strictly requires adversity upon the patient of the verb. In this respect, it is unlike English. (11) a

i John is liked/praised by everyone. ii* John kena liked/praised by everyone.

b i The book is published. ii* The book kena published. In Standard English, the passive does not require any form of adversity upon the patient – hence the grammaticality of (11ai). The requirement of adversity by kena disqualifies (11aii, bii) in SgE. Bao and Wee (1999) explain that this effect of kena is inherited from Malay. So here we see a case of strong substrate influence on SgE, which in turn argues against simple

Chapter 3

assimilation as the mode of Englishization. A similar case can be made for the give-passive. The word order in (10b) is evidently Chinese, where the passive is indicated by the morpheme bei and has the word order PatientNP BEI Agent-NP V. Here one can see the strong influence of substrate languages (i.e. nonEnglish languages in this case), either in licensing a particular word-order as in the case of relative clauses and the give-passive or in the additional restriction on certain constructions as in the kena-passive. I now turn to the lexicon of Singapore English.

Lexical evidence from Singapore English For the entry lah, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online says:

lah, int.



(lA:)  [Chinese (southern dial.)] 



in Singaporean English, a particle used with various kinds of pitch to convey the mood and attitude of the speaker.

1972 New Nation (Singapore) 25 Nov. 8/4 ‘Come and see lah,’ he urged with a grin. 1982 TOH PAIK CHOO Eh, Goondu! 2 Don’t act tough lah. Ibid. 90 You must have heard (or said it yourself) when answering a wrong number … with a ‘Sala, sala, wrong number lah.’ 1984 J. PLATT et al. New Englishes viii. 142 Persuasion. lah with a fall in pitch. Come with us lah! Annoyance. lah with a rise in pitch. Wrong lah! Tsch! Write again here! Strong objection. lah with a sharper fall in pitch. A: Shall we discuss this now? B: No lah! So late already. Ibid. 143 A: Have you been to the H (restaurant)? B: Yes, the food there not bad what – can try lah. 1992 World Monitor Jan. 52/1 ‘This one is how much, lah?’ a passerby demands in the coarse pidgin English known here as Singlish.



(http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00297560?single=1&query_ty pe=word&queryword=lah&first=1&max_to_show=10)

As is typical of the OED, an entry is listed from its earliest use in a reliable publication to its modern use, thus showing its evolution. If one subscribes to an argument by appeal to authority, this clearly indicates the acceptance

59

60

Englishization in Asia

of SgE words as English by the OED – the most authoritative dictionary of the English language. Powerful as the OED may be, however, it does not list all the SgE words that are actually used. A richer source of SgE words can be found in Goh (2002) and its corresponding online version of the Coxford Singlish Dictionary at http://www.talkingcock.com/html/lexec. php?op=LexView&lexicon=lexicon. Most of the colloquial SgE data in the ensuing paragraphs are taken from this source. The SgE lexicon may be thought of as comprising three kinds of words: •

words that are imported from various source languages such as English, Hokkien or Malay [e.g. angmoh (red hair) from Hokkein meaning ‘foreigners’, suka-suka (like) from Malay meaning ‘on one’s whim or fancy’);

•

words that are the result of combining between elements found in different source languages (e.g. panchan combining Hokkien and English to mean ‘give a break’ or agaration combining Malay and English to mean ‘an estimate’); and

•

words that seem to have sprung up from nowhere and the sources of which are indeterminate (e.g. kope meaning ‘to steal’ or obiang meaning ‘unfashionable’).

Noted below are some examples of words in SgE and how they might have come about. In the process, it should become clear that SgE has generated and is continuing to generate a lexicon of its own. The lexicon is arguably the result of Singapore’s modern local culture and the blending of source cultures that came into Singapore. Words by import: Many words in SgE, especially of the colloquial variety, can easily be identified with their counterparts in source languages. However, the meanings and uses are often different. Some examples are given on the next page.

Chapter 3

(12) Comparison of word meaning and usage Word

SgE meaning

Source

i

arrow

to delegate some one to a task

English: weapon

ii

basket

expletive for expressing annoyance

English: woven receptacle.

iii

blanjah

to give a treat

Malay belanja: expenditure

iv

chiong

to have fun

Hokkien: to rush forward

v

fetch

to give a ride in a car

English: to bring forth something

vi

kilat

suave

Malay: well-polished

vii

tuã

sabotage

Hokkien: to flick

One must not be misled into thinking that all words in SgE are used differently from the source languages. The point here is just that imports are not always faithful to their origins. This ‘infidelity’ to the source may have been the cause of the Singaporean government’s policy opposing SgE. Implicit in the Singapore’s ‘Speak Good English Campaign’ is the assumption that SgE (arguably not the acrolectal variety) is poor English. Take ‘fetch’, for example. In SgE, it is possible for someone to say, ‘Will you fetch me to the airport tomorrow?’ It is easy to see why a negative impression of English acquisition would result. Words by fusion: Because of the rich linguistic sources in Singapore, sometimes new words are coined by amalgamation. (13) ‘Bastard’ words SgE word

Combination

Meaning

i

panchan

Hokkien [paŋ11] ‘release’ and English ‘chance’.

to give a break

ii

untahanable

Malay tahan ‘push against’ and English negation prefix ‘un-’ and adjectival suffix ‘-able’

unbearable

61

62

Englishization in Asia

iii

cheebalized

Hokkien chee by ‘virgina’ and English verbal suffix ‘-ize’.

sarcastic remark for ‘civilized’

iv

agaration

Malay agak ‘estimate’ and English nominal suffix ‘-ation’.

an estimate

The formation of such ‘bastard’ words is productive as it involves little beyond compounding as in (13i) or affixation (13ii, iii). Common affixes such as ‘-ful’, ‘-ogy’ and ‘-able’ are frequently found peppered in SgE speech amalgamated with stems from local languages. While such morphological concatenation has exciting implications for the description of SgE grammar, the main point of this subsection lies in the marriage of languages. Words by shortening: Common expressions sometimes fossilize into idioms and even words. For example, among Hokkien speakers, the phrase [kiã lai kiã kɯ] ‘strolling around’ is often used to describe idleness. This oftused phrase is borrowed into SgE as an abbreviated KLKK where each letter stands for the onset sound of the original Hokkien. Also of Hokkien origin is the term CAB which is an acronym for chao ah beng (unsophisticated youngster). Another source of word formation is truncation, such as cher for ‘teacher’. Some examples are given below: (14)

Word

Full form

SgE meaning

i

CMI

Cannot make it

does not make the mark

ii

LL

Lan Lan (Hokkien origin)

crestfallen

iii

NATO.

No Action Talk Only

iv

orbigood

Oh very good

a term used to express that someone deserves his current predicament

v

sabo

sabotage

same as English

(14i, ii) are examples of abbreviations; (14iii) is an acronym; and (14iv, v) are truncated forms. It is hard to determine how productive such a ‘shortening’ mode of word formation is. Abbreviations are very common,

Chapter 3

but I have also come to notice that not all abbreviations are shared by the majority of speakers. Most abbreviations start off as in-jokes that sometimes grow into popular acceptance. This is also true of truncation. Acronyms are rarer. Words of indeterminate source: There are of course also SgE words of indeterminate origin. Some examples are given below: (15)

Word

SgE meaning

i

orbit

unfashionable (cf. obiang)

ii

obiang

unfashionable (cf. orbit)

iii

saht

groovy

iv

shiok

refreshing

v

kope

to steal

If it is true that the words in (15) are not inherited from any existing languages, then what we have here is an SgE that is so alive and autonomous that it would qualify to be a new language, albeit having roots in English and other local languages. It would be this historical link that allows it to be identified as a variety of English, but otherwise there is little reason to not consider it a language that has grown on Singaporean soil.

Implications for language and cultural policies The section above presents only a small part of the evidence one can gather to argue for the uniqueness of SgE. In looking through the dimensions of phonology, syntax and the lexicon, it should be clear that SgE is a language of its own. Despite its apparent English identity, an in-depth understanding of SgE can be achieved only by studying it in its own right and not as a list of deviations from any standard variety of English. It is only on this basis that one can then move on to compare SgE with standard varieties of English or with any other languages (Mohanan 1992). This is what was done in the previous section, and it has led to the conclusion that SgE is distinctive. As mentioned earlier in this paper, that distinctiveness has become part of Singapore’s identity. Singaporeans can be easily identified by the speech pattern that is found in SgE, and numerous voices (albeit weak to avoid direct disagreement with government policies) can be heard asking for the preservation and recognition of SgE as a variety of English

63

64

Englishization in Asia

rather than as ‘bad’ English. The evidence presented in this study (and also in the references cited) argues strongly that SgE is not ‘bad’ English. It is not the result of having learnt English poorly or of a deliberate destructive effort. It is in fact the outcome of having so many cultures and ethnicities blend in a small island. If we accept that SgE is a language of its own, there are some serious and important implications. One could now ask if SgE is indeed a variety of English or if it is a totally different language. If viewed as a new language altogether akin to the difference between Latin and French (French having been born out of Latin, but certainly different), then one would need to ensure that Singaporeans can communicate with the rest of the world. As a very small country with few natural resources (none in fact, other than human beings), Singapore could not survive if it were isolated even linguistically. This is where the Singaporean government’s main argument for the various language campaigns lies. Proponents of ‘Speak Good English’ and ‘Speak Mandarin’ are often heard asking rhetorically if Singaporeans would like their children to grow up speaking only SgE when the whole world does not understand it. To be fair, it can be hard to understand SgE if one is not familiar with it, but I would not go as far as to suggest that it is entirely incomprehensible to the speakers of other Englishes. Since SgE is the product of the colourful heritage of Singapore, is it wise, or even possible, to ask Singaporeans to give it up entirely, so that they would speak only some kind of non-distinct variety of English? The complexity of this issue can be illustrated by considering, for example, the USA where considerable variation can be found in the English spoken there (New York, New Jersey, New England, Texan, Afro-American, to name a few). Despite the variety, there is a non-descript General American accent that is used in the media. To most Americans, General American is fine for work and communication, but they find the various dialects a lot more expressive and interesting (‘American Tongues’ 1986). Should one demand the same for Singapore, so that on the one hand Singaporeans speak an acrolectal SgE that is non-descript and easily understandable to the rest of the world, and on the other speak a heavily coloured SgE among themselves when expressing ideas that are embedded deeply in their culture? This does seem like a reasonable move, and in fact most Singaporeans do speak differently

Chapter 3

in different situations. In formal settings, it is very unlikely that one would find expressions like shiok (refreshing), orbit (unfashionable), arrow (relegate a task) or chicken cannot eat one lah (that chicken is not to be eaten) coming from Singaporeans. However, in casual settings, the use of such distinctive expressions increases significantly. It is important that grammar pundits and policy-makers realize the inevitability of SgE’s distinctiveness. With multiculture, multiethnicity and multilingualism, it is ridiculous to seek a monolingual mode of communication. There will be local flora and fauna, local habits, a local lifestyle and local values, all of which cannot possibly be satisfied by simply using the English from the UK, the USA or Australia.

Conclusion This study began with the issue of Singapore identity and proposed that part of that identity comes from the very special English spoken there, which is SgE. The formation of SgE did not come from a committee sitting in a meeting and making the grammar rules and words. Rather, SgE is the product of a very natural process of Englishization which must be understood as a bi-directional process of Anglicization and indigenization. In Anglicization, non-English linguistic items (words and expressions) are made English-like either through the use of available English expressions or the adoption of English-like pronunciations.6 In indigenization, English is made to conform to local habits. It is actually quite difficult to distinguish these two processes as they often work together. For instance, consider the assignment of tones in SgE. Is that Anglicization or indigenization? It is a form of indigenization as it has made the English expressions more like Chinese tonal phonology. However, in using the English words rather than words from any of the other languages, one can argue with equal force that Anglicization has taken place. However one sees the process of Englishization, there can be no doubt that there are important cultural implications. Firstly, one should bear in mind that no amount of policy-making can force a community to speak English as it is recorded in an authoritative dictionary such as the OED – nor is it 6

I cannot resist giving one telling example of Anglicization from India. The expression eve-teaser, ‘a lewd man’, looks distinctly English but it is in fact an expression in Indian English.

65

66

Englishization in Asia

wise to do so. Secondly, Englishization and the mixing of different cultures can be a source of strength for identity-formation. Thirdly, Englishization produces a new and distinct language that is neither better nor worse than the ingredient languages. In addition, Englishization offers the world a handle on developing a mode of communication that would truly make English a global language. Therefore, one can now provide viable answers to Crystal’s questions (1997, 1):

What does it mean to say that a language is a global language?



Why is English the language which is usually cited in this connection?

My response to the first question is that a global language is one that finds itself being adapted to the use of all communities in the world and being enriched in the process. As for the second question, this case study of SgE illustrates that English is the language usually cited in this regard. English was adopted into the Singaporean community and has been enriched by it with new words, new expressions and new sound patterns. The story of SgE here is similar to the story of English in other places around the world. Although each part of the world where English is spoken has a slightly different and certainly unique story to tell, they all share the same core of making the language part of the land and then enriching it. We see this in Anglo-Saxon times; and we see it in the USA (including its Afro-American community), Australia and New Zealand, India, Hong Kong and many other places.

References Alsagoff, L and Ho, C L (1998) ‘The relative clause in colloquial Singapore English’, World Englishes, 17(2): 127–38. ‘American Tongues’ (1986) (video), USA. Backhouse, S (1972) Singapore, Harrisburg: Stackpole Books. Bao, Z and Hong, H (2006) ‘Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English’, World Englishes, 25(1): 105–14. Bao, Z and Wee, L (1998) ‘Until in Singapore English’, World Englishes, 17(1): 31–41.

Chapter 3

Bao, Z and Wee, L (1999) ‘The passive in Singapore English’, World Englishes, 18(1): 1–11. Chao, Y R (1930) ‘A system of tone letters’, La Maître phonétique, 45:24–27. Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing and Australian Academy of the Humanities, Canberra (1987–90) Language Atlas of China, Hong Kong: Longman (Far East) Limited. Cohn, A C (1989) ‘Stress in Indonesian and bracketing paradoxes’, Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory, 7:167–216. Cohn, A and McCarthy, J (1994) Alignment and Parallelism in Indonesian Phonology, MS, Cornell University and University of Massachusetts, Amherst, http://roa.rutgers.edu ROA No. 25. Crystal, D (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dellikan, A (2005) ‘Head-dependent asymmetry: Feet and fusion in Malay’, SKY Journal of Linguistics, 18:47–70. Goh, C (ed.) (2002) The Coxford Singlish Dictionary, Singapore: Angsana Books. Gupta, A F (1991) ‘Acquisition of diglossia in Singapore English’ in KwanTerry, A (ed.) Child Language Development in Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore: Singapore University Press. Ho, M L and Platt, J T (1993) Dynamics of a Contact Continuum: Singapore English, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hung, T T N (2000) ‘Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English’, World Englishes, 19(3): 337–56. Kachru, B B (1994) ‘English in South Asia’ in Burchfield, R (ed.) The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. v, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 230–52. Kachru, Y and Nelson, C L (2006) Asian English Today: World Englishes in Asian Contexts, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

67

68

Englishization in Asia

Lee, K Y (1999) The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore: Prentice Hall. Lee, K Y (2000) From Third World to First: The Singapore Story: 1965–2000, Singapore: Prentice Hall. Li, D C S (1998) ‘Incorporating L1 pragmatic norms and cultural values in L2: Developing English language curriculum for EIL in the Asia-Pacific Region’, Asian Englishes, 1(1): 31–50, http://www.alc.co.jp/asian-c/li.html. Lim, L L S (1996) ‘Prosodic Patterns Characterizing Chinese, Indian and Malay Singapore English’, PhD thesis, University of Reading. Lim, L and Tan, Y Y (2001) ‘How are we stressed?! Phonetic correlates and stress placement in Singaporean English’ in Phonetics Teaching and Learning Conference 2001 Proceedings, 27–31. Mohanan, K P (1992) ‘Describing the phonology of non-native varieties of a language’, World Englishes, 11:111–28. Neo, J (director) (2002) ‘I Not Stupid’ (film), Singapore. Ng, S (2004) ‘Method in the Madness?’: VOT in the Singaporean Native Languages and English’, MA thesis, National University of Singapore. Pakir, A (1991) ‘The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore’, World Englishes, 10:167–79. Pakir, A (1995) ‘Expanding triangles of English expression in Singapore: Implication for teaching’ in Teng, S C and Ho, M L (eds) The English Language of Singapore: Implications for Teaching, Singapore: Society for Applied Linguistics. Platt, J (1975) ‘The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect “Singlish” as a “creoloid”’, Anthropological Linguistics, 17:373–74. Platt, J T and Weber, H (1980) English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Platt, J T, Weber, H and Ho, M L (1985) The New Englishes, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Chapter 3

Singapore 1972, Ministry of Culture, Singapore. Yip, M (1993) ‘Cantonese loanword phonology and optimality theory’, Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 2:261–91. Yuan, J (1959/89) Hanyu Fangyan Gaiyao (An Introduction to Han Dialects), Beijing: Wenzi Gaige Chubanshe (in Chinese).

69

4

Englishization of higher education in Asia: A sociological enquiry1 Kosaku Yoshino

‘Englishization’, or the spread of English, is an integral part of globalization. The process of Englishization is having a significant impact on people’s activities and ways of life in many parts of the world. It can be argued that English is one of the most important variables in conceiving of any kind of new world order. Indeed, Asia has become a main arena where British, American, Australian and other varieties of English exist side by side, in each case linked closely with its cultural industries and public institutions. All of this interaction, fuelled by economic motivations, is unleashing intense competitive forces in the region. Because English is intimately involved in education, information, tourism and other key industries, it is an extremely profitable export commodity for any country which uses it as a native or official language. In this regard, Englishization 1

I would like to thank many individuals engaged in Malaysia’s private higher education sector for providing me with valuable information. I was able to validate in large measure the hypotheses presented in this paper in my follow-up visits to Malaysia, which have been supported by kakenhi or Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B): 19402036. I am also grateful to John Bowler for his editorial assistance in writing this text.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conference on ‘Cultural Flows With(in) a Globalizing Asia’, held at Monash University, Clayton, 29 November–1 December 2002. An updated version was presented at the Symposium on ‘Englishization in Asia: Language and Cultural Issues’, organized jointly by Shaw College and the Comparative Literature Research Programme at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 4 November 2006. Also, an earlier version was published in Japanese as ‘“Eigoka” to posutokoroniaru na ajia: Mareshia no genba kara mieta keiko’ (‘“Englishisation” in postcolonial Asia: An exploration of trends in Malaysia), Shiso (Thought), 933, January 2002, and in English as ‘“Englishization’ of higher education in Asia: the flow of overseas students and the role of cultural intermediaries’, Sociological Studies, Sophia University, 31, 200. Reproduced here with permission of the Department of Sociology, Sophia University.

Chapter 4

provides an excellent vantage point for viewing and understanding some of the developments taking place in and around Asia. The contemporary phenomenon of Englishization has already attracted much attention in various circles (see Pennycook 2000, 107–19). In particular, it has given rise to a lively debate about the politics of English as the dominant global language. In one particular genre of the debate, this expansion – referred to as ‘linguistic imperialism’ or ‘English-language imperialism’ – is denounced as ‘a post-colonial plot on the part of the core English-speaking countries which hoped to maintain their dominance over “periphery” (mostly developing) countries’ (Chew 1999, 39). In order to understand social developments brought about by Englishization, it is necessary to go beyond the limits of the ideological denunciations of English. This paper reflects part of an on-going project in which I propose a sociological approach to examine the impact of Englishization on the reorganization of global social relations and networks.2 Moreover, while the previous literature has tended to focus mostly on the flow of people, goods, money and information on the macro level of analysis, the study intends to enquire into the ways in which the micro-level experience of individuals is linked with intermediate-level institutions and organizations, thereby creating new spheres of living and activity against the background of global flows. The aim of the present paper is to report some of my findings and present some thematic considerations. It looks into the market mechanisms driving Englishization and explores the type of influence it is exerting on the reorganization of transnational social relationships and networks as well as flows of people. The focus is placed on the institution of higher education, where the impact of Englishization has been extremely acute. Using the notion of Malaysia as a regional hub for higher education, the paper explores how the Englishization of higher education in Malaysia affects the flow of students from the People’s Republic of China as well as other countries and regions of the world to the destinations for their studies. Attention is drawn to Malaysia’s multiethnicity and the ways in 2

My approach to Englishization is sociological: that is, it examines the ways in which English works as a medium in transforming or consolidating social relations, networks, social classes, patterns of migration and so on.

71

72

Englishization in Asia

which Malaysia’s multilingual and ‘multicultural’ staff in the education industry serve as transnational cultural intermediaries, for example between PRC Chinese and Malaysian Chinese. The implications of their role in influencing the flow of overseas students are examined.

Englishization and privatization of higher education in Malaysia First, I present a brief overview of private higher education in Malaysia. Since in general its development was most prominent in the first half of this decade, it is useful to focus on this period. In 2003, Malaysia had 16 national universities (e.g. the University of Malaysia, the National University of Malaysia and the University of Science Malaysia) and 14 private universities (e.g. Multimedia University and Petronas University of Technology).3 In addition to these conventional universities, and representing a new trend in higher education, there were some 690 private colleges, many with partnership programmes with overseas universities, and three local Malaysian campuses of overseas universities.4 Private colleges were first established in the 1980s and expanded rapidly in the 1990s. Many of these colleges have academic ties with universities in Australia, Britain, the United States and other countries. For example, a student studies at a Malaysian college for the first two years and then, after acquiring the necessary credits, advances to the partner programme of an overseas university for the final year’s work (the ‘2+1’ formula) and at the end receives a degree from the overseas university concerned. The 1996 Amendment to the Education Act made it possible to obtain an overseas university degree in Malaysia through a 3+0 programme or at a Malaysian branch campus of a foreign university. Students can complete a whole 3

‘The education system of Malaysia: types of institutions and study options available’, Study in Malaysia Handbook (International), 3rd edition, (http://www.studymalaysia. com/is/education11.shtml, 21 June 2003). There is also an international university called International Islamic University of Malaysia, which was set up by the Malaysian government but operates under the ownership of a multinational board.

4

In terms of student numbers, national universities had 277,083 students (of whom 170,607 were undergraduates), private universities 20,839, private colleges 209,589 and branch campuses of foreign universities 1,641. (This is based on the data provided orally by an officer at the Ministry of Education of Malaysia, August 2001.)

Chapter 4

course of study and be granted a full degree while in Malaysia. Also, by August 2002, four foreign universities – Monash University and Curtin University of Technology in Australia, and Nottingham University and De Montfort University in Britain – had established branch campuses in Malaysia. The development of private higher education in Malaysia derived from two closely linked factors: the country’s domestic situation and the interests of overseas universities, especially in Australia and Britain. As regards the former, an ethnic factor was at work in Malaysia’s multiethnic society.5 Private higher education grew under the circumstances created by the bumiputera policy. In the 1970s, the Malaysian government implemented the New Economic Policy which initiated a system of preferential treatment for bumiputeras, with the aim of redressing the economic imbalance between ethnic groups and restructuring society itself. (Bumiputera, literally ‘son of the soil’, refers mainly to Malays as opposed to immigrant-origin Chinese and Indians.) Various measures for preferential treatment for bumiputera pupils and students were put in place. As this applied to scholarships, including those for overseas study, non-Malay parents who wanted their children to study at a foreign university had to pay the fees out of their own pockets, and so they incurred a large financial burden, particularly after the sharp downturn of the Malaysian economy from 1997. According to my study conducted on middle-class parents of teenage children in 2000 and 2001, the parents’ normal first choice would be to send their children to a British or American university, or, where that was not feasible, to a university in Australia, which was less expensive and more convenient in terms of proximity. When even this was financially impossible, the parents typically would choose to have their children enrol in a private college or university in Malaysia that offers programmes leading to the earning of a foreign degree. The significance of private higher education in Malaysia, therefore, is that it provides opportunities to acquire an English-language overseas university education at low cost, in Malaysia. This responds to the demand from that section of society which desires foreign education for their children but lacks the financial 5

The ethnic composition of Malaysia (as of 1991) was: Malays 50.7%, other bumiputera 10.6%, Chinese 27.5%, Indians 7.8% and others 3.3% (Department of Statistics Malaysia 1991, 40).

73

74

Englishization in Asia

wherewithal for it; and it is supported by non-bumiputera Malaysians whose educational choices are constrained by the policy of preferential treatment for bumiputeras. It is worth noting the ethnic composition of students enrolled at private colleges offering foreign degrees and at the branch campuses of foreign universities. Roughly, 80% of students registered at such private colleges in 2001–02 were ethnic Chinese6; and at branch campuses of foreign universities, 91.4% were non-bumiputeras, with most of them being ethnic Chinese (as of December 2000).7 A second aspect of the domestic situation that enabled the emergence of Malaysia’s private higher education system was the role played by private companies, in most cases land developers. They fostered the development of private higher education as a business in partnership with local government authorities under the banner of community service, improvement of corporate image and economic benefit. Also, the national government played an important role in supporting and promoting such endeavours. From the mid-1990s, Malaysia began to face a serious shortage of skilled labour and engineers, especially in the areas of science and technology, as the industrial and service sectors of the economy grew apace and the growth of high-tech industries brought about structural changes in the economy. One result of this was a perceived need for reform of the education system to bring it more into line with these structural changes. From around this time, the government began to encourage Malaysians to study for their university degrees at home in order to prevent a drain of both talented people and foreign currency. Under the 1996 Private Higher Educational Institutions Act, the government allowed foreign universities to establish branch campuses in Malaysia and offer courses and degrees as private universities (Study in Malaysia Handbook 2001, 47). There was thus a convergence of interests between the government, which was aiming to attract foreign universities as part of a project to make Malaysia a ‘centre of education excellence’, and private industry which was seeking a source of commercial gain. 6

This is based on the data supplied by many private colleges in 2001 and 2002. Kemp’s 1991 survey of Sunway College in Kuala Lumpur also gives the same result (Kemp 1992, 59). It should be noted that the number of Malay students has increased in recent years.

7

Data supplied by the Ministry of Education of Malaysia, 2001.

Chapter 4

Yet another reason for the development of private higher education in Malaysia was the process of ‘re-Englishization’ (i.e. the reaffirmation of English as a practical tool for communication) that took place. Along with the bumiputera policy of the 1970s, the government implemented the National Culture Policy which was intended to promote Malay culture in society and the Malay language in the field of education. The period from the 1970s into the 1980s witnessed a process which may be called ‘deEnglishization’8, resulting in a steady rise in the number of Malay speakers and a decline in proficiency in English.9 High economic growth in the 1990s benefited both Malays and non-Malays and gave rise to the so-called ‘new middle class’ which helped to reduce ethnic tensions characteristic of the 1970s and 1980s. While in principle the policy of preferential treatment for bumiputeras remained in force, in practice its implementation was gradually relaxed. It was in these circumstances that the shift to ‘reEnglishization’ began to take place. Although the centrality of Malay culture and language in the life of the nation still had broad support from the Malay segment of the population, calls for a remedy for declining English standards joined forces with the voices touting globalization, producing a rising chorus of demands for a greater use of English. The dramatic success of private higher education institutions is eloquent testimony to the strength of the demand for English-language university education. As mentioned earlier, the development of private higher education in Malaysia was related not just to the domestic situation but also to the international context, especially the economic interests of Australian, British, American and other overseas universities. These countries regarded Malaysia as a major market for the export of education. As it was in the forefront in this enterprise, it is worth taking a closer look at Australia’s case. The Colombo Plan adopted in 1950 as part of the country’s overseas assistance programme played an important role in facilitating overseas 8

Bumiputera policies caused a great number of non-bumiputeras to study abroad (e.g. a 35.5 % increase in the period 1980–85). The ethnic backgrounds of the Malaysian students in Australia during the period July 1987 to June 1988 were: 87% Chinese, 6% Malay, 5% Indian and 2% others (Andressen 1993, 88 and 125).

9

A policy for all subjects to be taught in Malay in government schools was implemented. Malay became the language of instruction in secondary schools by 1982 and at universities by 1983 (though flexibility was allowed for tertiary education).

75

76

Englishization in Asia

students’ study in Australia. Under the plan, until 1985 students from Malaysia were in principle scholarship holders. However, in 1985, the federal government of Australia determined that henceforward students arriving from abroad should be charged tuition fees by all higher education institutions. As a result, the number of students from Malaysia paying full fees recorded a sharp increase.10 The reason for this shift in policy is to be found in the government’s recognition of the importance of the category of ‘education exports’ in Australia’s international balance of trade. Here was a clear assertion by the federal government in 1985 that education was an export industry. In fact, education services ranked as the eighth largest among Australia’s export industries in the 1998–99 fiscal year (Davis, Olsen and Bohm 2000, 13–14). Australia was actively seeking to turn its strategic location in Asia to advantage to cultivate markets for education exports. Its sales approach involved the promotion of Australia as the nearest and least expensive ‘English-speaking country’ and as a bridge between Asia and the West. Travel to Australia and the costs of studying and living there are indeed cheaper in comparison with Britain and America, and at the same time the country’s proximity and relatively low crime rates offered considerable peace of mind to parents of Asian students. The internationalization of Australian higher education was at first directed at taking foreign students, but in the early 1990s it was recognized that an equally important part of the formula was the advance of Australian education overseas (ibid. 14–15). Currently, Australian universities have various partnership programmes with Malaysian private colleges in which some of them franchise their curricula, while others administer their own curricula directly on their off-shore campuses.

Malaysia as a regional hub in education: the English language and the flow of students from China As outlined above, private higher education in Malaysia – or more precisely, private colleges partnering with overseas universities and Malaysian branch campuses of overseas universities operating as private universities – came 10

The number of students from Malaysia paying full fees increased from 198 in 1986 to 10,546 in 1995 (Lipp 1997, 16).

Chapter 4

into being and developed in domestic circumstances conducive to their rapid growth. For the next stage of growth and development, the foreign student market was deemed indispensable. In particular, great store was set on students from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Indonesia. As conditions in Indonesia deteriorated from 1998, the outflow of ethnic Chinese grew to conspicuous proportions. The percentage of foreign students at private colleges varied by college, but the overwhelming majority came from China and Indonesia. For example, at INTI College, which was actively cultivating the China market, around 20% of the students were from overseas, with nearly 80% of them coming from China and Indonesia in 2002.11 The importance of the overseas market holds true for private universities as well. Here I wish to focus mainly on students from the PRC, as distinct from ethnic Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia, as the China market was becoming increasingly important as a source of in-coming students. With China joining the WTO, there was a perceived need for its students to be trained in many relevant areas to cope with globalization and promote international trade. The students’ aim, however, was not simply to get university degrees, which they could get in China anyway, but to be exposed to Western or international practices. For those students who planned to earn a degree but needed to budget, Malaysia offered the option of the 3+0 formula at a private college or a degree from one of the Malaysian branches of a foreign university. However, many students from China showed a marked preference for studying for the first two years in Malaysia to complete the preliminary requirements under the 2+1 formula and then spending the third and final year at the partner-university in Australia, Britain or America which would actually grant their degrees. It was difficult to obtain a visa in China directly for these countries, so they made the rational choice of going first to Malaysia and from there eventually, and more easily, to somewhere else. Malaysia thus functioned as a kind of transit point to the West. My interviews with students from the PRC and their Malaysian teachers confirmed that nearly all the students came from wealthy families, with their parents being from the professional classes or owners of businesses. 11

Data supplied by INTI College, 23 August 2002.

77

78

Englishization in Asia

What motivated these young Chinese to go abroad to study? A primary reason was that, although English was promoted in China as one of the keys to success, teaching methods focused mainly on grammar and reading comprehension, with the result that students were unable to speak the language and, furthermore, had no opportunities to use it in everyday life. Another reason for the popularity of overseas study was that while entry to a university in China was very competitive, the gradual liberalization of society, together with economic growth and higher incomes, had opened an alternative to the traditional academic grind – to study abroad. A third factor was the social prestige that accrued to studying abroad, a valuable commodity when it came to finding a job. In addition, some students viewed a sojourn abroad as potentially a stepping-stone to immigration, through such means as employment with a foreign firm and marriage with a foreign national. The next question, then, is why was Malaysia so popular? Many of the PRC students said that they had chosen Malaysia because English was used there in everyday life and Chinese was also widely understood. Also, in comparison with institutions in, say, Australia or America, Malaysia was cheaper in terms of tuition fees and the cost of living. Such economic considerations were often the most important of all. Meanwhile, on the receiving side, in setting its sights on making Malaysia a regional education hub, the Malaysian government began to issue study visas routinely even to Chinese nationals. The Ministry of Education played a part in the national policy – the recruitment of foreign students – with its Study in Malaysia Campaign. The private sector also got on board, despatching college agents to China for student recruitment purposes. Malaysian colleges emphasized a range of ‘selling points’ when promoting their programmes in China, viz. •

Students would get an overseas degree from the USA, the UK or Australia, not a Malaysian degree.

•

Malaysia is not expensive because of its relatively lower tuition fees and cost of living.

•

It is easier to get a visa.

•

In addition to the wide use of English, Chinese is also widely understood.

Chapter 4

• Malaysia is a multicultural society, and so students can expose themselves to different cultures. It was also suggested, rather than explicitly stated, that Malaysia could be used as a ‘stepping stone’ on the way to ‘the West’. Recruiters told students that they could come to Malaysia to study for the first two years, save money, improve their English and experience different cultures, and then do their final year abroad. The more money they could save by studying for two years in Malaysia, the better their chances of doing a Master’s degree overseas later on. Again, cost-effectiveness was emphasized.

Thematic considerations The above observations on new currents in private higher education reveal three important themes. •

First, Englishization has had a significant impact on international flows of Chinese students. Previous studies of students going abroad to study have assumed a dichotomous relationship between the countries sending students and those receiving them, in the form of ‘Englishspeaking countries’ versus ‘non-English-speaking countries’. The establishment of a way station or hub in the flow of students, however, de-territorializes English-mediated higher education. This process is symbolic of the trend in English higher education, and the hub perspective is bound to take on added importance in future thinking and discussion about flow patterns of students in the postcolonial world. It is vital to recognize the shift of meaning taking place when discussing the receiving of overseas students: the pattern of study abroad is being transformed from one in which students simply go to a country to study and then return to their own countries to a newer pattern whereby one departs for a hub which offers the possibility of plural or serial destinations. This new conception holds all manner of possibilities for formerly colonized countries such as Malaysia. It is instructive to compare Malaysia’s case, which provides numerous suggestions for thinking about international flows of students, with the situation in Japan. Since Japanese universities exist outside the ‘block’ of English-speaking countries, they cannot fulfil the role of a hub or

79

80

Englishization in Asia

transit point. Therefore, their market is limited, and it would appear that Japanese universities are destined to remain peripheral. •

For some Asian students going abroad, Australia is also seen as a way station on the path to America. Not a few students from the PRC have this route in mind: China to Malaysia to Australia to America. Also, as Australian immigration rules have tightened in recent years, New Zealand has begun to gain some attention as an alternative. For students, the path is fluid and is continually undergoing adjustments. The emergence of Malaysia as a relatively accessible locale for ‘Englishlanguage education in Asia’ offers overseas students a comfortable place to stay while they make up their minds about their next destination.

•

A second theme commanding attention concerns the way in which Malaysia represents itself. One of the key strategies with regard to attracting students from other Asian countries is to promote Malaysia as an ‘English-speaking country’, with English being spoken not only in shops and other public places but even in the home (and for Chinese people, a bilingual country where both English and Chinese are spoken). In the 1980s much was made of Malay as an important constituent of the national culture, but recently it is the deteriorating standard of English that is a constant topic of discussion and debate in the mass media. Here we are seeing a shift in the representation of national identity. It is noteworthy that a social category of people comprised of linguistics scholars, English educators and others with English expertise are hiring themselves out as Asian English consultants and are engaged in the task, among other things, of providing some theoretical backbone to the local realities of English usage.

•

A third theme which emerges from the developments related above is that it is no longer tenable, as has been argued by proponents of linguistic imperialism, to posit in a simplistic manner a dependency relationship between Australia or the UK as a central ‘English-speaking country’ and Malaysia as a peripheral ‘sub-English-speaking country’. The time is already past when the process of Englishization can be assumed naturally to be the project of ‘native speakers’ who are ‘the owners of the language, guardians of its standards, and arbiters of its pedagogic norms’ (Jenkins 2000, 5). The Malaysian example represents

Chapter 4

what may be called a postcolonial pattern of Englishization in which the collective project of various Malaysian actors, both public and private, to make economic gains out of private higher education is itself promoting the spread of the English language.

Cultural intermediaries as key players in global flows The globalization of Malaysian private higher education did not end with the internationalization of student markets for Malaysia’s private colleges and universities but made a further advance. With the opening up of China, many colleges in Malaysia set up colleges there in partnership with local Chinese. Malaysia’s private higher education became an export item. It is particularly important to note that what is being exported here is not Malaysian diplomas or degrees but rather the expertise to facilitate the development of international programmes in China. The Malaysian education-business entrepreneurs involved had already acquired considerable know-how in this field through their joint-venture experience with Australian and other overseas universities. Ethnic Chinese in particular are well suited to this role of intermediaries since they are bilingual (more strictly, trilingual, knowing Malay as well) and bicultural, having received their education in Malaysia in both English and Chinese They conduct business with the Chinese in Chinese and negotiate with the Australians in English. They are good at this not only because they possess language skills, but also because they are at home with the nuances of both Western (British) institutional culture and Chinese business culture. To borrow the words of one of my informants, the ethnic-Chinese ‘middleman’ ‘goes back and forth between the Chinese and Western worlds within his own person’. The role of ethnic-Chinese Malaysians is not limited to that of economic intermediaries but, as already suggested, they play an important role as cultural intermediaries as well. We should pay special attention here to a particular type of intermediary who specializes in culture, such as Malaysian Chinese English-language educators who are hired as Englishlanguage education consultants and commissioned to design Englishlanguage curricula. Having already won their spurs in Malaysia by devising

81

82

Englishization in Asia

local teaching methods for the Malaysian market, they are regarded as experts in educational consultancy. Their selling point is that, as Malaysian Chinese with relevant experience, they are very well qualified for the field of English education for Asians (e.g. PRC Chinese and ethnic Chinese). They emphasize the effectiveness of their localized teaching methods which have been freed from many of the constraints of British and American applied linguistics. Moreover, some Malaysian Chinese educators have not confined themselves, as education entrepreneurs, to marketing education programmes but also, for example, have taken on the role of consultants in designing curricula for the China market, while still others have set themselves up as counsellors for PRC students in Malaysia. Such cultural intermediaries, engaging in various types of educational activities, are a driving force in Englishization. When considering the behaviour of individuals (the micro level) who are seeking to acquire an education in English, it is essential to understand the processes by which they make strategic moves on a global playing field and go about making lives for themselves that are mediated through their links to various types of organizations and systems (the middle level). I mean by this that it is important to pay close attention to the social channels that connect the individual to society. Bourdieu applies the term ‘new intellectuals’ to those in society who act as intermediaries in transmitting ideas and symbols previously monopolized by intellectuals to a wider stratum of the population (Bourdieu 1992, 370–71). Also Featherstone, drawing from Bourdieu, focuses attention on cultural intermediaries who act as ‘the perfect audience and transmitters, intermediaries for the new intellectual popularisation’ (Featherstone 1991, 91). The role of such cultural intermediaries in modern societies, he says, is steadily gaining in importance. The spheres of activity Featherstone has in mind are symbolic goods and provision of services – for example, marketing, public relations, consulting, and help-giving professions such as social workers or counsellors (see also Yoshino 1999, 19–20). Cultural intermediaries are key players in global flows. In a well-known statement, Appadurai argues that ‘The new global cultural economy has to be understood as a complex, overlapping, disjunctive order, which cannot any longer be understood in terms of center-periphery models’

Chapter 4

(Appadurai 1990, 296). It is the role of cultural intermediaries to connect disjunctures at various points in global flows, as is well illustrated in the following comment by the president of one of the well-established colleges in Malaysia:



I view it [our role] more as that of ‘communication conduit’. We are lucky because we are part of the commonwealth, we have been under the British system and all that, so in a way we speak the same academic language as the Australian university. ... Because their system is quite similar to our system. In fact, it is probably in terms of communication that we are closer to Australian universities than to Japanese universities. Because the structure is different [in Japan]. Because we understand Australian expectations, structure and all that. And then being Asians, we are a bridge. Our Chinese partners who have grown up in a different system altogether don’t know how to make the partnership work. Even with the same system, Malaysian and Australian, there was some pain in trying to get the relationship to work well in the beginning. But that is behind us now. So we are passing on our experience to the Chinese.

The foregoing discussion has shown how the Englishization of higher education in Asia is forging connections between Chinese Malaysians and PRC Chinese nationals and, for that matter, Indonesian Chinese. We may refer to these links as transnational ethnicity. The important point to bear in mind here is that, despite the fact that the actors themselves are consciously aware of the ethnic link, the relationship is instrumental in nature and does not derive from the mobilization of a pre-existing clan network. The relationship is grounded in instrumental motivations concerned with demand and supply of ‘soft technologies’ in the field of educational development methods. As we have seen, the development of private higher education in Malaysia, the language medium of which is English, led to a greater inflow of students from China. Within this process of Englishization, we can observe various types of increasing links between PRC Chinese and Malaysian Chinese, for example in travel agency and apartment-broker businesses catering for students from China. We should, however, avoid any overly-hasty understanding of this development as simply a matter of ‘the Chinese connection’ or as an example of ‘long-

83

84

Englishization in Asia

distance nationalism’. What are the actual effects of the Englishization process on the mutual relationships between Chinese and Malaysian Chinese and on the organization of identity among the actors involved? The phenomenon is still at a very early stage, and we would be well advised to spend more time observing the forms, repetitiveness and durability of these links. They represent a social trend of great interest and significance for the future. The fact that Malaysia is a multiethnic society, comprised chiefly of Malays, Chinese and Indians, is a precious resource for the nation. We have seen how the ethnicity of Malaysian Chinese has been valuable in dealings with PRC Chinese and Indonesian Chinese in the marketplace, but the ethnicity factor in the creation of transnational networks between people is not limited to the case of the Malaysian Chinese. Another very interesting example was seen in the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the United States. Malaysia was quick to announce itself as an alternative destination for Middle Eastern students who had planned to pursue their studies in the USA but now found the way blocked, and Malaysia’s Ministry of Education organized the recruitment of such students. In this case, Malaysia was selling itself as a Muslim country, with the religious aspect of Malay ethnicity being emphasized for Middle Eastern students; and in this case, Malay-Muslims served as cultural intermediaries. The use of Malaysia’s multiethnicity as a resource for a transnational project is highlighted in the following statement by the director of one of Malaysia’s main private colleges:



We know how to take advantage of our historical background – English and our multiethnic background. This is where the plural society or the multiethnic society is at an advantage. Even our college has centres headed by Malays. Because, when Middle Eastern students come here, they are more comfortable in centres headed by Malays.

It is gradually becoming apparent that the activities of this group of people are having a very interesting impact on the reorganization of multi-layered identities, social relations and networks involving Malaysians. This is a rather complex issue to discuss in a simple manner, but, limiting ourselves to formal categories, there are:

Chapter 4

• the intra-national dimension of ethnic categories comprised of indigenous Malays, ethnic Chinese, Indians and others;

• the dimension of Malaysia’s national identity; and • the dimension of transnational interconnections between Malaysia’s domestic ethnicities and the broader categories of people in the world – often called ‘civilisations’. As has been seen in the examples above, Malaysian Chinese ethnicity becomes connected to the broader Chinese world; Malay religiosity to the broader Muslim world; and so on. Needless to say, these are constructed categories. Nevertheless, it is a social fact that such formal categories do prescribe the boundaries of people’s daily lives and world-views. The process of Englishization has an impact on the organization of society and of identity in all three dimensions, and in the interfaces and disjunctures between these dimensions and within each dimension.

Concluding remarks English is an extremely important variable in thinking about the restructuring of society in contemporary postcolonial Asia. This is because the language is intimately involved in global flows of people and money, the constitution of power, the organization of social and personal identity, and numerous other areas of human interaction. Previous discussions of the role of English, however, have clung to distinctions predicated upon notions of the ‘standardness’ of English and have thus been unable to free themselves from the limiting framework of a world divided into ‘Englishspeaking countries’ that form the ‘centre’ and ‘non-English-speaking countries’ (and also ‘sub-English-speaking countries’) that occupy the ‘periphery’. In this conventional view, it is the UK, the USA, Australia and other ‘English-speaking countries’ that lead the way in spreading English in the world. My argument in this paper has been that this construct is outdated in several respects, in that it overlooks and is not capable of elucidating some of the complex and fascinating phenomena now taking place. A fresh approach is needed which examines the ways in which Englishization is supporting, promoting, and reorganizing global flows as well as influencing processes of identity formation both in national and transnational contexts.

85

86

Englishization in Asia

The expansion of English has been viewed in a simplistic fashion, assuming the ‘native speaker’ and the ‘English-speaking country’ to be the fundamental source of Englishization. As we have seen, however, in postcolonial Asia the advance of Englishization is being propelled by the dynamic interactions of a large and varied cast of local actors. How are we to interpret this localized version of the English-language industry? In the economic sphere, does it represent symbolic autonomy, or does it simply indicate that the Asian education industry has become a mere sub-contractor for Australia or the UK? It is much too early for answers to such questions – the story is still unfolding – and so I will refrain from any hasty conclusions and simply end with an assertion of my conviction that further careful research into this fascinating subject will be well rewarded.

References Andressen, C (1993) Educational Refugees: Malaysian Students in Australia, Monash Papers on Southeast Asia, no. 29. Appadurai, A (1990) ‘Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy’ in Featherstone, M (ed.) Global Culture, London: SAGE, 295–310. Bourdieu, P (1992) Distinction, London: Routledge. Chew, P G L (1999) ‘Linguistic imperialism, globalism and the English language’ in Graddol, D and Minhof, U H (eds) AILA Review 13: English in a Changing World, International Association of Applied Linguistics, 37–47. Davis, D, Olsen, A and Bohm, A (eds) (2002) Transnational Education Providers, Partners and Policy: Challenges for Australian Institutions Offshore, Brisbane: IDP Education Australia. Department of Statistics Malaysia (1991) Population and Housing Census of Malaysia, 1 (General Report of the Population Census). Featherstone, M (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, London: SAGE. Jenkins, J (2000) The Phonology of English as an International Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 4

Kemp, S J (1992) ‘The Export of Higher Education’, Master’s thesis, Curtin University of Technology. Lipp, L (1997) ‘Developments in Australia-Malaysia cooperation’ in Marshallsay, Z (ed.) Educational Challenges in Malaysia: Advances and Prospects, Clayton: Monash Asia Institute, 15–27. Pennycook, A (2000) ‘English, politics, ideology’ in Ricento, T (ed.) Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 107–19. Study in Malaysia Handbook (2001), 2nd international edition, Kuala Lumpur: Challenger Concept. Yoshino, K (1999) Consuming Ethnicity and Nationalism: Asian Experiences, London: Curzon Press. Yoshino, K (2002) ‘“Eigoka” to posutokoroniaru na ajia: Mareshia no genba kara mieta keiko’ (‘Englishisation’ in postcolonial Asia: An exploration of trends in Malaysia), Shiso (Thought), 933, January, 162–80.

87

5

Englishization through World English as a cultural commodity: Literacy practices in global Malaysian higher education Koo Yew Lie

In this paper, I investigate Englishization or the spread of English in global contexts in the multingual experience of students in the global South. The literacy practices of multilingual students involving Malaysian English as World English (Kachru 1990, 2005) are situated as a central aspect of Englishization at the National University of Malaysia (NUM). The paper examines the perceptions of a multilingual English-language user based on her narrative accounts of how she engages with Malaysian English as a cultural commodity for its academic, employment and social values. It also explores the aspirations she has for English in terms of its potential to link her to knowledge, employment and social networks both nationally and globally. In particular, I look at how Englishization as a global discourse is perceived and experienced discursively by a multilingual postgraduate student at a global institution such as NUM. Through this investigation, I hope to provide a point of entry into the uses, values and consequences of Englishization in the life of a multilingual Malaysian postgraduate student.

Globalization and higher education: The broad Englishization context as experienced locally by Malaysians The globalization literature highlights the significance of the international flow of ideas and knowledge, and the tighter economic integration of countries through the increased flow of goods, services, capital and labour, and transnational mobility (Stiglitz 2006). The impact of this is seen to be uneven and complex with expected ruptures and disjunctures (Appadurai 1996).

Chapter 5

Due to the ascendancy of globalization, English in higher education has become a high-stakes cultural commodity, and is likely to bring, for some, greater chances of success in education, employability, social mobility and migration opportunities. At the same time, globalization has been viewed as endangering minority languages and cultures. English is valued as high-stakes cultural capital by actors and agents involved in neoliberal economies and in global higher education with the push for internationalization and the pursuit of world ranking. In this pursuit of global connections, the actors and agents involve employers, entrepreneurs, domestic and international students, policy-makers, educational providers, lecturers and employers. In order to gain access to powerful communities of practice which in turn provides socioeconomic and cultural mobility, a person needs to acquire or possess cultural capital (Grenfell 2007), which is defined as the signifier of social class. Social capital is viewed here in terms of habitus (behaviour, practices, accents and attitudes) associated with artefacts such as books and paper qualifications which are closely related to prestigious institutions (e.g. university, workplace and professional bodies). This paper examines the discourses of a Malaysian learner focusing on how she perceives English and its varieties and genres as providing cultural capital in terms of access to institutional and organizational networks involving socially mobile communities, nationally and internationally.

Englishization and its consequences for social relations and networks in the new world order According to Kosaku Yoshino (2002, 1):

The contemporary phenomenon of ‘Englishisation’ has already attracted much attention among various circles (see Pennycook 2000, 107–19). In particular, a lively debate can be heard concerning the politics of English as the dominant global language. In one particular genre of the debate, this expansion, referred to as linguistic imperialism or English language imperialism, is denounced as ‘a post-colonial plot on the part of the core English-speaking countries which hoped to maintain their dominance over “periphery” (mostly developing)

89

90

Englishization in Asia

countries’ (Chew 1999, 39). In order to understand social developments brought about by Englishisation, however, it is necessary to go beyond the limits of the ideological denunciations of English. Yoshino proposes a sociological approach to the investigation of Englishization, to examine its impact on the reorganization of global social relations and networks. He elaborates that, while previous literature has tended to focus mostly on the flow of people, goods, money and information on the macro level of analysis, his study of Englishization aims to enquire into the ways in which the micro-level experience of individuals is linked with intermediate-level institutions and organizations, thereby creating new spheres of living and activity against the background of global flows. He goes on to argue (ibid., 2) as follows:

The English language is expanding its realms in tandem with globalisation. Examples abound in almost every corner of the globe. One might think of the promotion of English usage in the postnational EU, the emphasis on English as a means of overcoming economic backwardness in the post-communist world, and the reaffirmation of the value of English skills in the postcolonial world. In fact, globalization in the form of Englishisation, or the spread of English, will surely continue to mark further gains in the time ahead. It can readily be predicted that English is one of the most important variables in conceiving of any kind of new world order. The advance of Englishisation is giving rise to significant changes in ways of life in various parts of the world. Indeed, Asia has become one main arena where British, American, Australian and other varieties of English exist side by side, each one of which is closely linked with its cultural industries and public institutions. All of this interaction, fuelled in part by economic motivations, is unleashing intense competitive forces in the region. Because English is intimately involved in education, information, tourist and other key industries, it is an extremely profitable export commodity for any country which uses it as a native or second language. With this in mind, Englishisation provides an excellent vantage point to view and understand some of the developments taking place in and around Asia.

Chapter 5

My basic aim here is to examine the ways in which World English and its varieties (as in the case of Malaysian English) are appropriated and transformed by students involved in the new global order where English is playing an increasingly important socioeconomic and cultural role.

Englishization through the lens of Malaysian English The paper examines Englishization involving World English, focusing on Malaysian English (ME). ME is a localized diachronic and synchronic variety of English which has evolved from the country’s colonial and postcolonial experiences. It is a nativized fusion of the formal, functional and discoursal features of English in interaction with the local Malay, Chinese and Indian languages used within a language context described as polyglossic and where the speech repertoire of its people is ‘multilingual’ (Platt and Weber 1980). ME has evolved from the interaction of the cohesive, functional and discoursal elements of the English language with the primary local languages in use involving their phonology, lexis, syntax, pragmatics/rhetoric and discourses (Gee 1996) or socio-semiotics (Kachru 1992). ME and its sub-varieties are viewed as social languages functioning broadly as nativized discourses of the pluricultural Malaysian sociocultural ways of being, norms, beliefs and practices which express and represent the intractable Malaysia voice.

ME and its stylistic lectal varieties: The acrolect, mesolect and basilect Malaysian English (Baskaran 1994; Gill 2002; Platt and Weber 1980) has been described in terms of an acrolect–mesolect–basilect cline. Each subvariety is generally distinguished according to its intelligibility in national and international settings, its contexts for formal and informal use, and its degree of variation from a standard in its linguistic and functional forms in terms of phonology, syntax, lexis and rhetoric. According to Gill (2002, 52), ‘The ME acrolect may be the prescribed pedagogical norm necessary for international communication. The mesolect is the variety used for intranational communication, between

91

92

Englishization in Asia

Malaysians of different ethnicity. The basilect, due to its extreme differences from the standard, is regarded as almost unintelligible outside of the speech communities in which it developed’. Lowenburg (1992, 109) describes a non-native variety of English such as standard Malaysian English – which may be viewed as the acrolect in Gill’s (2002) terms – as ‘the linguistic forms of that variety that are normally used in formal speaking and writing by speakers who have received the highest level of education available in that variety. Standard English is the accepted model for official, journalistic and academic writing and for public speaking before an audience or on radio or television’. Baskaran (1987, cited in Gill 2002) sees the acrolect as characteristic of standard Malaysian English used in formal contexts and as enjoying international intelligibility; and she describes the mesolect as a subvariety of ME used dominantly in informal contexts and having national intelligibility. She goes on to argue that:



The basilect is patois ME meant for colloquial use and which has restricted patois intelligibility and currency. In terms of syntax, the acrolect does not tolerate much deviation and variation in terms of lexis acceptable especially for local words not substitutable in an international context. In phonology, slight variation is tolerated so long as it is internationally intelligible. In phonology, more variation is tolerated in the basilect including prosodic features especially stress and intonation. The basilect displays syntax which has some deviation from the standard and has national intelligibility. In terms of lexicalisation, the basilect displays a high prevalence of nativised words even for words having international English substitutes. The basilect displays phonological features with extreme variation and is almost unintelligible internationally. In terms of syntax, there is substantial variation (p. 53).

Major lexicalization is heavily infused with local language items. Baskaran (1994) describes the acrolect as ‘official Malaysian English’, the mesolect as the ‘unofficial Malaysian English’ used by the person-in-the-street and the basilect as ‘broken Malaysian English’.

Chapter 5

Baskaran (1987, 1994) and Gill (2002) characterize ME and its lectal varieties as stylistic varieties used in a cline from formal to informal contexts. Indeed, Gill (ibid.) has shown in her work that the speakers of the acrolectal variety tend to have at their disposal the entire range of the sociolects to express their thoughts in varying contexts depending on who they are talking to. Also, Platt and Weber (1980) differentiate between established varieties of English in Inner Circle and Outer Circle contexts in terms of sociolects within which there is a stylistic range. In speaking of relatively newer varieties of English, and with specific reference to Singaporean English, they suggest that their speakers do not have a stylistic range within their sociolect (which in an Inner Circle context is more or less fixed). However, they argue that new users of New Englishes employ the sociolectal range, namely the acrolect, mesolect and basilect, as their stylistic range: ‘It is common for the speakers of a more established variety of English to have a fixed overall speech pattern (sociolect) and for movement from a more formal to a more colloquial style to occur within this pattern, either by phonetic, lexical or syntactic variation (ibid., 111). In terms of the lectal range of ME, a relatively smaller group of highly educated Malaysian English acrolectal speakers employ the full range of lectal varieties as styles to mark degrees of formality and their social identity as members of particular in- or out-groups. This group is able to communicate in various varieties ranging from academic varieties for international audiences (for specialized fields) to less formal varieties such as those used in everyday life. However, it is fair to say that, generally, the code-switching capacity within ME lects is not a communicative resource available to all ME users who may be limited to the mesolect and/ or basilect and are not able to ‘switch up’ to the acrolectal variety. This is true especially for those who have not had adequate formal exposure to and use of educated varieties of English after the shift in language policy in education from English to Bahasa Malaysia from 1969 onwards. They may not have had enough exposure to standard varieties of English and the genres which have institutional values as compared to those who have social or organizational networks which can provide literacy practice in such genres. This may come in the form of families where parents

93

94

Englishization in Asia

have undergone an English-medium education and who can offer more socialization into institutional literacy practices in English or affiliations to organizations such as churches where English operates in a number of written and spoken genres with literacy providers and intermediaries from Inner Circle countries.

Nativization of ME: Cohesion, coherence and socio-semiotics The Malaysian English user employs Malaysian English varieties which have gone through at least one of the following processes: 1 Nativization of cohesion (Kachru 1990, 1992). This process draws on the conceptual distinction that Widdowson made within the field of discourse analysis between rules of usage and rules of use where the former represents the language user’s knowledge of the formal system of his/her language (Widdowson 1979 as cited in Kachru 1990, 308) and the latter the rules of use. Nativization of cohesion involves the acculturation of rules of usage from the multiple languages in Malaya/ Malaysia into English, including features of lexis, phonology, phonetics and syntax. For example, lexical nativization may involve semantic shift, extension and innovation, and syntactic nativization may include a structure where the particle is dropped or interrogatives are constructed without changing the position of the subject and auxiliary as in the sentence ‘What you would like to do?’ 2 Nativization of coherence/rhetorical patterns/pragmatics based on the interaction of the English language structure with those of the local languages. Coherence in Widdowsonian terms represents the rules of use and focuses on the functional, communicative and sociocultural appropriateness of language use within a communicative unit. Coherence or rhetorical processes in this paper include the use of the multiple rhetorical norms drawn from English and at least one of the main languages used in Malaysia, viz. Malay, Chinese and Indian codes. Such coherence/rhetorical processes include the use of local metaphors, idioms, proverbs, linguistically and culturally dependent interaction patterns and styles from the local cultures/languages (Kachru 1990, 1992).

Chapter 5

3 Nativization of discourses (Gee 1996; Kachru 1990, 1992) covers the ontologies, ways of being, seeing and doing of cultural groups. This includes the syncretic indigenization of the beliefs, values and norms of behaviour underpinning the local cultures in Malaysia. ME represents the distinctive meaning systems of the plural local cultures in symbiotic interaction with the dominant culture of the English language. This is the nativization process which Kachru (1992) would consider as having to do with social semiotics of cultures and context of situation in its widest sense. Analytically, this process focuses on the broadest context within which the communicative unit (see 2 above) is contextualized and would therefore necessarily involve processes 1 and 2 above since it encapsulates the ways with words and with the world phenomena of a speech community and its languages. The problem posed for the multilingual Malaysian English user concerns the value that Malaysian English is viewed as having in relation to other ‘powerful’ varieties such as Inner Circle varieties which are seen to have greater cultural value due to the hegemony of their producers. Bhatt (2001, 527) calls for descriptive and pedagogic frameworks that are ‘faithful to multilingualism and language variation’ and that reflect ‘diverse linguistic, cultural, and ideological voices’ which are different from those from the West. The pluralism of English languages, with bountiful sociolinguistic contexts and divergences, displays hidden multisocietal and multicultural identities from its ‘acculturation in new sociolinguistic ecologies’ (Kachru 1965; Strevens 1992 as cited in Bhatt 2001, 528).

Multilingualism and multilingual literacies of World English: Inhabiting ambivalence Scholars such as Hornberger (2003), Martin-Jones and Jones (2000) and Koo (2008 a, b) argue that multilingual speakers have a communicative repertoire of literacies – that is, more than one spoken or written language, including a range of language varieties and scripts. In particular literacy events and domains, vernacular and regional varieties of language may be spoken and/or written alongside a standard national language and international language. In this paper, I hold the view that literacy is a social practice (Gee 1996; Kress 2000; Street 1984, 1993, 2000, 2001). I

95

96

Englishization in Asia

look at literacy in the plural in terms of ways of knowing–reading–writing– designing texts in communities of practice; and I look at literacy practices as individual meaning-making processes situated in and influenced by larger sociocultural processes (which are institutionally framed by norms and expectations of schools, universities, educational authorities, employers, etc.). Institutional and social structures structurally constrain collective individual meaning-making as conceptualized in terms of the habitus (Grenfell 2007). Literacy practices are reproduced and supported by powerful institutions, such as education, and the workplaces are part of larger discourse formations and institutions, including global institutions such as the World Bank and UNESCO. The World English student faces enormous challenges related to the choice, learning and use of a number of language codes as well as varieties within them. It is a complex issue arising from multilingual contexts and involving multiliteracy practices (Martin-Jones and Jones 2000) where hybridity, although celebrated by World English and multilingualism scholars as a resource, is viewed as interlanguage or sub-standard fossilized language by Empire ELT frameworks which continue to dominate global consciousnessness and English-language teaching practices, including assessment practices (Pennycook 2000). Multilingual students (such as Su, the key subject in this paper) situated in diverse ethnolinguistic contexts inevitably imprint onto the English language code the histories and experiences of their learning and use of various other language codes, and the cultural scripts embedded in those codes and varieties. The constant negotiation of difference through learning and using English in multilingual contexts results in a particular hybrid linguistic system which is viewed as having ‘fissures’. Multilingual learners like Su constantly question themselves about the commodity value of their hybrid communication. They feel ambivalent, perceiving that they stand apart from a group and are not fully a part of the community of native speakers. They find difficulty in accepting this hybrid as a proper ‘standard’ when they compare it to what they see to be highly regulated ‘standard’ academic English (the genres in academic journals and reference books published by, for example, the Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press). Their multilingual lecturers and assessors

Chapter 5

in the Global South may operate an open, fluid academic English variety which recognizes the situated formation of an English academic variety forged in multilingual contexts, one which embeds plural and intersecting codes, varieties and cultures of knowing and learning. These assessors themselves may have learnt a hybrid Malaysian English in multilingual literacy contexts. High achievers like Su who value social and professional mobility and aspire to be part of international networks, including transnational universities of the North, or work for global companies like Dell, think that local gatekeepers’ assessments may not reflect the ‘true’ ceiling of students’ English communicative proficiency in relation to global standards. In other words, they regard their literacy practices in Malaysian English as not guaranteeing global investment returns (Norton 1995) in terms of world recognition, although the standard may be acceptable nationally. Although Su has obtained a first-class degree in English language studies at NUM she is ambivalent about her prospects in global workplaces. Su positions herself and the Malaysian English that she has acquired in this way:



An outsider in facing the reality of globalization, subjugated internally by the hybrid language that I speak (I am neither here or there) (I have everything but yet I have none).



(Note: This and all the later extracts from Su are unedited to capture her authentic voice.)

This ties in, in part, with the consequence of what World English scholars have critiqued to be the unequal and asymmetric relationship between producers and consumers of Inner Circle English and World Englishes. The privileging of Inner Circle English is a hegemonic cultural consciousness which is often uncritically reproduced as intrinsically natural and centrally normative. In this process, other Englishes are perceived as less important, deviations from the ‘standard’, based upon the hegemony created by economic systems, media, knowledge systems, publications and ideologies of powerful interests. The prevalent perception in what may be seen as a hierarchy of Englishes seems to be integrally tied to the global superpolitical hegemony and economic markets of First World countries. It is also reproduced uncritically by the education systems in non-native

97

98

Englishization in Asia

World English countries and contexts where gatekeepers and policymakers norm-reference standards and benchmarks in terms of First World perspectives and practices. There is however an urgent need to resist such unproblematized perceptions, as has been argued by scholars like Pennycook (2000), within the cultural politics of English-language learning and teaching. Important questions of dignity and identity are implicated.

Multilingual literacies as social practice: Contesting dominant epistemologies and pluricentring diverse knowledge Academic literacy is intimately connected to the communicative genres and routines of social groups and institutions. Language and literacy practices are built on the epistemological assumptions of the areas and disciplines. According to Bartholomae (1986), as cited in Hyland (2007, 9):



Every time a student sits down to write for us, he has to invent the university for the occasion – invent the university, that is or a branch of it, like history, anthropology or economics or English. He has to learn to speak our language, to speak as we do, to try on the peculiar ways of knowing, selecting, evaluating, reporting, concluding and arguing that define the discourse of our community

The critical question for multilingual contexts is how might an inclusive Englishization be promoted which supports learners who are multilingual and subaltern in terms of the South? How do educational providers and cultural intermediaries such as policy-makers and gatekeepers engage with cultural and linguistic diversity to contest what may be seen to be the homogenizing effects of globalization? What are the teaching and learning support and connections which have to be made between the students’ multilingual codes and the hybrid variety of academic English? This is a situation which Jenkins (2006) describes as perhaps allowing for new standards of communication to arise which are negotiated between multilingual speakers and gatekeepers in the North and South. The concluding comments in this paper are committed to examining how an inclusive transformative pedagogy built around World English may allow alternative epistemologies situated in the cultural resources of multilingualism to be sustained.

Chapter 5

Sustaining diversity through multilingual literacy practices in Malaysian English and intellectual resources in other languages Multilingual students involved in academic English language use have patterns of educational thinking and behaviour from their other academic literacy practices acquired in using and learning other language codes. These experiences and resources are often marginalized, misunderstood and not supported in the dominantly Western and English-languagecentric learning and teaching context (Han and Singh 2007). To make a related point in relation to Englishization in higher education, it would seem important to sustain the academic resources of multilingual students gained from other language codes and in other institutions, for example through comparative studies of World Englishes in diverse settings. This is a major challenge as most gatekeepers who, although themselves multilingual, may have graduated from educational institutions in the North and may continue to reproduce Western-centric knowledge and English varieties of the Inner Circle. Their intellectual reference points may privilege Western-centric knowledge systems. They tend to be linked closely to the better resourced networks of knowledge production in the West (which may provide more opportunities for promotion, research and publication as Southern universities increasingly benchmark productivity using Northern paradigms of ranking). To make the situation worse, resources from other linguistic codes tend to be relatively unknown or undocumented sufficiently for easy access and distribution. To sustain multilingual knowledges in and through World English, a multicanon approach (Kachru 1991, as cited in Bhatt 2001) could be used involving two or more linguistic and pragmatic systems. This may focus on discourse analysis, discourse strategies, stylistics, speech acts, code-switching and genre analysis. English language has become a multicanon. However, the diversity of intellectual perspectives has to be seen, viewed, experienced and performed – not merely declared. It has to be systemically seen as part of institutional networks for it to be viewed as of value to learners and users.

99

100

Englishization in Asia

The case study: Examining Englishization through the lens of Malaysian English and the multilingual literacy practices of Su This section deals with the empirical data for the paper. It should be noted that my analysis is carried out in my role as a multilingual academic who has academic literacies in Bahasa Malaysia and English. I have oral literacies in Hakka (my mother tongue), Mandarin, Cantonese, Hokkien, Bahasa Malaysia and English. Being multilingual, I hope to mediate Su’s interculturality for the reader. Through her narratives, I try to capture the ways in which she positions herself in terms of her multilingual literacy resources and variable competencies in relation to English, a language which she sees as the most important for her upward mobility This ethnographic case study aims to reveal the ways in which she engages with the multiple language codes and literacy practices she has acquired from multilingual community, schooling and tertiary contexts. My analysis of her narrative accounts, followed up with informal interviews, focuses on the following aspects:

•

A profile of her repertoire of codes and competencies – mother tongue, additional languages, and Malaysian English as a local, national, global/international language

•

The value and investment Su places on Malaysian English and Inner Circle Englishes and academic genres in relation to access and entry to academic, professional and upwardly mobile social circles

•

The value Su places on other language and literacy practices in terms of access and entry to national and international networks gained through translation, and code-mixing/-switching behaviours.

Profile of Su Su has multilingual academic literacy up to high school level in Mandarin, English and Bahasa. She has tertiary qualifications in Bahasa and English and oral literacies in Mandarin, English, spoken Malay and Cantonese.

Chapter 5



I am the eldest in the family. I have a brother who is currently doing his final year majoring in Multimedia at Universiti Malaya; and I have a sister who has started her university life at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia last year. We live with my mother since my father, who was a rubber tapper all his life, passed away in 1991. My father spoke and read Malay language fluently as he managed to finish his high school education during his time. My mother, who is 53 years old, was a waitress for the last 10 years but now a part time paper factory worker. She never had any formal education when she was young. I am 25 years old and I graduated from University Kebangsaan Malaysia in 2006 with a first class degree in English Language Studies.

Multilingual creativity and hybridity: Paradoxes, challenges While scholars such as Bhatt (2001, 534) call for linguistic experimentation in non-native-speaking countries to allow for the diffusion of language uses according to local contexts and indigenous cultural institutions which portray primary and secondary lifeworlds of cultural appropriateness, multilingual learners like Su face ambivalence regarding this hybridity. Bhatt (ibid.) calls for ‘new, cultural-sensitive and socially appropriate meanings-expressions to be considered on their own terms to co-exist with the deep-rooted, internalized norms of Standard English from the gatekeepers’, but meaning-makers like Su look to gatekeepers in the North to validate their English as they see them as the gatekeepers who matter. Underlying Su’s positioning of herself in terms of externally referenced norms are deep structures of economic capitalist hegemonies which will not go away. Until the day when a clear systemic model that is globally implemented with clear policies and support from the North (including employers, academic institutions and professional organizations), it would be difficult for Su to resist such self-positioning in terms of the limited and doubtful cultural value of Malaysian English. Su writes as follows about such tensions and challenges:



This you I do become more aware that I’m one of them who operates in a very hybrid environment, used to hate this feeling of ‘stuck in the

101

102

Englishization in Asia

middle’. becoz of this, I used to ‘make’ myself more ‘English’, especially when i joined AIESEC (an international organisation of students) last time. With all the English speaking people from all races. used to be proud of that ‘trying-to-be-more-English identity’. Nevertheless, i guess the ‘Chinese root’ and mindset are still very ‘active’ within my subconscious. It reminds me of who I am in the first place. Becoz of this consciousness, I sometimes feel kasihan with those ‘bananas’ that i met in AIESEC who can’t read Mandarin. haha. Mandarin is tough! and i am one of the lucky ones who can read and write and ‘think’ in Mandarin.

My mind is not solely operated in English/Mandarin/Cantonese/Hakka …There’s images and pictures of the future, pictures of ‘possibilities’ are things I am afraid to do, but I always have positives pictures of them ‘if’ I turn them into actions, pictures of living and working in foreign countries (US and UK especially, I don’t know where I get the picture from …

Here, Su moves from being exasperated about the value of her hybrid English to a celebratory note about her bilingualism in Mandarin and in English. However, it has to be noted that, overall, her narrative accounts (confirmed by subsequent interviews) show a clear preference for the variety and form of English that give her social prestige and entry into a good job. Generally, her other languages such as Bahasa and Mandarin are viewed more in terms of play in everyday life and less important in her aspirational dreams and desires for a better future – although fairly recently, my engagement with her in a research project on multilingualism appears to have shifted some of these entrenched values.

‘Proper’ English as a cultural commodity: Investing in English Through proper ‘standard’ English, she hopes to get (not realized as yet) a good job with a good income, preferably overseas. She dreams of gaining access to universities, research and workplaces in the North. Although she clearly appreciates what the nation has done for her and her siblings in terms of university education, she longs to join the international

Chapter 5

community’s networks for jobs, social mobility, fuller citizenry rights and opportunities. Su constantly talks about the ‘glass ceiling’ of native-speaker and professional competence in English that haunts her psyche. This is a deep self-positioning which she has constructed as she observes powerful people who have made it in the networks and institutions which communicate in a valued and prestigious transnational English. She articulates her conundrum of not arriving at the fully-fledged academic literacy of the native speaker in ELT – the glass ceiling in academia in ESOL which she describes in terms of ‘never getting there’. In other words, World English is not good enough for her, unless it is a variety which is approved not only by a Malaysian academic gatekeeper but is valued by gatekeepers from topranking Northern universities and workplaces. As noted below, she cites a major event in her life: attending a meeting at AIESEC where she tried to act ‘more English’ and thought that she had failed. She is still trying.

AIESEC: That was back to 2003–2005 when I was actively taking part in the organization as an Out-going Exchange Executive in the Student Exchange department. AIESEC is the world’s largest student organization that runs an exchange program that enables qualified students the opportunity to live and work in another country. The people and the network that I have established through this organization in UKM have taken me an active role in meeting up with local students and international students from China, Japan, Australia and Germany.



AIESEC is an international platform for me to discover and develop my untapped potential. English is widely used in AIESEC. I have many chances to speak English to the local and the international friends. AIESEC had broadened my world view of what I want to contribute and what the world needs and the importance of speaking English in connecting both.

Here there is a clear wish to connect with individuals and communities in the international world. In a separate interview with her, she said that she

103

104

Englishization in Asia

does not want her accent or her English to be viewed as a hybrid variety which is not understood or is frowned upon at the global level.

Inhabiting a ‘no man’s land’: The politics of cultural capital in a multilingual context When asked ‘How has operating intellectually in three separate languages and their varieties shaped your thinking?’, Su responded:

Confusion and at the loser’s end in any language contexts.

Here she is referring to her frustration with her ‘impure hybrid English’ and her variable competencies in Bahasa Malaysia and Mandarin, which she sees as being of uncertain value. She is nevertheless very conscious that since she does not come from a ‘fancy’ family, her investment in a prestigious form of English is extremely important.



I can only write academic Malay language but never speak the language fluently [she is comparing herself to native-speaker standards]. I write Mandarin casual texts and experimental-poetic verse or short passages, I read seriously argumentative comments and articles in the Mandarin newspaper (Sin Chew Jit Poh) but academically I do not have the proficiency of a Sinologist/Mandarin Literature major. I write Malaysian English and my German friend cannot understand what I meant when I told him ‘the weather is getting cold here’ because in Malaysia the weather is either shiny or rainy, or ‘heaty’. Gaps! Gaps! Gaps! From my written English the gatekeeper would easily figure out: that’s another bloody one from the Outer Circle who has been contaminating ‘our’ language!

Although she has tertiary-level proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia and English, she positions herself as inadequately competent – ‘as not really perfect’ – in terms of the academic genres of three languages (Bahasa, Mandarin, English). She values herself as being competent within national standards for English language studies but wonders where that will get her internationally. She benchmarks her Mandarin proficiency as inadequate in terms of a sinologist or a Mandarin literature major.

Chapter 5

Cracks and fissures: Inhabiting ambivalence in the intersections of multilingualism Although I have used a multicanon approach (Kachru 1997) to examine unproblematized language and cultural values in Su’s multilingual abilities related to academic materials in Mandarin and in English, on one level she remains wary of being multilingual with what she considers as ‘inadequate’ competence in all her languages. This is despite serious efforts to engage her in a research study which involves comparing bilingual sources in Mandarin and English where she is required to translate texts from English to Mandarin. The aim of developing her intellectual resources through a bilingual approach does not seem to have had as much of an impact on her as the hegemony and the aura of imperial ELT. Her multilingual literacies in Mandarin tend to be viewed in everyday terms, in non-institutional domains like blogging. She appreciates having fun in being a blogger blogging only in Mandarin and English.

I am a blogger and I have a home at http://nephtaphis.spaces.live.com. These are entries of my blog on my life as a graduate local university student who does not have fancy family background, and worked at a local private company as a case management officer for a year.

Multilingual meaning-makers like Su code-switch easily within a range of communication styles. For example, in an earlier narrative she codeswitched and said that she kasihan those Bananas (a Bahasa Malaysia term for ‘pity’ and ‘Bananas’, a derogatory reference to Malaysian Chinese who are yellow outside and white inside), those who have sold out to Western ideology. Su values her lectal range of English but, except for the acrolectal variety which she thinks is adequate for communication within the country, she does not systemically see it as of serious value in global organizations and structures. She views basilectal English as appropriate principally for cultural identity and play in informal domains. However, there is a ‘crack’ in the linguistic imperialism edifice which Su has constructed. She has a cultural icon whom she admires deeply and sees as a major influence on her life: LeeHom Wang. He is a person who has learnt to transform his linguistic cultural hybridity into a commodifiable value in an international media network, something that she seeks to achieve.

105

106

Englishization in Asia



LeeHom Wang, an American born Chinese musician/producer who never learnt Mandarin until he was 18th, inspires me with his passion in music, his talent in languages (English and Mandarin) and his capability in doing what he loves to do as his life-long career. My love for western music started when I read about his life and key influences. My enthusiasm for Chinese culture and custom was invigorated when I read about how LeeHom incorporated the often unheard music of the Chinese ethnic minorities and invented a music style which is both Chinese and international – ‘chinked-out’, a term he coined together to represent the ties between Chinese and Western music. His pluriliteracy, bilingualism and his creative mediation to move between, and beyond two cultures are definitely amazing. I seek to become an active, innovative meaning-maker that has the ability and power to invent/re-invent new thing or new knowledge which is drawn from my multi-cultural background.

Here she is seeking to transform herself in the way he has and achieve success within the international arena. Englishization and multilingualism are to that extent framed in terms of their cultural value in global institutions and networks. In the following narrative, Su talks about her marginalization as the ethnic Other in the Malaysian nation-state’s positioning of her as ethnic Chinese. She is referring to her unprivileged status within the nation (relative to the privileged bumiputera, the natives of the soil). As still working-class, she struggles and tries very hard to overcome this positioning through gaining more knowledge, which in turn will provide access to jobs outside the nation. She speaks about her struggle concerning her aspiration to excel, so that she can overcome her feeling of futility in what she sees as the nation’s depiction of her as the Other. In one of her narratives, she talks about a space outside the nation, ‘somewhere in America or UK’ where she thinks that she might have a better chance of ‘moving up’ – the value of making a living is embedded in her discourse of struggling to excel. Su is very aware that she has to invest in an English (possibly an acrolectal) standard genre that provides access to networks of knowledge; and she also recognizes that, while English as a medium on its own may be important for communication, it has to be linked to recognition in higher education

Chapter 5

and employment, and especially to her aspirations to be mobile and gain access to the North. She relates this to displaying English knowledge in genres which are valued in the disciplines and the workplace in areas such as marketing, management, advertising and computer science (see the sections in bold type below). This ties in with Yoshino’s point: ‘… where British, American, Australian and other varieties of English exist side by side, each one … is closely linked with its cultural industries and public institutions’ (Yoshino 2002).

… if I don’t work hard there would be nothing achieved. Therefore I believe in hard works. Some people say it is ‘smart works’, work smart instead of work hard. I still find it hardly to accept. As a Malaysian Chinese, what are my chances to survive and get something in situations where we have limited spaces to ‘move up’? I believe in Knowledge. Is anyone doing the ‘smart’ ways instead of the ‘hard’ ways? Excel. Excel. We must excel to survive. We must excel to transcend the limited spaces restricted to us … being knowledgeable means that one has to learn and use English? ... But I personally believe I have to. Ability in English relates to my selfesteem and level of confidence. I wish to speak like the lawyers in The Practice. On another hand, I sometimes feel that English is just a communication tool for me. I need something else to allow me to use the language and at the same time able to earn me a living. I guess it is about knowledge again. I know the language. So I guess it will be no problem to learn things that I’m not familiar with, like marketing, advertising, business management, computer sciences … It is about knowledge again.

Self-positioning of multilingual literacies in the Malaysian workplace Su views basilectal and mesolectal Malaysian English as ‘rojak’ (a loan word from Bahasa Malaysia referring ‘to a mixed fruit salad’), which is appropriate for informal conversation and is the norm for spoken and email communication. She expresses disappointment with the wide use of these varieties in her former workplace, a third-party insurance company, where, she claims, they dominated interaction with local stakeholders, the local customer base and colleagues.

107

108

Englishization in Asia



Even though knowledge of other languages is an advantage in jobhunting, I see English the top priority and requirement if I were to secure a job placement in any middle size to multinational companies which have establishment of networking in foreign countries. I was a case management officer dealing with car and medical insurance in a third party administrative private company. My job function was to handling medical claims for the clients, mostly the insurance holders (the patients and the car owners), and dealing with insurance/claims/ payment counters at the local hospitals/car repairing workshops. In between those parties, I had to deal with insurance agents, the executive level officers from a list of our insurance clients, patients’ relatives, the workers from the workshops, the tow truck drivers, and sometimes with the treating doctors in the hospitals as well. Due to the differences in various levels of parties involved, the company is in need of employees who can speak at least three languages to deal with them. I had to accommodate according to different contexts to the languages that the clients/patients/ agents use.



I realize that the so called ‘standard English’, sometimes, cannot be applied to all levels of people from all walks of life. Most of the callers speak in a non-standard form of English that only Malaysians could understand. When I speak in standard English, using all the ‘would you mind …’, ‘I would like to …’, ‘could you please explain …’, or ‘I would appreciate if …’, most of the time I would get the responses in nonstandard English like, ‘the workshop people not here-leh’, ‘the doctor said I can go home-liao’, ‘why I still cannot go home one?’



Moreover, in comparison of oral and written English literacy, high written proficiency is not particularly required in my job as long as what we wish to record is understandable. When we had to do reporting, we were not even encouraged to write lengthily of those cases and problems that we are having. Therefore, there is no need for any ‘rhetorical skills’ or ‘arguments skills’ in writing English in our reports.

She does not see the basilectal and mesolectal varieties of English as providing cultural capital for her aspirational networks of mobility, to gain access to proper professional work in multinational companies. In her

Chapter 5

previous workplace, she would have preferred to use the elaborated code (argumentative writing) but found that the report-writing she had to do for this local company was formulaic and reductionist.

Working from exasperation to awakening: Critical reflexivity Su aspires to success in international terms associated with native-speaker English and Northern centres of power but in the final narrative she is beginning to see the Bourdieusian view of cultural capital as integrally linked to social class and transnational networks (Sklair 2001), and of knowledge production and its cultural politics. Although she admits that, through learning, one acquires culturally recognized knowledge which purchases social prestige, she realizes that she has not entered the global arena as an equal. Her situation in the Global South, and her marginalized status as a working-class ethnic Other within the nation-state means that she has bigger challenges. She begins to be critically reflexive about supermarket capitalism and the systems behind the construction of cultural capital. She is increasingly awakened to the possibilities and contradictions created by the global ascendancy of English. While she uses English to imagine what she perceives to be a more inclusive space for self-improvement and citizenship, she knows too that her dream of being socially mobile to the North may be jeopardized by her very location and the Malaysian English that she speaks. While she uses English as a site of resistance within the nation, she is very aware that the cultural politics of English may defeat her.

Perceptions of Malaysian English and Inner Circle English: Ambivalence, tensions and challenges Here I deal with Su’s perceptions of the ideological assumptions of Malaysian English vis-a-vis Inner Circle varieties. The narrative below was written after I had provided her with alternative references and readings related to the positioning of herself in terms of Inner Circle English. I had also used a critical literacy perspective (Wallace 2003) on the success-story of her transnational pop star ‘Homeboy’ as an illustrative case.

109

110

Englishization in Asia



‘An imperfect assumption naturally contributes to an imperfect profile.’ (Kachru 2005) Here I am presenting my imperfect profile contributed by the infamous ‘English Conversation Ideology’, which I hope no one would ever repeat my footstep in process of English learning.



A person’s activity of making meaning is a continuous process which can form the basis for construction of identity of self. One of the questions is how do a person knows about and acquires the skills to make use of resources available to him. Despite resources acquisition, for me, it is also very important to look into how a person develops unique capabilities during the meaning making activities, in order to change, to adjust and to transform minimal resources that contribute to his relational identity. In the process of making meaning, I inevitably overpowered (I still feel feeble) by the concept of ‘English conversation ideology’ discussed by Lummis (1973 [1976]), which ‘confuses one about one’s identity […] deprives the medium of its energy and vitality and its potential for new meanings […] exhausts the language by controlled use and makes the user suspicious of his or her linguistic independence‘ (Kachru 2005) I try to recall how did the first conception of the ideology in my psyche and learning, all in vain as the originality of the ideology can no longer be identified. How did it start? Where did it start? The programs on the television? The radio? The internet? The popular culture?



One of the major points of eikaiwa is that the ideology is not the same as ‘acquiring competence in speaking English’. How is it not the same? Lummis argues that this ideology equates ‘the ideal speaking partner’ with a ‘white middle class American’. (Lummis 1976, 10). English is not my language. English is my second language. English is also the language for my academic purposes. So, I have a deliberately designed purpose of learning and using the language. It is not my natural language. I am by definition cannot be a part of the native speaker of the language. This is a destiny, more like a reminder, warning me that I could never be as good as the native speaker of English language no matter how hard I learn it. So, we the education system has come out with a standard, a guideline to benchmark the level of English language competence, to compare

Chapter 5

how close we could achieve as to native speaker standard. We become as good as we could be with the higher marks we could get in 1119, in MUET, in TOEFL, in IELTS. The ‘highest’ mark we get, the ‘better’ we are with the language, the more ‘proficient’ we are compared to others. Is it so? Or, So WAT after that? Those high scorers in the English test stand a better chance in future employment. That’s the reality portrayed in the TV.

The ideology, as Tsuda says (1992, 32), ‘[…] involves emotional attachment to and obsessive infatuation with Western, especially American culture’. I cannot agree anymore as I am indeed, deeply, obsessively infatuated with Western culture in my English learning process. I am saying ‘外国的月亮特別圓 ’, the moon in the foreign countries is brighter. In the process of learning the language I always associate ‘overseas’ (as to US, United Kingdom) to a better place, with a better future, a better outlook, where the air is fresher, and there is more liberty in expressing one’s thought. The ideology gives me a dream that I would pursue, may it be a false dream that bribes and bolts me with its cunning philosophy, I do feel emotionally attached to something ‘better’ in doing so. In comparison with my mother tongue learning, I found myself never associate ‘learning Mandarin’ with a ‘better life’ in China (?) or in any Mandarin speaking regions. I think, definitely, my self-image as a Malaysian-Chinese has been, damaged long ago, corrupted by the ideology of eikaiwa.



The ideology relates native speaker to a Caucasian cultural superiority. On the contrary, why does Mandarin learning fail to build the same emotional reaction in a Malaysian-Chinese like myself? Lummis (1976, 7) said it is ‘racist’ in its nature and construction. It indeed is because it causes learners who learn the language losing their cultural identity with its theory of a true native speaker model and conception. The ideology makes us to perceive things from the west as ‘advancement’, ‘modernity’, ‘savvyness’, ‘and glamorous’. While things from the east is always the second class citizen – ‘developing’, ‘unexciting’, ‘exotic’. Despite the negative racial connotation behind the ideology, however, I wish to ponder from another angle. Firstly, what goes

111

112

Englishization in Asia

wrong with the Chinese system in the same undertaking? Secondly, in facing the current reality of more ‘products’ like myself to come, what can be done to elevate the ‘hybrid speaker’ to a position of ‘cultural superiority’, that is diverse from the Chinese position?

What is the ‘other side’ of English?

This is a powerful and wonderfully rich and expressive narrative which speaks for itself. I wish only to highlight what I see to be the main message, especially in my role as a multilingual cultural intermediary situated in Malaysian realities. She is clearly disturbed that she is positioned as someone who will never be native-speaker competent and hence she switches to basilectal ‘So Wat?’ This usage is a deliberate shift in footing (Goffman 1959), a deeply meaningful attempt by the subaltern to speak back at the impenetrable native-speaker community and ELT Empire in basilectal Malaysian English, elaborating that even if she were to master IELTS or TOEFL she will never enter the community of practice of native speakers. There is a degree of scepticism about the Eikaiwa ideology which she has imbibed and which she is now consciously staring back at with a sense of futility and frustration. Yet, it is an imaginary space that comforts her on the level of dreams and remains an aspirational space. She clearly recognizes her complicity in the reproduction of Eikaiwa ideology, attracted by its economic, media, material and social rewards. She admits that she aspires to be globally affirmed by the appropriation of an Englishization through Eikaiwa culture with access to global employment, citizenship and migration networks. It is interesting that in her narratives she draws on a Mandarin proverb or saying that ‘The moon is brighter on the other side’. This itself is indicative of how multilingual literacies can be used to enrich her ways of saying at the very least (although, clearly, deeper structural practices of culture are embedded in it). However, through my interviews and discussions with her, the cultural capital that is possible through her other languages, especially Bahasa Malaysia, seems to be of lesser interest. The reasons for this could be sociopolitical, tied to what she sees to be the nation-state’s positioning of her. Her attention to and investment in Mandarin as cultural capital has been raised through her interest in LeeHom Wang’s success (she

Chapter 5

is a regular visitor to his website) and her own cultural contestations of what she sees to be narrow national hegemonies around ethnicity. In my role as intercultural intermediary, I wish to point out that this narrative contextualized within Su’s strong academic literacies in English, Bahasa Malaysia and Mandarin is actually conveying something which is not explicitly ‘said’. By leaving out her strong academic literacy in Bahasa, acquired through schooling and tertiary education where Bahasa is the main medium of instruction, Su is, in fact, trying to say that due to what she perceives as the nation’s positioning of her as the Other, she has gone to the Other Side, to an aspired-to transnational ‘English’ space for her dreams, a desired place of future work and life. In her last comments above, she shows a critical bent, a desire to consider the other dimensions to Englishization and perhaps to balance institutional structural hegemony with some degree of personal agency. Her question ‘What is the other side of English?’ may be viewed as the beginnings of an important journey to look at the ideological positionings of English in terms of their consequences.

Conclusion: Englishization and building inclusive perspectives and pedagogies for access and equity This paper has provided narratives of how Englishization as a global discourse is perceived and experienced discursively by a multilingual postgraduate student at a global institution such as NUM. Through this ethnographic study, I hoped to provide a point of entry into the uses, values and consequences of Englishization through the lens of a multilingual Malaysian postgraduate student. Despite claims that globalization might offer more opportunities for people who have English as a language of communication, it would seem that for some who are subaltern it has not provided access to dreamedof ‘international jobs’. The hegemony of the media and benchmarking of Northern standards prevail. There are, of course, ruptures in terms of how Englishization has provided some opportunities for Su, at least in terms of obtaining a degree in a Malaysian university, but she has not gained entry into the transnational league. Having working-class parents and lacking

113

114

Englishization in Asia

national and international connections, she has not yet experienced the level of mobility and success she desires. Englishization as viewed through the lens of World Englishes may increase the marginalization of those who are economically disadvantaged and are not linked to transnational networks of power, those transnational global elites, bureaucracies, academics, gatekeepers, publishing houses and decision-makers (Sklair 2001). More fundamentally, Englishization as a sociological force needs to look at the variety and genres of English engaged with by the transnational class in relation to networks of capitalist and knowledge production. It would seem that for the multilingual subaltern in the Outer Circle or in the North, Empire ELT ideology has imposed a seeming ‘reality’ of English language learning and competency onto non-native speakers with the ideas of ‘ambilingualism, interlanguage and fossilization’ (Bhatt 2001, 542). These constructs deny the ownership of English to nonnative learners, confining them as ‘sub-standard’ users of English (ibid.) Bhatt calls for descriptive, pedagogic and ideological frameworks that are ‘faithful to multilingualism and language variation’. The studies of varieties of World Englishes from various contexts and cultural realities would therefore reflect ‘diverse linguistic, cultural, and ideological voices’ which are different from those from the West. The pluralism of English languages, with bountiful sociolinguistic contexts and divergences, displays hidden multisocietal and multicultural identities from its ‘acculturation in new sociolinguistic ecologies’ (Kachru 1965; Strevens 1992, as cited in Bhatt 2001, 543). For an inclusive policy and consequential practices, it seems important to work institutionally across the North-South divide to build and implement policies, assessments and pedagogies that address questions of multilingualism, multiliteracy (Cope and Kalantzis 2000) and pluriliteracy (Koo 2008 a, b), including intercultural communication. Intercultural shifts between codes, varieties and styles in English and vernacular languages in contexts has to be taught. This will certainly enhance the cultural value of the multilingual speaker who can shift between English varieties and styles and other languages. Striking examples of cultural value attached to difference are found in creative industries, especially in management, education, services, design and literature and performing arts. Intercultural

Chapter 5

pedagogies which link the primary lifeworlds and intellectual resources of learners may be taught through consciousness-raising and entextualization (Blommaert 2005). Most fundamentally, the pluricentric and intercultural habitus brought about by the multilingual’s ability to shift and mix linguistic codes and cultures would be an important asset for a world committed to ethnolinguistic and cultural diversity. To contest the hegemonic effects of Empire ELT and its nefarious consequences, higher education policy and practice would have to engage in a reflexive consideration of how Englishization reorganizes global social relations and networks systemically in socially inclusive ways. For redistributive social justice in higher education and in communities, the roles of World English and its varieties will have to looked at in relation to its other ethnolinguistic languages for sociocultural ecology. Minority communities such as students, being less powerful, are often left to grapple with the social realities and consequences of differential values attached to their language codes and literacy practices. In this regard, a critical perspective (Pennycook 1994; Grenfell 2007) on the construction, reproduction and distribution of cultural capital in higher education and the global community is imperative. Policies which tend to pronounce on benchmarks, taking for granted the values of English language competency, ignore the injustice embedded in the cultural politics of knowledge production of texts and the broader economic and educational systems that global universities privilege. I see it as the role of a transformative higher education committed to access and equity issues to make this overt to learners and those engaged in teaching. Access and equity issues have to confront the fact of multilingualism and literacies as social practice in a contested globalizing space.

References Appadurai, A (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press. Baskaran, L (1994) ‘The Malaysian English mosaic’, English Today, 10(1): 27–32.

115

116

Englishization in Asia

Bhatt, R M (2001) ‘World Englishes’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 30:527– 50. Blommaert, J (2005) Discourse, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cope, B and Kalantzis, M (eds) (2000) Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, London: Routledge. Gee, J P (1996) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, London: Falmer Press.  Gill, S K (2002) International Communication: English Language Challenges for Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press. Goffman, E (1959) Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Anchor. Grenfell, M J (2007) Pierre Bourdeieu, London, Continuum. Han, J and Singh, M (2007) ‘Getting World English speaking student teachers to the top of the class: Making hope for ethno-cultural diversity in teacher education robust’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3): 291–309. Hornberger, N H (ed.) (2003) Continua of Biliteracy. An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research and Practice in Multilingual Settings, Tonawanda, New York: Multilingual Matters. Hyland, K (2007) Writing in the Academy: Reputation, Education and Knowledge, London: Institute of Education. Jenkins, J (2006) ‘Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a lingua franca’, TESOL Quarterly, 40(1): 157–81. Kachru, B B (1965) ‘The Indianness in Indian English’, Word, 21(3): 391– 410. Kachru, B B (1990) The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models, 2nd edn, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B B (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongues: English Across Cultures, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Chapter 5

Kachru, B B (1997) ‘World Englishes and English-using communities’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 17:66–87. Kachru, B B (2005) Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Koo, Y L (2008a) ‘The politics of cultural production and meaning-making in ELT: Exploring a reflexive pedagogy of pluriliteracy in higher education (HE)’ in Moris, Z, Rahim, H A and Manan, S A (eds) Higher Education in the Asia Pacific: Emerging Trends in Teaching and Learning, Penang: IPPTN/ National Higher Education Research Institute and University of Science Malaysia Press, 234–57. Koo Y L (2008b) ‘Internationalising academic literacy practices in English as a lingua franca for teaching and learning’ in Sirat, M, Kaur, S and Azman, N (eds) Globalisation and Internationalisation of Higher Education in Malaysia, Penang: IPPTN/ National Higher Education Research Institute and University of Science Malaysia Press, 51–76. Kress, G (2000) ‘Multimodality’ in Cope, B and Kalantzis, M (eds) Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, London: Routledge. Lowenburg, P H (1992) ‘Testing English as a world language: Issues in assessing non-native proficiency’ in Kachru, B B (ed.) The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd edn, Champaign IL, University of Illinois Press, 108–21. Martin-Jones, M and Jones, K (eds) (2000) ‘Multilingual literacies’ in Multilingual Literacies: Reading and Writing Different Worlds, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1–15. Norton, P (1995) ‘Social identity, investment and language learning’, TESOL Quarterly, 29(1): 9–31. Pennycook, A (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Pennycook, A (2000) ‘English, politics, ideology’ in Ricento, T (ed.) Ideology, Politics and Language Policies, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

117

118

Englishization in Asia

Platt, J and Weber H (1980) English in Singapore and Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Sklair, L (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class, Oxford: Blackwell. Stiglitz, J (2006) Making Globalization Work, New York: W W Norton. Street, B (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B (ed.) (1993) Cross-cultural Approaches to Literacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Street, B (2000) ‘Literacy events and literacy practices: Theory and practice in the New Literacy Studies’ in Martin-Jones, M and Jones, K (eds) Multilingual Literacies: Reading and Writing Different Worlds, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17–29. Street, B (ed.) (2001) Literacy and Development: Ethnographic Perspectives, London: Routledge. Wallace, C (2003) Critical Reading in Language Education, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Yoshino, K (2002) ‘Englishisation of higher education in Asia: The flow of overseas students and the role of cultural intermediaries’, Conference on ‘Cultural Flows With(in) a Globalizing Asia’, Monash University, Clayton, 29 November–1 December, http://arts.monash.edu.au/lcl/conferences/ cultural-flows/cfpapers/cf-conf-paper-yoshino.pdf.

6

Linguistic, cultural and identity issues in Englishization of Putonghua Xu Zhichang

Over the past few decades, English has become established as an international lingua franca in the sense that it has been increasingly nativized or localized into World Englishes (Kachru 1996; Kirkpatrick 2006, 2007; Seidlhofer 2004; Tam 2004b). In the meantime, languages other than English have also been extensively Englishized. English has influenced – through the process of Englishization (Kachru 1994a, 1996) – many other languages with which it has come into contact. One of the major ‘other’ languages is Chinese Putonghua. Known also as Mandarin (Li and Thompson 1989), Modern Chinese, Modern Standard Chinese (Chen 1999; Kratochvil 1982), or a Chinese national lingua franca (Chen 1999; Kirkpatrick and Xu 2001), Putonghua has undergone a process of change. According to Kratochvil (1982, 687), Chinese has changed ‘perhaps more rapidly and more profoundly than any other one of the principal world languages’ for self-evident reasons, including ‘the entry of China into the modern international arena, and the internal upheavals and adjustments which it has had to go through as a consequence’. Change and variation are indeed the norm for almost all languages in the present era of globalization and Englishization is regarded as one of the major causes of this. Kachru (1994a, 139) claims that ‘Englishization has left hardly any major language untouched. The difference is one of degrees’. A large body of Englishization research is devoted to ‘studies of lexical borrowings from English into other languages’ (Kachru 1994a, 138). Elsewhere, Kachru (1994b, 131) also points out that ‘one dimension of Englishization’ is that of ‘code-mixing and code-switching, with English as one of the components’. In China, economic globalization has become phenomenal since the implementation of the economic reforms and the opening up to the outside world in the late 1970s. As a result, new terms

120

Englishization in Asia

and concepts have been introduced to China at an unprecedented speed. According to Sun and Jiang (2000, 105), ‘the borrowing of words from other languages into Chinese from 1979 to 1988 was 4.5 times higher than the amount of borrowing from 1949 to 1978, and over 80% of the recent loan terms are from English’. The borrowed words, such as 迪斯可 (disco), 可口可樂 (Coca-Cola), 克隆 (clone), 萬維網 (World Wide Web), 雅 皮士 (yuppies), and more recently 布波族 or 布爾喬亞波希米亞族 (Bobo, or bourgeois bohemian), are products of Putonghua Englishization. In addition to the linguistic issues of Putonghua Englishization, there are also issues of cultural and identity preferences associated with the globalization of English. Many scholars (e.g. Ang 2001; Dor 2004; Tam 2002; Tam, Yip and Dissanayake 2002) view the current world as a site of contestation between the global and the local. Such contestation has given rise to a new term – glocalism. On the one hand, global businesses tend to ‘think globally’ but ‘act locally’, as they are ‘gradually abandoning not only the attempt to uncover the universal predictive laws of the market, but also the utopia of an “international lingua franca” and are looking at ways to penetrate local markets in their own languages’ (Dor 2004, 102). According to Tam, Yip and Dissanayake (2002, xi), ‘such a mind-set has also generated a new cultural phenomenon, in the sense that the global has to be concretized in the local’. On the other hand, the local people, especially those who work in global businesses, tend to take Englishization of their local languages as a sign of sophistication, trendiness and a means for a new ‘borrowed identity’ (Li 1997, 489). In certain cosmopolitan cities in China, such people have even obtained an Englishized collective title – ‘Chinese Yuppies’ (Zhang 2005, 436) or Chuppies（查皮士) – and they speak a ‘cosmopolitan variety of Mandarin Chinese’ (Zhang 2005, 432) or ‘Cosmopolitan Mandarin’ (Zhang 2006, 215), combining features from both regional and global sources. They tend to code-mix with English in their use of Putonghua, and to construct a ‘new professional identity’ (Zhang 2005, 431). The current issues of Englishization are closely related to economic globalization. Indeed, it is not surprising that the equivalent of the economic globalization in the current linguistic domain is Englishization. Dor (2004, 97) puts it this way: ‘The spread of English as the lingua franca

Chapter 6

of the information age is viewed as the linguistic counterpart to the process of economic globalization’ and continues:

The combined effect of the dynamics of economic globalization and the decline of the nation-state as the major linguistic agent of the modern era will be neither global Englishization nor multilingual freedom. Most probably, it will result in a state of market-based, imposed multilingualism. In this system, speakers may still speak their languages, but these languages may no longer be ‘theirs’ in the agentive sense: speakers (and their communities) will have much less influence on the dynamics of linguistic change, identity, maintenance, and standardization.



(Dor 2004, 116)

In this paper, I explore the linguistic, cultural and identity issues through a ‘linguistic market’ framework (Bourdieu 1977; Li 2004; Peirce 1995; Zhang 2005). By proposing that the current linguistic market in China comprises a glocal linguistic market (for English as a lingua franca), a supra-local linguistic market (for the ‘cosmopolitan variety of Chinese’ or ‘Cosmopolitan Mandarin’), and a local linguistic market (for Chinese Putonghua and other Chinese dialects), I aim to investigate issues that are arising in Putonghua Englishization in contemporary China through a broader perspective that involves social, economic, cultural and linguistic factors. The conceptualization of a Chinese supra-local linguistic market is to recount the Englishization of Putonghua in certain emerging Chinese communities, e.g. the Chinese Yuppies. It can be argued that as a linguistic currency in the Chinese supra-local linguistic market, this emerging cosmopolitan variety of Chinese is a product of the interaction between local and glocal linguistic markets. In addition, it can also be argued that Putonghua Englishization is not only a linguistic issue but also an issue that involves the changing Chinese cultures and identities of the native Putonghua speakers.

121

122

Englishization in Asia

The ‘linguistic market’ framework A linguistic market is defined by Bourdieu (cited in Zhang 2005, 432) as ‘a symbolic market, constituted by various social domains within which linguistic exchanges take place’. According to Bourdieu (1977, 651), ‘linguistic competence (like any other cultural competence) functions as linguistic capital in relationship with a certain market’. This suggests that linguistic utterances act as symbolic capital with inherent value in the linguistic marketplace. The same notion of linguistic market has also been explored in terms of a ‘language market’ by Abrams (1983), and in terms of a ‘language zone’ by Dor (2004).

It is commonly recognized that language represents one of society’s most important, if not the most important, privately produced public goods. … Based on traditional measures, the language market fits the economist’s description of a ‘free’ market. Over time, countless numbers of individuals have contributed to the production process while virtually everyone has functioned as a consumer of language goods.



(Abrams 1983, 40–41)



The notion of ‘language zone’ is a highly significant element in the new market-based system. Speakers belong to a language zone on account of their linguistic preferences, regardless of whether their language is the national language of the nation-state they live in.



(Dor 2004, 111)

According to Zhang (2005, 433), ‘the construct of the linguistic market is especially relevant to examining the relation between linguistic practice and socioeconomic change in the current context of mainland China’. In a linguistic market, people are not only consumers of their own ‘privately produced public goods’ but are also producers of the language goods in the first place. In China, the majority of the people have a variety of Chinese as their native language or mother tongue. This variety is usually a regional dialect in relation to the national lingua franca, i.e. Putonghua. The use of Putonghua, to many Chinese, is for cross-regional or transprovincial communication. In this sense, it is privately produced, but is

Chapter 6

for public consumption. In addition, English is still a ‘foreign’ language to the majority of Chinese. It is often regarded as a very difficult language in that English is used in China either in a de-contextualized manner or in highly contextualized circumstances usually for an educational purpose, or specific purposes such as in English classrooms, international conferences and multinational companies. Unlike in international communities where English is the lingua franca, among ethnic Chinese in China, Putonghua is commonly used as a lingua franca. Dor (2004, 107) has pointed out that ‘as impressive as the global spread of English is, it seems still to spread along class lines, leaving huge populations effectively unexposed to the language’. This implies that although Putonghua is the lingua franca among ethnic Chinese, there are certain class lines, as Dor has indicated, where either English is extensively used and/or code-mixed with Chinese, or a variety of Englishized Putonghua is used among ethnic Chinese speakers. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that there are varying micro-linguistic or language markets co-existing among different communities, including a glocal linguistic market where English is mostly, if not exclusively, used; a supralocal market where Englishized Putonghua is used; and a local market where varieties or dialects of Chinese, including Putonghua, are used (see Figure 6.1). The micro-linguistic market is not a geographical concept, but a conceptualization in relation to dynamic communities of multiple language users in contemporary China. The glocal linguistic market (English as an International Language, World Englishes, English as a lingua franca) for international communities The supra-local linguistic market (Cosmopolitan Mandarin) for transregional Chinese communities The local linguistic market (vernaculars, dialects) for regional Chinese communities Figure 6.1 The Chinese glocal, supra-local and local linguistic markets

123

124

Englishization in Asia

As with any other commodities in the consumer society, a language has an economic value. Baudrillard (1998, 2007) has classified the value of a consumer object into (a) the functional value, i.e. its instrumental purpose (e.g. a pen writes); (b) the exchange value, i.e. its economic value (e.g. one pen is worth three pencils); (c) the symbolic value, i.e. its arbitrarily assigned and agreed value in relation to another subject (e.g. a pen symbolizes a student’s school graduation gift); and (d) the sign value, i.e. its value within a system of objects (e.g. a pen is part of a desk set, or a particular brand, type or style of pen confers social status). Similarly, a language also has a functional value (e.g. we use it to communicate); an exchange value (e.g. certain languages are more commonly used, and people therefore make an investment in learning these languages); a symbolic value (we speak and write properly to show that we are well-educated); and a sign value (we learn and speak English as a lingua franca as a sign and a means of gaining access to a wider community). As far as the linguistic market in China is concerned, in the glocal linguistic market, English is not only spoken or code-switched or code-mixed with Chinese but it is also consumed by individuals as well as institutions and organizations, such as language training centres and publishers. China has emerged as an ELT ‘powerhouse’. According to the latest statistics, more than 200 million students from primary to tertiary level are learning English in China (Gong, He and Li 2007). ELT is a ‘new industry’, and it has never become such a ‘big business’ as it currently is in China (Wang 2004, 148–67). According to Li (2004, 182), ‘language becomes a profitable commodity, invaluable in the global market, creating implications for how and why people learn language and which languages or language varieties they learn’. Although the functional value of English is relatively low due to Chinese being the national lingua franca, its exchange, symbolic and sign values are reasonably high. In contrast, the vast majority of Chinese are producers and consumers of regional varieties of Chinese, i.e. dialects or Putonghua with a local accent. Therefore, in the local linguistic market, the functional value of Chinese and its dialects is high, but the exchange, symbolic and sign values are relatively low. The focus of this paper is on the supra-local linguistic market in China, as it is in this market that Englishization of Putonghua mainly takes place. The economic value of a language usually comes about as a result

Chapter 6

of its market positioning. The producers and consumers of this supralocal market comprise mostly Chinese cosmopolitan professionals, whose relatively high social and economic status enables them to have a certain degree of mobility. Also, they are well-educated, with a varying level of proficiency in English, and they speak an Englishized variety of Putonghua to distinguish themselves from those in the glocal and local linguistic markets in China. More important, however, according to Zhang (2005, 456), these professionals do not wish to ‘uproot themselves’ from their local base, and they do not construct their new social identities by simply ‘disassociating themselves’ from other local people. Instead of speaking English, or Putonghua with a regional accent, or regional dialects, they develop strategies to cope with the challenges of global-local interaction. They combine linguistic resources, particularly local varieties and features with other local symbolic and cultural resources, to ‘claim access to newly available socioeconomic opportunities’ (Zhang 2005, 433). This gives rise to an emerging variety of Chinese Putonghua, a ‘cosmopolitan variety of Mandarin Chinese’ (Zhang 2005, 432) or ‘Cosmopolitan Mandarin’ (Zhang 2006, 215). This emerging variety of Chinese Putonghua is not only a result of Englishization but also a product of economic globalization. Dor (2004, 98) suggests that the relationships among languages, speakers, nation-states and the global market are gradually changing and comments that:

We already witness the global emergence of novel patterns of linguistic usage, standardization, maintenance, and variability – patterns that more than anything else meet the needs of the evolving global consumers market. In this new state of affairs, the forces of economic globalization do not have a vested interest in the global spread of English. They have a short-term interest in penetrating local markets through local languages and a long-term interest in turning these languages into commodified tools of communication.

In the following sections, I explore the linguistic, cultural and identity issues of the Englishization of Putonghua, with an emphasis on the supralocal linguistic market in the framework. In linguistic market terms, there is a distinction between the glocal and supra-local linguistic markets in that, in the former, English nativization is more likely to take place, while in

125

126

Englishization in Asia

the latter Englishization is more likely. However, there are also interactions among the three micro-linguistic markets. The nativization of English in the glocal market has an impact on the Englishization in the supra-local market. In other words, there is a close relationship between the Chinese varieties of English and Englishized Chinese. The Englishized Chinese may in turn have an influence on the regional dialects of Chinese through dialect contact in the local linguistic market.

The linguistic issues of Putonghua Englishization Englishization is a ‘manifestation of contact linguistics’ (Kachru 1994a, 135). When two of the world’s most spoken languages, namely English and Chinese, come into contact, there are concurrent processes taking place. One is English nativization, a result of which is the emerging Chinese variety of English (Xu 2006; Kirkpatrick 2007) and the other is Putonghua Englishization. Tam (2004a, xxiv) has expressed the same view that ‘when a global language is localized, it may undergo the process of synthesis with the culture of a particular locale’, and this synthesis process may also result in the local language or varieties of local languages being globalized. According to Kachru (1994b, 131), ‘English has penetrated not only the lexical “hearts” of the world’s languages but also their grammars, discourses, style-ranges, and varieties of forms of literature and literary experimentation’. Englishization, in the case of Putonghua, is a multiplex process. It not only involves the direct contact between English and Putonghua, but also the earlier Europeanization of Chinese (Xie 1990), and the contact between Englishized Cantonese and Putonghua, which I shall call Gangtai-nization (or Hong Kong–Taiwan-ization). Zhang (2005, 431) cited a September 1997 issue of a Chinese magazine Xiaofei Zhinan (Consumption Guide), which claims that a new language, ‘hybrid Chinese’ (zajiao Zhongwen), is in fashion among Chinese professionals working for foreign companies and Sino-foreign joint ventures. According to Zhang (ibid.), this ‘hybrid Chinese’ is characterized as ‘Mandarin mixed with English, Cantonese, and Taiwanese expressions’. As far as the motivations for the Englishization of Asian languages is concerned, Kachru (1994a, 138–39) has proposed two hypotheses – the

Chapter 6

‘deficit hypothesis’ and the ‘dominance hypothesis’ – arguing that: ‘The deficit hypothesis presupposes that borrowing necessarily entails linguistic “gaps” in the language, the prime motivation for borrowing being to remedy such linguistic “deficit”, especially in the lexical resources of a language. On the other hand, the dominance hypothesis is evaluative in terms of the importance of the two cultures which come into contact’. In addition to the linguistic ‘gaps’, and the ‘importance’ of cultures which come into contact, there is also an economic drive, namely globalization, for Englishization. As Dor (2004, 97) claims: ‘the spread of English as the lingua franca of the information age is viewed as the linguistic counterpart to the process of economic globalization’. As a result of economic globalization, many foreign-funded enterprises or joint-ventures employ Chinese-English bilinguals to manage their businesses in China. According to Li (2004, 182), ‘since the world economy is largely based on services and information, the linguistic skills of workers become increasingly important’. The bilingual employees working in multinational corporations take their cultural and linguistic skills as cutting-edge resources. They use English as a lingua franca with their overseas headquarters and other non-Chinese employees, and Englishized Putonghua with their Chinese colleagues and peers. The globalization process not only spreads English but also strengthens ‘other’ languages at the expense of English. Dor (2004, 98) notes:

The very same global economic pressures that are traditionally assumed to push the global expansion of English may actually be working to strengthen a significant set of other languages – at the expense of English. The potential result of this process is neither imposed Englishization nor negotiated multilingualism but a specific pattern of imposed multilingualism: local linguistic variability imposed and controlled by the economic center. This possible development raises serious questions regarding the political economy of language, most prominently the question of the future ownership of languages as tools for communication and as global and local commodities.

Englishization has now been adopted by multinational corporations as well as individual employees as a strategy for keeping themselves at the cuttingedge of the dynamic global and local business. This new strategy, according

127

128

Englishization in Asia

to Dor (2004, 102), follows the assumption that ‘adapting to the local culture and language is a necessary component in the penetration of, and competition over, local markets’. Globalization and Englishization have led to an increase in the number of new terms and concepts in Putonghua. For example, Chapishi (查皮 士, Chuppies or Chinese yuppies) and bubozu (布波族, bourgeois and bohemian, or new upper class) are the latest borrowings from English; and leishe (鐳射, laser), falang (髮廊, hair salon), katongpian (卡通片, cartoon movies), xiezilou (寫字樓, office building), dishi or jichengche (的士or 計 程車, taxi), diannao (電腦, computer) and maidan (埋單 or 買單, pay the bill) have been gaining popularity in cosmopolitan cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. Some of these expressions have Hong Kong and Taiwan origins. The implication of this is that the glocal linguistic market plays a significant role in Putonghua Englishization in the supra-local linguistic market. In addition, a number of English acronyms are also being used directly by Putonghua speakers, such as WTO, CD, DVD, GDP, MBA, IT, KTV, MP4 and ATM ji (自動提款機, automatic teller machine). Putonghua, as its name (‘common language’) suggests, aims to be a ‘common’ language among speakers of Chinese. This feature of ‘commonness’ facilitates the borrowing of expressions by Putonghua from not only its regional dialects but also from other languages through language and dialect contact. At the lexical level of Englishization, Kachru (1994a, 140) has summarized the processes into (a) loan words (nativized in phonology); (b) loan shifts (internal creation), including (i) extension and (ii) translation; (c) hybridization; and (d) parallel lexical sets. The multiple process of lexical Englishization of Putonghua has added new terms and definitions to the Putonghua vocabulary, and it has also put some of these emergent terms in competition with existing Chinese terms. Abrams (1983, 42) points out that ‘when several terms exist to designate the same concept, a terminological competition occurs which is analogous to the competition between economic goods in the marketplace’:

The ‘consumer’ (term user) ‘purchases’ (i.e. incorporates into vocabulary and writings) that term which maximizes his or her satisfaction. The individual’s preference for one term over the other could be based on the perceived descriptive superiority of one of the

Chapter 6

terms, or on some other criterion such as which term the individual was introduced to first, or which term has the ‘appropriate’ normative bias. Take the equivalent of ‘taxi’ in Putonghua for example. The existing term is chuzuche (出租車, rented vehicle), while dishi (的士, taxi) is an Englishized Cantonese term, or an English loan word in Cantonese, and jichengche (計程車, vehicle by the meter) has its origin in Taiwan. These parallel lexical terms have co-existed in Putonghua for over 20 years. Currently, the Englishized term dishi and Taiwan term jichengche have been gaining popularity over the existing Putonghua term chuzuche as a result of Englishization and/or Gangtai-nization. In the same manner, terms such as leishe (鐳射, laser), falang (髮廊, hair salon), katongpian (卡通片, cartoon movies) and maidan (埋單or 買單, pay the bill) are also in competition with the existing Putonghua equivalent terms jiguang (激光), lifadian (理髮店), donghuapian (動畫片) and jiezhang (結帳). This issue of competing terms can be explained in terms of the co-existing glocal, supra-local and local linguistic markets in China. Serving as currencies in different markets, these terms are less likely to converge in the short term. In Abrams’ view (1983, 43), as far as the ‘problems of term redundancy and definitional inconsistency’ is concerned, ‘it appears that divergence – or, at least, extremely low convergence – is commonplace’.

The cultural issues of Putonghua Englishization Tam (2004b, 5) proposes that ‘contemporary culture has to be understood as a phenomenon of transnational formation resulting from the global stratification of local forces’ and that ‘the global-local interaction offers a new paradigm for understanding contemporary cultural formation, which is no longer conceived as a historical process of linear development from tradition to modernity’. This is true as far as the emerging Chinese yuppies’ or Chuppies’ community is concerned. Zhang (2005, 436) argues that the Chuppies’ ‘unique occupational milieu, extensive contacts with business people from other parts of the world, and frequent international travel’ have given them greater exposure to foreign lifestyles and cultures than many other Chinese have. Although the Chuppies are Chinese by nature, they prefer to ‘wear foreign brand clothes, speak foreign languages, eat foreign food, and deal with foreigners’.

129

130

Englishization in Asia

Positioned in the supra-local market, the Chuppies are always eager to upgrade themselves into the glocal and global markets, which relate to the notion of ‘cultural capital’. Peirce (1995, 17) borrowed the term ‘cultural capital’ from Bourdieu and Passeron to refer to ‘the knowledge and modes of thought that characterize different classes and groups in relation to specific sets of social forms’. According to Peirce (ibid.), ‘some forms of cultural capital have a higher exchange value than others in a given social context’. In the current Chinese social context, where foreignness is associated with sophistication and trendiness, the Chuppies invest in their own ‘foreign’ cultural packaging in order to have a good return that will give them access to a wide range of symbolic and material resources. These resources resemble Tam’s (2004b, 2) notion of ‘new social and cultural spaces, within which new modes of communication have provided the motivating force for globalizing and thus homogenizing the local’. In addition, the Chuppies also associate themselves with the Gangtai (Hong Kong and Taiwan) glocal market. This started with the implementation of the economic reforms and open-door policies in China. Due to the Cultural Revolution, there was a lack of cultural products to satisfy the mainland Chinese. In the 1980s and 1990s, Gangtai popular music, films and TV shows, and subsequently Western music and Hollywood blockbusters, had a very strong impact on the Chinese cultural market. As far as Gangtai culture and Western culture (represented by American and British cultures) are concerned, Zhang (2005, 437) contends that the common roots of Chinese culture and shared languages give Gangtai popular culture tremendous advantages over its Western counterparts: ‘Communicated in Mandarin or Cantonese, Gangtai popular culture presents to the eyes of the mainlanders a world with a prosperous modern cosmopolitan lifestyle and a new urban identity’. This identity is readily identified by and with the Chuppies’ community, as a result of which the Putonghua Englishization in this community has a Gangtai-nization element. Another cultural issue of Putonghua Englishization is related to the notion of ‘context’, as language change and variation are not only dependent on the motivations of the language users, but also on their immediate physical environments. Dor (2004, 105) has pointed out that ‘a fundamental fact’ about language learning and use is that language ‘is a locally bound

Chapter 6

phenomenon’. Also, Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (2004, 19) have classified ‘context’ into: •

‘context of situation’ – who is speaking to whom, when, where and for what purpose; the physical setting, the social scene in which the discourse occurs; the roles and status of the participants involved;

•

‘context of culture’ – the speech community; what is possible for, or normally done by, members of the community; the speech events participated in, the speech acts performed, the topics talked about;

•

‘context as co-text’ – the prior and upcoming text; what has just been said, what was said earlier, what comes next; and

•

‘cognitive context’ – knowledge as a set of recognizable conventions, rules, norms and shared assumptions; the process of inferencing tied to current activity and general expectations.

As far as the Chuppies’ community is concerned, the Englishized and Gangtai-nized Putonghua that they speak conforms to their unique context of situation, i.e. their supra-local professional setting. In addition, it is also a reflection of the social and economic status of the Chuppies as an emerging urban community, and their recognizable conventions, rules, norms and shared assumptions characteristic of their cultural and cognitive contexts. Putonghua Englishization and Gangtai-nization have become an inevitable social and cultural process in cosmopolitan cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, where concurrent drives towards globalization and localization of multiple cultures are evident.

The identity issues of Putonghua Englishization Gottlieb and Chen (2001, 1) claim that ‘few other issues link or divide people and communities to the same extent as language’. Language and identity are closely related. As Peirce (1995, 13) observes:

It is through language that a person negotiates a sense of self within and across different sites at different points in time, and it is through language that a person gains access to – or is denied access to – powerful social networks that give learners the opportunity to

131

132

Englishization in Asia

speak. Thus language is not conceived of as a neutral medium of communication but is understood with reference to its social meaning. As analysed earlier in this paper, a language has multiple values – the functional value, the exchange value, the symbolic value and the sign value. These values all reflect the social meaning of a language and the identities of its users. Bourdieu (1977, 652) claims that ‘a language is worth what those who speak it are worth’ and that ‘speech always owes a major part of its value to the value of the person who utters it’. Therefore, the value of a language may help to strengthen the social identity of the language user because language is also a ‘marker’ or a ‘carrier’ of social identity (Tong et al. 1999, 281). Bourdieu (1977, 648) regards language as not only an instrument of communication, but also ‘an instrument of power’, because he holds that ‘a person speaks not only to be understood but also to be believed, obeyed, respected, distinguished’. This is true for the Chuppies’ community. For them, according to Zhang (2005, 454) ‘the new Mandarin variety is no longer an object of need – a common medium needed for communication – but a resource for distinction’. The Chuppies draw on features of their native Putonghua and linguistic elements from English and Gangtai varieties of Chinese to construct not only a non-local variety of Putonghua, (i.e. Englishized and/ or Gangtai-nized Putonghua) but also, in the meantime, a new yuppies’ identity. The Chuppies are not alone in Chinese society, and indeed their construction of the new style of Putonghua and identity is in line with the social changes resulting from Englishization and globalization. Li (1997, 489) has conducted comprehensive research on the ‘borrowed identity’ in relation to the Chinese involvement with a Western name. In China, there has been a semantic shift as well as a change in the use of such address terms as tongzhi (同志, comrade), shifu (師傅, master), fuwuyuan (服務員, waiters/waitresses), xiaojie (小姐, Miss), xiansheng (先生, Mr), laoban (老 闆, boss) and gemenr (哥們兒, brother). Lee-Wong (1994, 315) conducted a survey in 1994 on the distribution of address terms in four major cities in China – Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing and Guangzhou – the findings of which are shown in Table 6.1.

Chapter 6

Table 6.1

Distribution of address terms in different cities

Tongzhi

Shifu

Fuwuyuan

Xiaojie

Xiansheng

Others

Beijing(22)

36.4%

22.7%

9.1%

13.6%

9.1%

9.1%

Shanghai(20)

35.0%

30.0%

5.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

Nanjing(18)

27.8%

27.8%

5.5%

11.1%

11.1%

16.7%

Guangzhou(19)

15.8%

5.3%

5.3%

46.8%

20.4%

6.4%

Note: Numbers in parentheses represent the total number of respondents in each city.

It is interesting to note that the frequency of the use of tongzhi (comrade) and shifu (master) is much higher in Beijing, Shanghai and Nanjing than in Guangzhou, which is closer to Hong Kong, while the frequency of the use of xiaojie (Miss) and xiansheng (Mr) in Guangzhou is much higher than in the other three cities. This may imply the Gangtai-nization of Putonghua. Since 1994, Putonghua has been more Englishized and Gangtai-nized in the major cities in China. The author conducted a survey in 2006, investigating the use of address terms in the public speeches and addresses of four senior Chinese leaders, namely Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, in different historical periods. In the speeches/addresses surveyed, address terms such as tongzhimen (comrades), pengyoumen (friends), nüshimen (ladies), xianshengmen (gentlemen) and tongshimen (colleagues) were most commonly used. The findings are shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2

MZd(35)

Distribution of address terms in public speeches and addresses by senior Chinese leaders

Tongzhimen

Pengyoumen

82.9%

11.4%

Nüshimen

Xianshengmen

Tongshimen

5.7%

DXp(12)

91.7%

8.3%

JZm(33)

21.2%

24.2%

27.3%

27.3%

HJt(30)

40.0%

30.0%

10.0%

10.0%

10.0%

133

134

Englishization in Asia

Notes: 1

MZd stands for Mao Zedong; DXp for Deng Xiaoping; JZm for Jiang Zemin; and HJt for Hu Jintao.

2

The data collected are from the period of 1921–75 for MZd, 1975–82 for DXp, 2001–02 for JZm, and 2003–06 for HJt.

3

Numbers in parentheses represent the total number of address terms used in the selected public speeches and addresses.

Although the sample of public speeches and addresses by the senior Chinese leaders in the survey is limited, the findings show a number of tendencies. One tendency is that the use of tongzhimen (comrades) is gradually replaced by nüshimen (ladies) and xianshengmen (gentlemen), with tongshimen (colleagues) being a ‘newcomer’ address term. In addition, the survey indicated that tongzhimen (comrades) and pengyoumen (friends) are more likely to be used by Chinese senior leaders when they address the domestic public in China, while nüshimen (ladies) and xianshengmen (gentlemen) are more likely to be employed when an international audience is addressed. A special case in the use of address terms is the New Year public addresses made by the Chinese senior leaders, with an intended audience of both domestic and overseas Chinese. In such circumstances, four address terms nüshimen, xianshengmen, tongzhimen and pengyoumen (ladies, gentlemen, comrades and friends) are more likely to be used concurrently. The change of address terms in Putonghua is not only a change at the lexical level but also reflects a change at the levels of discourse, culture and social identity. Putonghua Englishization, to some extent, is a sign of modernity in China. Tam (2004a, xvii) argues as follows:

In Asia, English symbolizes modernity, technology and Western culture. It is this identity of modernity and technology that English is associated with in its Western, or foreign, cultural underpinnings. The use of English in conjunction with the native languages marks an identity of ‘internationalism’.

To the Chuppies, this identity of modernity and technology does not come naturally. It involves continuing education and personal development in terms of investing in their language skills and professional packaging. This

Chapter 6

relates to Peirce’s notion of investment in language learning and in social identity:



The notion presupposes that when language learners speak, they are not only exchanging information with target language speakers but they are constantly organizing and reorganizing a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world. Thus an investment in the target language is also an investment in a learner’s own social identity, an identity which is constantly changing across time and space.



(Peirce 1995, 17–18)

As a result of the Chuppies’ investment in the learning of English, and in their use of Englishized or Gangtai-nized Putonghua, they have a ‘multiplex’ identity. A Chuppie is simultaneously a ‘cosmopolitan’, a ‘business professional’, a ‘young person’ and, most of all, a ‘Chinese’ (Zhang 2005, 457). This multiplex identity bears a group-specific symbolic value that can only be understood in the context of the Chinese supra-local linguistic market in which it is embedded.

Conclusion The equivalent of economic globalization in the current linguistic domain is Englishization. The Englishization of ‘other’ languages and the nativization of English take place in almost all societies. Adopting a linguistic market framework, this paper has classified the Chinese macrolinguistic market into a number of micro-markets, including a glocal, a supra-local and a local linguistic market, in order to account for the complex linguistic, cultural and identity issues in relation to Putonghua Englishization. As Tam (2002, 111) pointed out: ‘economic globalization and the international flow of people and ideas have rendered traditional categories, such as nation-state, and colonial centres, inadequate as boundaries to define identity and culture’; and so it may be argued that the linguistic market framework can be regarded as an alternative tool to help us understand the linguistic, cultural and identity issues that are arising in the process of Putonghua Englishization.

135

136

Englishization in Asia

These issues include: the motivations for Putonghua Englishization; the emerging Chuppies’ community and its cosmopolitan variety of Putonghua; the competition between emergent terms and existing terms in Putonghua; the relationship between global forces and local needs; the Chuppies’ hybrid culture; the linguistic and cultural Gangtai-nization of Putonghua and its speakers; the context for Putonghua Englishization; the change of social norms, including the address terms; and the changing identities of the Chinese. It can be concluded that, as far as the motivations for Putonghua Englishization are concerned, apart from the linguistic gaps and the importance of cultures which come into contact between Chinese and English in China, there is also an economic drive for Putonghua Englishization. The emerging Chuppies’ community and its cosmopolitan variety of Putonghua are a natural reflection of the interactions between global forces and local needs, i.e. glocalism. In addition, Putonghua Englishization involves not only the contact between Chinese and English, but also a process termed ‘Gangtai-nization’ because of the historical, economic and cultural contexts in China. As a result, the social norms, such as the address terms, change and the identities of the Chinese also change.

References Abrams, B A (1983) ‘An economic analysis of the language market’, The Journal of Economic Education, 14(3): 40–47. Ang, I (2001) On Not Speaking Chinese: Living Between Asia and the West, London and NY: Routledge Baudrillard, J (1998) The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications. Baudrillard, J (2007) Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Bhatt, R M (2001) ‘World Englishes’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 30:527– 50. Bourdieu, P (1977) ‘The economics of linguistic exchanges’, Social Science Information, 16:645–68.

Chapter 6

Chen, P (1999) Modern Chinese: History and Sociolinguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dor, D (2004) ‘From Englishization to imposed multilingualism: globalization, the Internet, and the political economy of the linguistic code’, Public Culture, 16(1): 97–118. Georgakopoulou, A and Goutsos, D (2004) Discourse Analysis: An Introduction, 2nd edn, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Gong, Y, He, A and Li, Y (2007) China as an ELT Powerhouse, 2nd HAAL Research Forum, 11 June, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Gottlieb, N and Chen, P (2001) ‘Language planning and language policy in East Asia: An overview’ in Gottlieb, N and Chen, P (eds) Language Planning and Language Policy: East Asian Perspectives, Richmond: Curzon Press, 1–20. Kachru, B B (1994a) ‘Englishization and contact linguistics’, World Englishes, 13(2): 135–54. Kachru, B B (1994b) ‘Introduction’, World Englishes, 13(2): 131–33. Kachru, B B (1996) ‘World Englishes: agony and ecstasy’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 30(2): 135–55. Kirkpatrick, A (2006) ‘Which model of English: native-speaker, nativized or lingua franca?’ in Rubdy, R and Saraceni, M (eds) English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles, London, New York: Continuum. Kirkpatrick, A (2007) World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirkpatrick, A and Xu, Z (2001) ‘The new language law of the People’s Republic of China’, Australian Language Matters, 9(2): 14–15. Kratochvil, P (1982) ‘Modern Chinese and linguistic change’, The China Quarterly, 92:687–95. Lee-Wong, S M (1994) ‘Address forms in modern China: Changing ideologies and shifting semantics’, Linguistics, 32, 299–324.

137

138

Englishization in Asia

Li, C N and Thompson, S A (1989) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Li, D C S (1997) ‘Borrowed identity: Signaling involvement with a Western name’, Journal of Pragmatics, 28:489–513. Li, M (2004) ‘Globalism and localism: Issues of standard and variation in English as a foreign language’ in Tam, K K and Weiss, T (eds) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Peirce, B N (1995) ‘Social identity, investment, and language learning’, TESOL Quarterly, 29(1): 9–31. Seidlhofer, B (2004) ‘Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24:209–39. Sun, H and Jiang, K (2000) ‘A study of recent borrowings in Mandarin’, American Speech, 75(1): 98–106. Tam, K K (2002) ‘Post-coloniality, localism and the English language in Hong Kong’ in Tam, K K, Dissanayake, W and Yip, T S H (eds) Sights of Contestation: Localism, Globalism and Cultural Production in Asia and the Pacific, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 111–30. Tam, K K (2004a) ‘Introduction: English(es) in global and local perspectives’ in Tam, K K and Weiss, T (eds) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, xi-xxvii. Tam, K K (2004b) ‘World English(es) in the age of globalization’ in Tam, K K and Weiss, T (eds) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1–22. Tam, K K, Yip, T S H and Dissanayake, W (2002) ‘Introduction: localism, globalism and cultural production’ in Tam, K K, Dissanayake, W and Yip, T S H (eds) Sights of Contestation: Localism, Globalism and Cultural Production in Asia and the Pacific, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, ix-xxi.

Chapter 6

Tong, Y Y, Hong, Y Y, Lee, S L and Chiu, C Y (1999) ‘Language use as a carrier of social identity’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(2): 281–96. Wang, L (2004) ‘When English becomes big business’ in Tam, K K and Weiss, T (eds) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 149–67. Xie, Y (1990) Introduction to the Grammar of Modern Chinese Europeanization (Xiandai Hanyu Ouhua Yufa Gailun), Hong Kong: Sunshine Book Corporation (Guangming Tushu Gongsi). Xu, Z (2006) ‘Rectifying “Chinese English”’ in Hashim, A and Hassan, N (eds) Varieties of English in Southeast Asia and Beyond, Malaysia: University of Malaya Press, 283–91. Zhang, Q (2005) ‘A Chinese yuppie in Beijing: Phonological variation and the construction of a new professional identity’, Language in Society, 34:431–66. Zhang, Q (2006) ‘Cosmopolitan Mandarin’, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(2): 215–35.

139

7

Which way of life? Chinese college students’ perceptions and values in China’s Englishization Liu Yan and Guo Yingtao

It is generally acknowledged that English, as ‘the language of colonization, and at the same time the major language of Westernization, or modernization’ (Tam 2004, xi), plays the important role of a cultural mediator in the trend of globalization. The nationwide learning and teaching of English on a massive scale in mainland China has become a subject of considerable interest to scholars. Some argue strongly that this is a sign of cultural imperialism, voluntarily taken by the invaded party even though this invasion does not involve the occupation of land. Viewing cultural imperialism as ‘the global process of structural and ideological incorporation’, Robert Phillipson (1992) analyses the function of English in this process, saying: ‘English is the language in which this incorporation is taking place (form), and the structures and ideologies connected with English operate globally (content)’ (p. 58). In Gracia and Otheguy’s (1989) analysis, this division of incorporation into the two dimensions of form and content is classified as ‘externals’ and ‘internals’, meaning respectively the external linguistic markers and the inner ideologies and values that a language carries. We see clearly from these arguments that the two sides, form and content, externals and internals, always exist dependent on and in relation to each other. Therefore, the purpose of teaching and learning English should and does cover both sides. For many Chinese college students, the systematic study of English at school provides them with an opportunity to gain access to the Western ideology that is often associated with the language. How and to what degree does the learning of English affect young people’s values and attitudes to life? In what way does it help to (re)shape their modern identity? How do they perceive themselves and the world in which they live? We have conducted a careful study of these issues through a

Chapter 7

questionnaire1 distributed to over 400 students at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS), including English and non-English majors, in the fall semester of 2006. It is hoped to find out how Chinese college students react to cultural globalization and how Englishization affects their lives.

Research design, instrumentation and data collection Research design We conducted an empirical study in an attempt to obtain a more in-depth knowledge of the relation between English study and the Westernization of students’ cultural values. The questionnaire designed and distributed to students for this purpose was divided into two parts which investigated, respectively, background information on the students’ study of English and their perceptions of certain cultural values. Part 1 included eight questions, four of which were intended to gather information on the number of years students had studied English in institutions, the number of class hours in English courses this semester, and the time spent each day on studying English. The other four questions investigated whether they had any experience of living in an English-speaking country or staying with foreign friends whose native language is English. The 20 questions in Part 2 covered five aspects of cultural values: students’ perceptions of money, love and marriage, family relations, interpersonal communication and personal fulfilment. There were four questions on each aspect, with most of them in multiple-choice form and a few involving brief answers. Among the three to five choices provided in the multiplechoice questions, statements about different cultural values were mingled together for students to choose the one they preferred. Where none of the choices matched their personal preferences, they were asked to write down one they considered appropriate for their situations. 1

We would like to express our gratitude to Peng Baoliang, Zhao Yinong, Yu Weihua, Zhang Yi and Li Ping for their assistance in distributing and collecting the questionnaires, and to Yan Ting, Wu Tong and Sun Danping for their effort in reading and scoring the answers with us.

141

142

Englishization in Asia

At the end of the questionnaire, students were also asked to indicate their understanding of the term ‘Englishization’ and what changes the study of English had brought to their lives.

Subjects The subjects for the study were two groups of third-year students in GDUFS: English majors and non-English majors. The English majors came from the Faculty of English Language and Culture while the non-English majors were students from the School of Management who were majoring in logistics, finance, accounting and computer science. For each group, 240 questionnaires were distributed in class by the teachers. No time restriction was imposed, but it took the subjects 10 to 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Of the 454 questionnaires collected from the two groups, 26 were discarded in the final analysis mainly because they were incomplete. Of the 428 questionnaires finally analysed, 202 were from the English majors and 226 from the non-English majors. One of our hypotheses was that the Westernization of college students’ values and perceptions would be closely related to their study of English, either consciously or unconsciously – that is, the more time they spent in contact with English, the more Westernized their cultural values would become. Therefore, the English majors, with more English courses, especially those concerned with Western literature and culture, and more class hours each week, were considered likely to have become more Westernized in their thinking and behaviour.

Scoring system The questions in the two parts of the test were scored on different scales. In Part 1, about English study, one to seven points were given for each question according to the degree of contact with English: the more opportunities the respondents had to study English, the higher the marks allocated. However, the purpose of this part was just to help us find out more about the subjects’ backgrounds and no detailed analysis was carried out.

Chapter 7

The total score for Part 2 was 100, with one to five points assigned to each of the 20 questions. Subjects who chose options which accorded with Western values received five points, while those selecting some traditional Chinese values gained one point only. The choices which lay between, or were answered ‘don’t know’, got three points; and in cases where subjects felt it necessary to provide answers outside those listed, they were scored according to the values they favoured. Take Question 11 as an example: 11 Which family pattern do you think is ideal? A A couple with a kid B A couple with no kids C Living with the parents D Others (please specify___________) In this question, B, ‘a couple with no kids’, was given five points since this choice suggests a more Westernized or a less Chinese perception; C received one point because we believe that ‘living with the parents’ is a traditional Chinese family pattern; and A, ‘a couple with a kid’, got the middle score of three. As an illustration of cases where subjects provided their own answers, the response ‘I want my parents to live nearby so that I can visit them often, but I don’t want to live with them’ was given three points as it shows a tendency for compromise between Chinese and Western values. For questions 17–19, where the subjects were asked to give the names of important historical figures and people they admire in the contemporary world, five points were given for foreign figures, three for people from Hong Kong and Taiwan, and one for mainland Chinese. Where the responses included more than one choice for a question, a compromise mark was assigned according to our scoring standards.

Findings All the questionnaires were graded with the scores keyed into the computer and sorted in Excel, and the calculations made were based on these figures. For our convenience, the background information on English study in

143

144

Englishization in Asia

Part 1 of the questionnaire was represented by X, and then further divided into X1 and X2, representing respectively academic study and out-of-class experience. The five groups of cultural values in Part 2 were represented by Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4 and Y5 respectively, with the overall score as Y. These figures were put in graphs, with comparisons made between English majors and non-English majors so that we could see the differences clearly. Figure 7.1 shows that English majors scored an average of 16.59 in comparison with 10.00 for non-English majors in X1, and in X2 the scores were 8.37 and 6.54 respectively. ��

�����

�� ����� �� �

������� �����

����������� �����

��� ������� � ����� �����

�� �� �� �

����

������� �����

���� ����������� �����

��� ������������ ������� Figures 7.1 and 7.2 Background information on studying English

Chapter 7

As the value of X1 indicates, English majors take more English classes every week than non-English majors, and they have more exposure to Western cultures and literature since more than half of the courses are knowledgeoriented, not skill-oriented. The value of X2 suggests that English majors also spend more time actively engaged in English communication after class, and that their motivation for learning English is not just for obtaining a degree but also for getting to know more about Western cultures. While there were significant differences between the two groups in their study of English, the statistical data showed no such significant differences in the Westernization of their cultural values. As can be seen in Figure 7.3, the average score on the subjects’ overall cultural values, for both English and non-English majors, was around 60 points, which falls in the middle of a scale with Chineseness and Westernization at the two extremes. ��� ��

�����

�����

�� �� ��

������� �����

����������� �����

�� �������� ������ Figure 7.3 Overall cultural values

Figures 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 overleaf show the subjects’ scores on the five aspects of cultural values examined. Although differing to a certain degree for the various measures, the scores of English and non-English majors show little variation.

145

146

Englishization in Asia

�� ��

�� �����

�����

�� �

��

�����

�� ������� �����

����������� �����

�

��� �����

��

��

�� �����

������� �����

����������� �����

��� ���� � ��������

��

�����

�����

����� ��

�� �

�����

������� �����

����������� �����

��� ������ ���������

�

������� �����

����������� �����

��� ������������� �������������

�� ��

�����

�����

�� �

������� �����

����������� �����

��� �������� ����������

Figures 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 Five aspects of cultural values

One important observation about these figures is that the subjects’ scores on Y4 (interpersonal communication) are much higher than those on the other variables, which indicates that they are more Westernized in

Chapter 7

establishing self-identity and dealing with other people. The scores on Y3, however, tell us that their attitudes to family relations are comparatively more Chinese. Also, only in category Y3 did non-English majors score lower than English majors; in the other four categories, they scored somewhat higher than the English-major group.

English study vs cultural values The above findings and some of the answers the subjects wrote in response to our questions suggest the following way of conceiving the relationship between English study and cultural values. •

Young students’ cultural values fall roughly in the middle of a scale between Chineseness and Westernization. One may perceive this generation of young people as pretty much Westernized since they dress themselves in blue jeans, wear Adidas and Nike, use cosmetics with such brand names as Maybelline, Yves Rocher and Elizabeth Arden, sing English songs and sprinkle their conversation with friends with English words. However, our findings show this to be an incorrect perception. The younger generation’s behaviour may have been modified in a Western fashion, but their basic values have not caught up with the speed of change in their appearance and outlook. This suggests that, on the one hand, young people in China favour the Western way of life but, on the other, they are prudent enough to steer a middle road when dealing with the cultural issues examined in the questionnaire. This may imply a lasting influence of the ‘golden mean’, a behavioural pattern cherished by their Chinese ancestors. In this regard, it is interesting and important to note the cases where subjects specified their own answers instead of simply circling a choice that was given. In these responses, they combined answers which we graded as five points (most Westernized) with those to which we assigned one point (most Chinese). For example, as noted earlier, some subjects chose to live on their own (five points, most Westernized) but near their parents (one point, most Chinese). Others wanted their teachers to act as both teachers (one point, most Chinese) and as friends (five points, most Westernized); and still others would take a job with high social prestige (one point, most Chinese) as well as one that matches their interests (five

147

148

Englishization in Asia

points, most Westernized). The combination of values in these choices suggests the subjects are making an effort to maintain a balance between two value systems. This may also signify that, in the process of globalization, young people have a tendency to assimilate Western values into their Chinese social and cultural background: they do not abandon Chinese values to blindly follow Western ways. •

The degree of Westernization is not in direct proportion to the quality and quantity of English study. The questionnaire results contradict our hypothesis that the more time one spends on learning English, the more Westernized one will become. There were no significant differences in cultural values between the two groups (60.22 and 61.31 for English majors and non-English majors respectively) whose English background varied a great deal (24.96 and 16.54 respectively). This shows that other factors may be exerting an influence on the formation of cultural values apart from English study at school, although school education remains an important source of ideological inspiration for youngsters in China. These factors may include family education, the general social and cultural environment in which one grows up and lives, the university one attends, one’s personality, and especially the extent to which one can absorb new ideas. This finding may help to alleviate any concern that those who are more frequently exposed to the Western way of life will tend to become more Westernized. The effects of such exposure, whether positive or negative, will not be as significant as one might imagine. The Chinese cultural values which the younger generation has experienced since birth still remain a shaping influence on their decisions about what to do and how to do it. This does not mean, however, that the study of English at school is of no significance for the Westernization of students’ values. Analysis of our data shows that, though the difference is slight, the degree of Westernization of English majors is lower than for non-English majors. This apparent disparity may be explained as follows. The more the students are exposed to Western cultures, the better they recognize the complex social and cultural background that lies behind Western values; and when they realize the disadvantages as well as advantages of these values, they are less likely to adopt them in the very different

Chapter 7

environment of China – which is a sign of the maturity of their judgements and behaviour.2 •

2

The sharply contradictory values shown illustrate the multiplicity of cultural values in the process of globalization. There were many seemingly contradictory answers on the issues raised in the questionnaire. For example, some subjects chose a typical Chinese way of acting as regards love and marriage, but many opted for a very Western way of behaving in interpersonal communication. As we saw in Figures 7.4 to 7.8, the average scores for interpersonal communication for both groups were higher than in all other categories, and the scores for family relations were the lowest. This indicates that the subjects will tend to behave in a traditional way as far as family relations are concerned, but will probably act in a more Western manner in dealing with interpersonal relations – an observation which suggests that the younger generation knows very well how to react in different contexts. On social occasions (e.g. in school), they are able to safeguard their own rights and interests by living in harmony with others while keeping their own private spaces. They hope to respect others and gain respect from them in return; and they advocate cooperation but at the same time need privacy. Their attitudes to their parents, however, are more traditional. Though they are aware that their parents cannot fully understand their situation and are unable to offer them appropriate advice, they do not want to reject their parents’ suggestions directly, and so they do things in their own way but pay due respect to what their parents suggest. As far as their own future family is concerned, they would rather take care of their children by themselves instead of sending them to boarding schools. Another apparent contradiction is seen in the subjects’ complex choices in naming the people they consider most successful, historically and in the present day. On the one hand, nearly 90% of them chose Chinese political leaders (e.g. Chairman Mao and Zhou Enlai) and Chinese mythical figures (e.g. Yao and Fuxi) or ancient saints (e.g. Confucius) as the most important historical figures, from which one can infer the influence of politics and mainstream ideology. On

This is a reasonable deduction considering the fact that English majors paid more attention to the negative effects of Englishization, as can be seen in the next section: ‘Englishization: a positive or negative concept?’

149

150

Englishization in Asia

the other hand, wealth affected their understanding of social success to a considerable extent. For instance, Bill Gates was chosen by many subjects as the person they admired most in contemporary society; and other entrepreneurs on their list, which even included some Chinese names, also followed a model of financial success. In addition, about 50% of the subjects chose film stars or singers as their life idols. These contradictions imply a mixture of cultural values during the process of globalization and this multiplicity of choice corresponds to the multiple trends inevitably involved in postmodern society. On analysing postmodernity in mainland China, Wang Ning argues that an outstanding feature is the co-existence of primitive, pre-modern and modern, as well as postmodern, elements (Wang 1998, 17). The coexistence of such varied elements is reflected in the mixture of cultural values evident in the responses to the questionnaires in this study.

Englishization: A positive or negative concept? At the end of the questionnaire, we asked the subjects to write down their understanding of Englishization. Once again, their answers illustrated a diversity of attitudes. However, it is important to notice that a large percentage of English majors paid more attention to the negative effects of Englishization. Some of the neutral answers were as follows: a

Englishization means the globalization of the Western economy and culture.

b It means the globalization of Western living styles. c

Englishization brings the Western mode of thinking and behaviour.

d The ideology and cultural values of English-speaking countries are influencing more and more people in other parts of the world. e

English will be widely used in many fields. It will replace other languages and at the same time lose its original style.

f

Englishization means Hollywood films, American cars, McDonald’s, KFC and Japanese cameras.

Chapter 7

Some of the positive answers were: a

Englishization will result in the merging of Chinese and Western cultures.

b It means tolerance for and acceptance of Western cultures. c

It brings new cultures to replace the already corrupted culture.

d We can learn from the world by using English as the international language. e People from different nations, and with different religions and cultural values, can communicate with each other much better. f Englishization brings to us advanced Western culture. In contrast, some representative negative answers were:

a Englishization means the death of Chinese culture. b Englishization is cultural invasion. c

It represents a terrifying permeation of another culture.

d It means the expansion of a savage culture. e

It is in nature the cultural colonization of the Third World by Western countries.

f

It means the loss of national identity.

g

It is the result of colonization and neo-colonialism.

The subjects’ responses to the concept represent the complex attitudes of Chinese young people in the face of globalization. The introduction of Western ideology and Western cultures into China is beneficial only when it does not harm the native Chinese culture. The conflicts between globalization and localization can only be resolved when the imported cultures fully adapt themselves to native cultures.

151

152

Englishization in Asia

Glocalization: A possible way of life under globalization? In the process of globalization, native cultures will surely face new problems in coping with other cultures and surviving against such odds. Globalization sweeps the whole world with unprecedented strength and speed, be it political, economic or cultural. Hardt and Negri (2000, 19–20) argue that, against the trend of globalization, ‘the domesticity of values, the shelters behind which they presented their moral substance, the limits that protect against the invading exteriority – all that disappears’. However, we do not believe that differences will disappear as these two critics argue. While globalization intensifies the relationship between the past and the present, the global and the local, there is not enough evidence to predict that the local culture will be totally erased by the global, and the past by the present3. More and more scholars have realized that globalization may take on different forms in different countries. bell hooks, for example, contends that language is ‘a place of struggle’ (hooks 1995, 301). Also, in explaining the clash of civilizations in the new world order, Huntington says: ‘Language is realigned and reconstructed to accord with the identities and contours of civilizations’ (Huntington 1997, 64). English, in this instance, has become Englishes since it has developed many variations in many different countries. David Crystal (1997), Braj Kachru (1990), Tom McArthur (1998) and K K Tam (2004) have all put forward modes of World Englishes today. All these efforts show that the spread and acceptance of ‘the global’ will have to depend, to a large degree, on the situation of ‘the local’. In addition, Arif Dirlik, in analysing the tension between the local and the global, believes that the influence is mutually effective. He contends that the local in contemporary society is already a globalized local; whereas the global, as soon as it lands in a particular place, will inevitably become a localized global (Dirlik 2004, 143–44). .

3

Ban Wang (2004), for example, discusses the local differences within the global context by focusing on the ‘productive tensions between memory and history’. He considers that Chinese modernity can be traced back to the May 4th Movement at the beginning of the 20th century and that cultural memory and historical consciousness will remain strong in contemporary Chinese society.

Chapter 7

The questionnaire responses of the GDUFS students we studied give clear support for this intermingling of different cultures in the context of globalization, in the following ways. •

In the first place, the fact that the mean figure for cultural values in both groups stayed roughly in the middle of a Chineseness– Westernization scale shows a certain degree of foreign influence but not enough to totally reshape a person’s values and perceptions of the world.

•

Secondly, many subjects’ answers showed a strong tendency to behave in a Chinese way, which illustrates clearly their consciousness of their Chinese identities. People may not be so aware of their own national identities until they are faced with other cultures – the introduction of foreign cultures urges them to reflect on their own cultures and traditions.

•

Thirdly, the apparent effort of many subjects to combine Western ways of doing things with Chinese traditions signifies clearly their attempt to adapt foreign influence to their own local context.

These variations of ‘the global’ in ‘the local’, or ‘glocalization’, seem to be the model that is most likely to happen in reality. The term ‘glocalization’ first appeared in the late 1980s in articles by Japanese economists in the Harvard Business Review, and was later popularized by sociologist Roland Robertson, who, at a 1997 conference on ‘Globalization and Indigenous Culture’, argued that glocalization ‘means the simultaneity – the copresence – of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies’ (cited in Raimi, 2006). These tendencies were obvious in the subjects’ answers to our questions. Therefore, it is natural for us to believe that, in the context of globalization, foreign cultures will have to be assimilated into the native cultures in order to find root. There is always a limit to the degree of impact of Westernization since the native cultures will remain strong in resisting other cultures coming from outside. Our study shows that young people in China become very conscious of their Chinese identities as a result of being exposed to foreign influences. It is not possible for one to remain unchanged in the global trend of cultural migration, but the extent of

153

154

Englishization in Asia

Westernization will depend on how well foreign cultures adapt themselves to the native environment – just like KFC, on entering the Chinese market, will have to develop such new food varieties as Peking chicken rolls and breakfast porridge to attract more local customers. Thus, glocalization is a possible way of life for the younger generation.

References Crystal, D (1997) English as a Global Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dirlik, A (2004) Kuaguo Zibenzhuyi Shidai de Houzhimin Piping (Postcolonial Criticism in an Era of International Capitalism), translation by Wang, N et al., Beijing: Peking University Press. Gracia, O and Otheguy, R (1989) English Across Cultures, Cultures Across English. A Reader in Cross-Cultural Communication, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Hardt, M and Negri, A (2000) Empire, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hooks, b (1995) ‘This is the oppressor’s language/yet I need it to talk to you: language, a place of struggle’ in Dingwaney, A and Maier, C (eds) Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross-cultural Texts, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 295–301. Huntington, S P (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London and New York: Touchstone Books. Kachru, B B (1990) ‘World Englishes and applied linguistics’, World Englishes, 9(1): 3–20. McArthur, T (1998) The English Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phillipson, R (1992) Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raimi, S (2006) ‘Glocalization’, http://searchcio.techtarget.com/ sDefinition/0,,sid19_gci826478,00.html.

Chapter 7

Tam, K K (2004) ‘Introduction: English(es) in global and local perspectives’ and ‘World English(es) in the age of globalization’ in Tam, K K and Weiss, T (eds) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, xi-xxvii and 1–22. Wang, B (2004) Illuminations from the Past: Trauma, Memory, and History in Modern China, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Wang, N (1998) Houxiandaizhuyi zhi hou (After Postmodernism), Beijing: Chinese Literature Press.

155

156

Englishization in Asia

Appendix: Questionnaire on English Study and Cultural Values for College Students in GDUFS September 2006 This questionnaire is designed and used only for academic purposes. The confidentiality of the information you provide will be protected. Your cooperation is very important for our study. Sincere thanks for your cooperation! I

Background Information on Studying English

1 Up till now, you have been studying English systematically in institutions for years.

A 8

B 8–10

C more than 10

2 This semester you are having English courses for week.

A 0–4

B 5–8

class hours per

C more than 8

3 Among these courses, the non-language courses (for example, English literature and culture) occupy a percentage of .

A 25% or lower

B 26%–50%

C more than 51%

4 The time you spend each day in studying English (including doing English assignments) adds up to hour(s).

A 1 or less

B 1–2

C more than 2

5 The time you spend each day in reading English newspapers and magazines, or surfing English news on the Internet, or talking with others in English is about hour(s).

A 1 or less

B 1–2

C more than 2

6 Have you ever been to an English-speaking country?

A Yes

B No



If yes, how long were you there?



A less than 1 month

B 1–3 months

C more than 3 months

157

Chapter 7

7 Do you have any foreign friends whose native language is English?

A Yes

B No



If yes, how many hours do you spend each day in staying or talking with him/her?



A less than 1 hour

B 1–2 hours

C more than 2 hours

8 What is your main motive for studying English?

A To get the degree since English is compulsory in college



B To obtain high scores on TOEFL and IELTS



C To be more competitive when finding a job after graduation



D To know more about English cultures



E Others please specify

II Cultural values 1 In your opinion, the budget in a family should be controlled

.

A by one person B separately C by all family members D by others (please specify 2 You believe that wealth functions

) .

A as a symbol of personal achievement B only to fulfil basic living C to bring nightmares D others (please specify 3 If you inherited a large fortune one day, you would use it

) .

A to improve the quality of your life B to do charity work C to develop personal hobbies D to invest in order to earn more E others (please specify

)

158

Englishization in Asia

4 In your daily life you spend most of your money on

.

A buying living necessities B buying books C buying clothes D entertaining yourself E others (please specify

)

5 The perfect type of marriage in your opinion is one with which of the following features? (Please choose THREE) A Partners from families of equal social status B Partners who like similar things C Good economic conditions D A talented husband and fair wife E High respect between partners F

Partners sharing highs and lows

G The husband working outside, and the wife at home H A harmonious sexual life I

Others (please specify

)

6 What is your attitude towards sex before marriage? A Caring much and being disdainful B Neither for nor against C Natural and fine D Don’t know E Others (please specify

)

7 What is your attitude towards out-of-marriage sex? A Natural B Unacceptable C Don’t care D Others (please specify

)

159

Chapter 7

8 What is your attitude towards cross-race marriage? A It is unstable due to differing values between the partners B It will be harmonious as long as the partners like each other C Fine and good D Don’t know E Others (please specify

)

9 What is the relationship between you and your parents? A Very dependent, and staying with them when time is available B Not much communication but understanding between us C Generation gap and little contact D Others (please specify

)

10 When your parents preach that you are their life hope and ask you to always work hard, what is your reaction? A To work hard to please them B Not to listen to them C Answer well but do as you like afterwards D Others (please specify

)

11 Which family pattern do you think is ideal? A A couple with a kid B A couple with no kids C Living with the parents D Others (please specify 12 When you have a child in the future, you will choose

) .

A to bring him/her up by yourself B to send him/her to the grandparents C to send him/her to kindergarten D others (please specify

)

160

Englishization in Asia

13 You believe that a good teacher should be

.

A a friend to students B strict with students and powerful C a very learned scholar D others (please specify

)

14 How do you often celebrate your birthday? A Going to bars with friends B Going to karaoke with classmates C Inviting friends to dinner D Going to a park with classmates E Nothing special and just as usual F

Others (please specify

)

15 When one of your classmates wins a national competition, you will . A congratulate him/her B pretend not to have heard about it C think that it is none of your business D others (please specify 16 With your classmates, you hope

) .

A to win respect from them B to live mutually but keep your privacy C to share everything with them D to do what you like to E others (please specify

)

17 Who do you think was the most important figure in history? . 18 Who in the contemporary world do you admire most? 19 Who is your idol in your life?

.

.

161

Chapter 7

20 What kind of job will you choose after graduation? A One with high social prestige B One with high pay C One with high accomplishments for the society D One which can realize your talent E One which can meet your interests F

Others (please specify

Have you ever heard about the term ‘Englishization’? What do you think ‘Englishization’ means?

What changes has English study brought to you?

Thanks again for your time!

)

8

Englishization or sinicization? English in the Hong Kong cultural scene Mike Ingham



It is this failure to look critically at global relations that allows for a belief in the natural spread of English. Second, there is a structuralist and positivist view of language that suggests that all languages can be free of cultural and political influences; and, more particularly, there is a belief that by its international status English is even more neutral than other languages. And finally, there is an understanding of international relations that suggests that people and nations are free to deal with each other on an equal basis, and thus if English is widely used, this can only be beneficial.



Alastair Pennycook (1994)



English is admittedly the most useful language in the world today, but it should not be allowed to monopolize our attention, as it did to the exclusion of other languages. The more alien tongues a nation knows, the more channels it has for importing information and knowledge from outside and for accessing overseas traditions.



Phillip Shu-yue Sun (2004)



So far as I am able to judge the ‘Darwinian’ view of the psychic indispensability of the prodigality of diverse languages among mankind has not been grasped or argued. It is central to After Babel.



George Steiner (1991)

Introduction and background A linguistically and culturally diversified arts scene, which is coming to be recognized as a feature of contemporary Hong Kong, is something people rather take for granted in the city. It has emerged less from specific top-

Chapter 8

down policies by the government, as for example in Singapore, and more in accordance with Hong Kong’s time-honoured laissez faire approach to linguistic and cultural development. Since the city’s 1997 retrocession to China there has been the remarkable phenomenon of increased sinicization in education and culture (especially related to the exponentially developing status of Putonghua) going hand-in-hand with a somewhat less heralded renaissance in creative writing and performance in English, as well as an expansion in mixed-language and bilingual practices. This seeming paradox is, as my paper will elucidate, one of the most interesting aspects of Hong Kong’s often under-rated creative hybridity. In this paper, I will argue that the Hong Kong arts sector, without being entirely aware of it, is a rather good role model for linguistic and cultural diversity and pluralism. While the respective languages intersect with one another on occasions or run in parallel much of the time, the arts field by the very nature of its grass-roots pragmatism and participation, offers a useful example of linguistic and cultural co-existence that other communities may find worth emulating or at least exploring. Moreover, it is my contention that the arts community in Hong Kong, and by extension its audiences, far from being seduced by the global monoculture so pervasive in the field of commerce, is predicated on a healthy blend of localist and internationalist perspectives. In this respect there is a clear division between the globalist, consumerist and commercial profile maintained by the city’s business interests and the very different interests of its arts community. The paper explores the strengths of the Hong Kong arts environment and puts it forward as a good model of linguistic integration, diversity and pluralism, while acknowledging perceived flaws in official attitudes and arts policy in the city. I argue that bilingualism, biculturalism and, indeed, cultural pluralism are promoted in the city’s present cultural life. However, it is a sad fact that the positive aspects of this pluralism are often not fully recognized or officially proclaimed. Perhaps the reason for this reluctance to broadcast Hong Kong’s tremendous cultural developments of recent years may be attributed to the community’s traditional lack of interest in the arts. Perhaps also the very idea of linguistic and cultural pluralism tends to muddy the clear waters of governmental cultural policy vis-à-vis the linguistic-cultural expectations of the territory’s mainland masters and the global capitalist market.

163

164

Englishization in Asia

In the context of the present argument, I also put into rather more subtle perspective very real concerns about the encroachment of globalized English in Asia at the expense of indigenous languages and linguistic diversity. Balanced against this perspective is the declared policy of sinicization in the SAR and the desire for whole-scale integration with the mainland culturally and linguistically on the part of some, particularly more politically powerful, members of the community. Such a policy could marginalize Cantonese in favour of Putonghua for political expediency. To a considerable extent the diversity and cosmopolitan hybridity and variety – which, as we shall see, is a feature of the Hong Kong arts environment – reflect the city’s distinctive commercial ethos and its renowned development of laissez-faire economic and cultural policies from the 1970s to the present day. Less than 30 years ago the city was characterized as a cultural desert and backwater. In fact Hong Kong’s situation with regard to language and culture today presents something of a paradox. While there has been increased sinicization of the educational and cultural scene since the 1997 handover, it has gone hand-in-hand with an expansion in creativity in English and a more inclusive attitude to languages other than L1, L2 and L3, namely Cantonese, English and Putonghua (Mandarin). Hong Kong’s trilingual, biliterate language policy as enshrined in the Basic Law is obviously a factor in this more sophisticated and less binary approach to language. Prior to 1975 English was the single official language in Hong Kong and Cantonese a second-class citizen in the language stakes. Recognition of equal status for Cantonese was not won without a hard fight in the face of the colonialist repression that characterized the late 1960s and early 1970s in Hong Kong, for this was a watershed period when Hongkongers, particularly the young, pushed for change. The localization policy introduced in the 1980s was in some measure an outcome of this pressure for change. While there continue to be arguments today about the medium of instruction in schools and universities, the Hong Kong public has become accustomed over many decades to the sheer pragmatism of linguistic multiplicity. After all, many of today’s older Hong Kong residents were not Cantonese L1 speakers when they arrived, and while accepting the necessity for communicating in Cantonese in public, continued to use their own dialects in the privacy of home and family.

Chapter 8

Today the Hong Kong population is more linguistically versatile and language use more diverse – including minority languages such as Tagalog, Urdu, Hindi and varieties of Bahasa – than official, simplified versions of social reality would have us think. Naturally, many commentators have asserted the central position of Cantonese and some have argued, tenuously many others believe, that Hong Kong is essentially a monolinguistic, monocultural and monoethnic society. As Bolton (2000, 275) points out, ‘Few would deny the vitality of Cantonese, but at the same time notions of linguistic homogeneity and ethnic purity hardly fit the daily experience of life in a community that has so relatively recently morphed from a wah kiu (diasporic) refugee community into a vibrant Asian metropolis’. Bolton goes on to cite the experience of Hong Kong-born English language writer, Xu Xi, who recalls the sheer multicultural smorgasbord of cross-cultural influences around her even as a child growing up in Hong Kong in the 1960s. Any visitor to Central and Tsim Sha Tsui, especially, cannot fail to be struck by the city’s present cosmopolitanism, and is likely to be exposed to a variety of languages, not just from Southeast Asia but also from the Indian sub-continent and Europe, in addition to multiple varieties of world Englishes. Given this manifestly cosmopolitan ethos at the heart of the city, it is surely no surprise that a spirit of co-existence and diversity is very much in evidence in its arts and cultural scene. The status of English as a global language, as discussed by Kachru, Crystal, Phillipson, Pennycook and others, is obviously highly relevant to Hong Kong’s cultural development. Indeed, in the business and commercial sectors as well as, to a considerable extent, in education, English continues to predominate. The growing importance of Putonghua as a world language is clearly already affecting language attitudes in Hong Kong, and for many Putonghua is now the lingua franca of choice. In the arts scene, however, the primacy of one language over another is less desirable. Hong Kong today is a multicultural, multilingual, postcolonial society. One would expect to see its complex and certainly hybrid identity to be reflected in its cultural make-up and its arts scene. According to the Hong Kong government rhetoric post-1997, Hong Kong is ‘Asia’s World City’. Whether or not this is simply vacuous advertising hyperbole from the ‘creative’ team that gave us ‘Hong Kong: Living it, Loving it’, or whether there is real substance in this claim, is very germane to the language and culture debates about the city’s present and future.

165

166

Englishization in Asia

As Claire Kramsch (1998, 8) has reminded us in her study of the relationship between language and culture, ‘Language is intimately linked not only to the culture that is and the culture that was, but also to the culture of the imagination that governs people’s decisions and actions far more than we think’. It is this notion of imagined communities contained within speech and discourse communities that is significant in asserting the invisible thread connecting the language users of a society with its arts and artists. ‘Discourse communities are characterized not only by facts and artifacts’, Kramsch maintains, ‘but by common dreams, fulfilled and unfulfilled imaginings. These imaginings are mediated through language that over the life of the community reflects, shapes and is a metaphor for its cultural reality’ (ibid.). The various Hong Kong speech communities’ imaginings of the other, indeed much of their experience of cosmopolitanism, are inevitably associated with art forms and cultural artefacts and events that mediate and are held to be representative of those communities. In some cases, for example the form of dance commonly known as ‘belly-dance’, these imaginings for the uninitiated frequently rely on stereotype. Nevertheless, it is generally true to say that artistic and cultural events perform a vital role in perpetuating the sense of language group identity in any cosmopolitan city. At the same time, they may well have the valuable and socially cohesive function of bridging different cultures and speech communities within the metropolis. This is particularly the case in Hong Kong, as I argue later in this paper. Finally, it should be borne in mind that logocentrism has often disadvantaged certain of the arts. Not only the pictorial arts of painting and architecture, but other powerful art forms – such as performance art, installation, dance, theatrical mime and puppetry, sculpture and indeed major components of word-based art forms such as theatre and cinema – are pre-eminently visual. Music is likewise considered to be a universal language, although of course like any other art form it is usually most strongly appreciated through the schemata of cultural familiarity. Clearly, many art forms and art works available to the public in the Hong Kong cultural context do not rely exclusively on spoken or written language for their reception, although they may well do for the purposes of interpretation. In such cases Chinese and English provide paratexts for image-based works of the imagination. Thus the relationship

Chapter 8

between language itself and image or sound is often finely balanced. To use the concept of ‘language’ metaphorically (e.g. film language), there are obviously multiple ‘languages’, channels and codes of signification at play in artistic representations, which are part of a much bigger semiotic framework than that encompassing language per se.

Linguistic and cultural context: ‘Thinking globally, acting locally’ In order to put the debate into perspective we need to review the dialectic regarding the perceived benefits of Englishization as against the role of English in fostering linguistic imperialism. The respective claims are brought sharply into focus by the antinomies of Crystal’s (2003) positive model of World English and Phillipson’s (1992) dire warning of linguistic imperialism and the inimical effects of English on linguistic ecologies. The concept of World Englishes has been propounded by a number of linguists (e.g. Kachru 1986, 1990; McArthur 1998). In diagrammatic representations (e.g. Kachru, Crystal), Asian English is put on the periphery in the so-called ‘expanding circle’. In other words, Asian English is not only growing but at the same time mutating to serve the linguistic needs and competencies of local users – hence Singlish (Singapore) and Chinglish (Hong Kong and China). Kachru has discussed at length the ‘Asianization of English’ with its own set of codes and cultural identities and many sociolinguists in Hong Kong and Singapore have charted the mixed-code and code-switching tendencies of sophisticated, linguistically uninhibited metropolitan users. In Singapore, for example, there is sufficient confidence in the ownership of English for dramas to be written entirely in Singlish. Such legitimized language transgression would be less likely in Hong Kong, where Internet chat rooms, mobile phones and small talk are the natural preserve of linguistic crossover. Crystal (2003, 191) crystallizes the issue regarding the positive aspects of English’s present linguistic hegemony with characteristic clarity: ‘In 500 years time will it be the case that everyone will automatically be introduced to English as soon as they are born …? If this is part of a rich multilingual experience for newborns, this can only be a good thing. If it is by then the only language left to be learned, it will have been the greatest intellectual

167

168

Englishization in Asia

disaster that the planet has ever known’. Hong Kong-based commentator, Tam (2004, 3) looks at the situation more optimistically:

However diverse the theories of globalization and its effects may be, one fact which remains certain is that while the world has become seemingly less and less divergent in its shrinkage, there is evidence that the world has also become more and more pluralistic in its cultural development … This very shrinkage and restructuring of the world, paradoxically enough, have the effect of focusing more sharply on questions of localism, identity formation and cultural roots.

He goes on to identify a reality that in the Hong Kong context is sometimes taken from granted, sometimes ignored and rarely articulated incisively:

Such a mind-set [think globally, act locally] has also generated a new cultural phenomenon in the sense that the global has to be concretized in the local ... How do culture-workers, who are primarily writers, intellectuals, journalists, film-makers and educators, respond to this challenging phenomenon? ... How do they conceptualize it? These are the questions of utmost importance as one seeks to come to terms with the new spaces of contestation and resistance in the global-local interactive process of cultural formation (ibid. 3, 13).

In the field of cultural formation, those active in the Hong Kong arts community tend not to wait for government initiative and rely rather on their own efforts. For many years, arts critics and practitioners have attempted to prevail on the government to formulate a coherent and specific arts policy, without signal success. Admittedly there is a mechanism for funding and supporting the arts in the city, which, as we shall see in the following section, appears to be conceived by certain senior bureaucrats entrusted with the responsibility as a form of charitable hand-out. There has been a proliferation of smaller arts centres and communities, of filmmakers, dancers, performance artists, writers and poets that has sprung from artists’ engagement not only with Hong Kong and its immediate environment, but increasingly since the radical 1970s with global cultural developments and great contemporary art and artists of varying nationalities. This is evident from the enthusiasm with which screenings, exhibitions and performances of internationally acclaimed artists is greeted

Chapter 8

and the high attendance rates among younger audiences. Thus, while the work of many performance and pictorial artists and independent theatre groups may lack wider relevance as a result of its local perspectives, the influence and inspiration of the regional and international scene is nonetheless evident. Contrary to what one might have expected in a postcolonial scenario, there has also been a surge in English-language creative writing. Situated on the margins of the margin as far as cultural production in China is concerned, Hong Kong English-language writing has been quietly enjoying an expansion, with opportunities for new and old work to be read aloud at places such as the Hong Kong Fringe Club. A further development has been international poetry evenings where locals and expatriates of different nationalities read poems in their native tongues supported by translation into English. The tendency to think locally and act globally, in spite of Hong Kong’s frequently noted attitude of parochialism, is becoming more common, not just in relation to shopping for global brands but equally with regard to trends on the cultural and artistic scene. To what extent the city’s increasingly varied cultural life is recognized and appreciated by policy-makers and decision-makers is questionable. In his insightful eve-of-handover study, Hong Kong – Culture and the Politics of Disappearance, Hong Kong University academic Ackbar Abbas refers to the tensions between the local, the national and the global in the cultural awareness and self-representation of Hong Kong. He goes on to suggest that a kind of reverse ghost phenomenon could be applied to Hong Kong culture, by which people fail to see what is actually there. Although there has been an increasing awareness of Hong Kong identity and culture above and beyond its self-reification as ‘a shopping paradise’ in the years preceding and following the handover, as well as an aspiration to become an Asian cultural hub on the part of the government, the place of the imaginative arts in helping to create the city’s distinctive contemporary ethos has yet to be fully acknowledged. Factual and statistical accounts of the city’s successes have been abundant. The city’s narrative and imaginative representations – with the possible exception of photographic accounts – have largely been marginalized or trivialized.

169

170

Englishization in Asia

Only in the post-SARS economic and social renaissance of the last few years has Hong Kong’s ‘heritage’ been promoted, but this too is consistent with Abbas’s argument of disappearance, since the city’s real cultural heritage is distorted or erased by the authorities, keen to rewrite the narratives for their own ends. Still, the creative arts sector – ‘industry’, the international buzz-word would be somewhat incongruous in the Hong Kong context, although policy-makers like to use it – remains as Tam puts it ‘a site of contestation and resistance’, perhaps because it has not been systematically recuperated into the government’s sphere of influence.

Arts policy and structure in Hong Kong At this point in the discussion it is worth looking at how the arts are notionally conceived, structured and funded by the powers-that-be in Hong Kong. There doesn’t appear to be any explicit provision in government policy for language difference or variation, except of course for the established trilingual, biliterate approach to official language policy common to all areas of SAR life. Very little provision is made for the hearing or sight-impaired, for example, and it is assumed that speakers of other languages are all familiar with either English or Chinese. While the Home Affairs Bureau, the government branch under whose jurisdiction the arts fall, is given broad overall control and exercises significant behind-thescenes power over decisions, there is a certain degree of autonomy given to the main body responsible for arts provision, the Leisure and Cultural Services Division (LCSD). The LCSD presents three-year and one-year grantee arts companies in LCSD venues in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories, in addition to ‘flagship’ arts companies such as the Hong Kong Ballet, the Hong Kong Philharmonic and the Hong Kong Repertory Theatre Company. It is part of the LCSD’s brief to buy in companies from overseas, although in practice many overseas arts events are not commissioned by it, but by the various festival organizations – such as the Hong Kong Arts Festival – that hire the venues. In general, it is true to say that there is a viable combination of directly subsidized companies, groups and artists, partially subsidized ones, corporatized ones, such as the Hong Kong Arts Festival and the Hong Kong Film Festival, and independent local groups. However, Hong Kong’s

Chapter 8

Arts Development Council is not a policy-maker but a mechanism for distributing subsidy, and is moreover subservient to the Home Affairs Bureau. The rhetoric of senior officials tends to compare local artists with recipients of social welfare, implying that local artists are spongers. They would clearly prefer to see the involvement of the private sector and the development of so-called ‘creative industries’ in the mould of the overhyped and under-achieving technology hub known as the Cyberport. Indeed the government’s controversial and much-disputed plans for the development of a gigantic arts hub in West Kowloon have revolved around the concept of running the venues as a purely commercial enterprise. In other words, the arts policy is to disengage from funding the arts as far as possible with the goal of encouraging a market-driven, self-sufficient arts environment. This ‘policy’ is not of course clearly stated, but is evident from the actions and the government’s original proposal to place the West Kowloon arts hub project in the hands of property developers. Fortunately for Hong Kong’s arts scene, the LCSD, together with independent or partially subsidized bodies like the Hong Kong Arts Centre and the Hong Kong Fringe Club, continue to encourage the survival, indeed the proliferation, of a semiotically rich arts environment in the city. They also succeed in maintaining a well-judged balance between global and local, the latter often feeding off the former for inspiration, and on occasions surpassing the former in artistic quality. Virtually all of the productions presented by the LCSD or making use of LCSD venues use surtitles, or in the case of cinema festivals, subtitles, either English or Chinese, and often both. Furthermore, most of the publicity materials and the house programmes for events are produced bilingually – the common exception being Cantonese Opera. Performances – and especially films in the Hong Kong International Film Festival – may include a wide range of languages, while any direct address to the audience is likely to be in English or in English and Cantonese or Putonghua. In this way, Hong Kong audiences are exposed to a wide range of World Englishes of varying accents and degrees of grammatical accuracy. One valuable by-product is that audiences come to realize that international English styles and standards vary enormously, and other users of the language may speak it no better than the average Hongkonger, or worse in some cases. The language is purely an international tool of communication and in no way affects the

171

172

Englishization in Asia

beauty or brilliance of the performance that follows. In this respect, a spirit of internationalism, in terms of audience exposure to a range of performers and artists from hugely divergent cultural backgrounds as well as diverse performance and artistic skills and sensibilities, has been fostered.

Cultural formation and arts development One area, however, in which Hong Kong needs significant development is in its arts criticism and aesthetic awareness, a development which would obviously help to promote and cultivate audience engagement and cultural literacy. At the same time, it is no exaggeration to say that audiences have been gradually ‘educated’ to appreciate a wider range of performance types than perhaps their counterparts in the West. While there is arts criticism provision in the city in its English-language and Chinese-language newspapers and in the publications of the International Association of Theatre Critics, it is somewhat uneven and irregular. It needs to be developed, not marginalized as it has tended to be. The role of the critic in both Chinese-language and English-language publications, shaping and nurturing critical awareness, tastes and sensibilities, tends to be under-appreciated. In many other cosmopolitan cities and cultures the critic’s role is perceived as more valuable than in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, arts criticism, by virtue of the varied and pluralistic nature of Hong Kong’s arts scene, is playing its part, and critics are gaining exposure to a great variety of art forms, artists and performers. Providing informed comment on Hong Kong’s cultural production and facilitating cultural reception of overseas art works require of a critic a high level of expertise and aesthetic sophistication, as well as sensitivity to a range of linguistic and extralinguistic communication codes. It may be argued that, as an international city, Hong Kong needs to develop both languages in its arts practice and arts criticism, as Singapore has done, but there is a stronger discourse community in Chinese, partly because there are more opportunities for publication. A bilingual journal devoted to arts criticism and more arts news publications would be welcome. Language and communication skills in the education system in Hong Kong are usually considered subordinate to other fields of knowledge, particularly those that are viewed as more financially rewarding in career

Chapter 8

terms. The arts, including language arts such as drama and pictorial arts, tend to be less esteemed and there is an inevitable washback effect. Schools and even universities place little emphasis and value on arts education, because it is not rewarded in the examination system. However, on the positive side, the art of local artists is often quirky, independent and the product of critical thinking. Where it is commercialized or commodified, as in the field of design, it is often humorous in its use of linguistic mixed code or vernacular. With many small-scale arts groups in the city, aesthetic self-expression, and not just entertainment, is the driving force. Local artists form almost a bohemian subcultural group. Such groups may not appear to offer very viable career paths, but they do attract audiences and fans and participate in the broader arts community in a very real sense by providing grass-roots authenticity and street credibility. Given the evident discontinuity between the local arts scene and more ephemeral international cultural products that come to the city, it is apposite to question the notion of an integrated arts community at all in Hong Kong. From an audience viewpoint, it should be noted that, although patrons of local and international cultural events represent widely differing socioeconomic groups, there are frequently points of intersection between audiences. On a positive note, the local arts community is beginning to assert its views and grass-roots arts groups have challenged autocratic government plans which involve inadequate or manipulated consultation, especially with regard to the continuing debate about the West Kowloon Cultural District. There is little doubt that the local arts community draws inspiration from a wide range of sources, whether more traditional national, regional and international arts groups, movements and practitioners, or more avant-garde and experimental. While there is considerable heterogeneity and relatively little cohesion amongst arts groups, the fact that the arts in general has been treated as a poor relation for so long is itself a unifying force. In spite of the lack of respect for cultural formation in the metropolis, the arts community engages in lively discourse and maintains a significant profile in many districts. However, the venues that present international work are concentrated primarily in Central, Wanchai and Tsim Sha Tsui, which inevitably limits exposure to non-Chinese cultural products, and reduces the impact of Englishization.

173

174

Englishization in Asia

The demographics may change as a more educated and aware younger generation comes to view the arts in a less elitist light.

Englishization, sinicization or pluralism in the Hong Kong arts context? In October 1997 Tung Chee Hwa in his Policy Address emphasized ‘the importance of deepening our understanding of Chinese history and culture, while at the same time maintaining the international character of Hong Kong and its unique blending of Chinese and Western customs’. A systematic policy of sinicization thus became enshrined in Hong Kong’s cultural policy and has continued as the government has sought greater convergence with the mainland. At the same time, cultural development in the city has seen an influx of more linguistically diverse expatriates and wider varieties of English usage. In conjunction with the increasingly rich arts environment – including international festivals such as the Hong Kong Arts Festival, the Fringe Club’s City Festival, the French May, regional festivals like New Vision Festival and local performances in Cantonese, English, Putonghua and occasionally mixed code – the present pluralism of the city would seem to go against the grain of systematic sinicization, at least in the arts. Indeed, there is more linguistic and cultural variety than appears to be the case given the official status of English and Chinese in Hong Kong. While a binary, oversimplified cultural view has been promoted by pre-1997 Englishization and post-1997 sinicization (accompanied by the rapid ascendancy of Putonghua), the fact of the matter is more complex. The existing paradigm of bilingualism and biculturalism in Hong Kong can be reductive. It tends to mask the existence of a more multifaceted linguistic and cultural environment on the fringes. These marginal but significant cultural phenomena include cultural exchanges with countries such as Germany, France, Japan and Korea where English and Chinese are not the L1. In such situations, English is often a pragmatic medium of communication, a negotiated, provisional, protean means of interaction between artists from Hong Kong and other cultural backgrounds as a result of the decreasing British influence and increasing exposure to a far more multifarious and truly international English usage. Both English and Putonghua operate in the global/national space, while

Chapter 8

Cantonese functions in the local space with celebrations and retrospectives of local forms such as Cantonese Opera and old Cantonese film. However, some local productions make use of Hong Kong-style English, code-mixing and code-switching between Cantonese and English to stimulate what Crystal describes as ‘lexical creation’ in ‘the world of leisure and the arts’ (Crystal 2003, 146). Further illustrations of the internationalist pluralist spirit of the arts in Hong Kong are provided by organizations such as the Hong Kong International Film Festival and German, Chinese, Korean, French and Jewish film festivals and panoramas; Hong Kong Film Archive retrospectives on outstanding directors of world cinema; the multicultural Hong Kong Fringe Club where English is often used as a lingua franca; the multicultural Hong Kong Arts Centre; the Asian People’s Theatre Festival with its accent on marginalized Asian cultures in Hong Kong and work with Bangladeshis, Filipinos and other cultural minorities in the city; a thoroughly international dance art community; a very active visual arts scene with numerous installations, photographic exhibitions and exhibitions of local and international art work; and successful literary festivals such as the Man Literary Festival, where the lingua franca is English. In addition, there is an increasing emphasis in the drama scene on theatre for the non-hearing, a fundamentally visual and gestural mode as opposed to one dominated by the spoken word. So-called ‘language-lite’ productions or non-languagedependent productions and performances are popular among Hong Kong audiences, since language is not a barrier to enjoyment or understanding, and crucially such theatre techniques and ideas can be adopted or adapted by local experimental companies. The range of international productions presented in 2007 in Hong Kong gives a good idea of the impressive diversity of cultural products currently available to audiences. Many of these productions provide a good indication of how Hong Kong audiences gain exposure to non-English and non-Chinese cultural artefacts and events. As a result, pluralism and internationalism is fostered, partly by the art forms and contents, partly by the charisma and talents of the artists concerned. The following is simply a small selection of the opportunities over the course of a year to enjoy artists and art work that use neither English nor Chinese in their linguistic frame of reference. When one adds the large number of Chinese and

175

176

Englishization in Asia

modern English-mediated works to the overall picture, the old argument about Hong Kong’s cultural deprivation is easily refuted. Significant 2007 productions that exemplify this spirit of internationalism include: ‘Love, Loss and Laughter’, German Chansons sung by Eva Meier; Theatre du Pif’s stage adaptation of Gogol, ‘The Overcoat’; and ‘Throne of Blood’ by Performance Exchange (intercultural meeting of Kurosawa and Shakespeare) – all of which were part of the City Festival’s International Waters section. Also produced were ‘Canciones antes de una Guerra’ (Songs Before a War) by flamenco artists Companía María Pagés; the Welsh National Opera’s production of Puccini’s ‘La Bohème’; Sylvie Guillem and Akram Khan in a contemporary dance piece entitled ‘Sacred Monsters’; the Leipzig Ballet, Gewandhaus Orchestra and Opera Chorus with Uwe Scholz’s ‘The Great Mass’ based on sacred music by Mozart, Arvo Pärt and others; the Moscow Philharmonic playing all-Russian music; Propeller Company, UK, with a double Shakespeare bill ‘The Taming of the Shrew’ and ‘Twelfth Night’; the Soweto Gospel Choir from South Africa; Tango Buenos Aires from Argentina; and Cuban jazz piano maestro Chucho Valdes – all presented in the Hong Kong Arts Festival. In addition, the LCSD-organized Mediterranean Arts Festival included: ‘An Italian Musical Feast’ with musical sketches based on the madrigals of Monteverdi; North African artists Leila Haddad (dance) and Hassan Boussou (song); Greek National Theatre with a classical tragedy (Aeschylus) performed in classical Greek; fado singer Cristina Branco from Portugal; and Piccolo Teatro di Milano performing Italian commedia dell’arte on the ‘Servant of Two Masters’ theme. Film retrospectives included seminal filmmakers such as Fellini, while among the workshops were: Arabic Nadwah Literary Salon (Hong Kong Fringe Club); Hong Kong Baptist University International Writers’ Workshop; and talk series covering a huge range of topics related to performance, e.g. the Sufi musical tradition, flamenco and the works of Orhan Pamuk, all of which were intended to raise consciousness of an art form or artist. Literary events revolved around the increasingly popular Man Literary Festival and other smaller monthly meetings such as Outloud (poetry) at the Fringe Club. One ‘language-lite’ theatre production at the end of the year which illustrated the potential for communication in a third space – that is non-

Chapter 8

English and non-Chinese – was French Compagnie Philippe Genty’s ‘La Fin des Terres’ (Land’s End). Genty described the fusion of human physical/ dance puppetry and surreal illusionism as ‘theatre without a text’ in his programme notes, ‘a theatre where the actor confronts material objects’. The few French words, written or spoken, employed in the course of the performance were simply part of the ‘forest of symbols’, to use the French symbolist metaphor, that proliferated in a performance representing subconscious dream-like states and a subversion of the rational. While the production was recognizably European in its cultural roots, at times evoking the art work of surrealist painter Magritte, there was a universal quality in the aesthetic experience that clearly touched a non-European audience base. Genty’s emphasis on materiality in the performance – on physical objects as well as the human dichotomies of wakefulness and sleeping, motion and inertia, meeting and parting, and above all, rationality and fantasy – offered a fascinating insight into the human psyche. Such art works take us to a level where rational language is, as we all know, inadequate to frame our deeper experiences. Hong Kong-based groups such as the avant-garde Zuni Icosahedron have for a long time produced works in a similar vein with a fascinating blend of Chinese and non-Chinese cultural elements that somehow merge into an unfamiliar and stimulating cultural cocktail. It is evident, therefore, that the language of art in the Hong Kong context presents a much more variegated cultural landscape than the binary model of Chinese-English would suggest.

Conclusions The reason for any power elite throughout history – and today’s power elites are fundamentally no different – to distrust or at least be uncomfortable with its artists, whether in the literary domain or in the performing arts, is that they tend to ‘defamiliarize’ familiar received ideas and concepts, to use the formalist term. In other words, they encourage us to look at the world differently. As formalist Victor Shklovsky (Cuddon 1991, 226) put it, ‘The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived, not as they are known. The technique of art is to make objects “unfamiliar”, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty of length and perception, because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged’. Thus our quotidian

177

178

Englishization in Asia

perception is challenged and altered when we confront works of art. Our senses are concentrated in a prolonged and therefore unfamiliar state of consciousness. Art works may well evoke critical and/or satirical reflection or at least convey a sense of Bakhtinian ‘carnivalesque’. These subversive tendencies can be contained and assimilated within the semi-democracies of our planet, while among totalitarian societies the arts are necessarily perverted by the authorities for propaganda purposes. In Hong Kong, despite its lack of democracy under colonialism and at present, the values of a civilized and more liberal social system ensure that dissident views and ideas in literature and the performing arts are not blatantly purged. Quietly marginalizing the arts, however – as for example the Thatcher government did in Britain in the 1980s – is a strategy for ensuring that alternative voices do not have a wide platform for expressing what might be ‘undesirable’ views. In our increasingly conservative and reactionary world in which the ideals of post-World War II humanism and equality are being gradually and undemocratically discarded, the arts play an important role. English as a world language can be either the tool of the Washington– London neo-imperialist axis of global power, or it can be a means of empowerment and communication on a footing of equal respect. If the latter is to be the case, then the hegemonic nature of some Englishization practice needs to be confronted and challenged. Arundhati Roy (2004, 77), who herself uses English as a means to reach as wide an audience for her writing as possible, celebrates the potential of the arts for alternative consciousness and alternative world-views:

Our strategy should be not only to confront Empire but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness – and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we are brainwashed to believe.

In Hong Kong, where English is used by ethnic Chinese creative writers such as Louise Ho and Agnes Lam, and others of mixed ethnicity such as Xu Xi, Mani Rao and Jam Ismael, the situation is similar in general but different in the specifics from other Asian and African countries where the Empire has written back. To a large extent it would be true to say that Hong Kong writers are not particularly interested in ‘writing back’, but writing

Chapter 8

about their own experiences within a Hong Kong environment and beyond that a world environment. As Agnes Lam has pointed out in her essay, ‘Defining Hong Kong Poetry in English’, Hong Kong writing in English ‘has thrived in Hong Kong in recent years’ but, for Lam, the reasons have less to do with colonial or postcolonial consciousness than with international communication. Still less is it concerned with mimicking a colonial or hegemonic writing tradition:

The challenge to poets writing in English is to be able to articulate their thoughts and cultures to readers from their native cultures while communicating some of their experiences to readers in other cultures as well. This is so whether they are native or non-native speakers of English. If literature is the extension of human empathy, then writing in English poses immediate possibilities for the very fact that it is a global language with speakers from myriad cultures (Lam 2000, 395).

The arts, as Lam suggests, offer that arena for ‘global empathy’ away from the narrow confines of local and national self-interest. Louise Ho’s (1994) summing up of Hong Kong’s cultural position vis-à-vis China and the rest of the world in the poems ‘Island’ and ‘End of Era’ is pithily insightful: ‘We shall be a city with a country/ An international city becoming national’. ‘Miniscule place/global space/several vortices/suspended by their own velocity/ drive cogwheels that orbit like planets’. Clearly the type of Englishization envisaged by those for whom the English language is associated with prestige and power is itself parochial and limited in comparison with the cosmic imagination of many world artists. It is not fanciful to talk about a wider arts community that transcends national borders, beyond the notions of speech and discourse communities. The notion of ‘speech fellowship’ that Lam advances in her article, is not only applicable to the writing or arts communities in Hong Kong, but can encompass all who are touched by aesthetic experience emanating from different places on the planet, irrespective of language and culture differences. Communication and sharing are the keys to such fellowship, rather than narrow Englishization for its own ends. If Englishization is conceived as a means to a more worthy end than purely the spread of English-language culture and attitudes, then it is worth fostering for what it can offer to people in cosmopolitan cities like Hong

179

180

Englishization in Asia

Kong. What must be avoided at all costs is an all-out attack on the identity and value of Cantonese in the city’s cultural life in consequence of the inroads of English and Putonghua. Steiner (1991, xiv) has argued, of course, that linguistic and cultural plurality, despite the alarming disappearance of minority languages across the globe, is more resistant than many predicted:

Determinant of, determined by tribal, regional and national passions for identity, languages are proving more resistant to rationalization, and the benefits of homogeneity and technical formalization than one might have expected. Strenuous efforts towards uniformity, for example in India and S. E. Asia, have so far proved abortive.

On a more elegiac note he points out: ‘When a language dies, a possible world dies with it’. To sum up, I have endeavoured to elaborate the notion alluded to by Tam (2004) in his assertion that the arts can offer ‘a site of contestation and resistance’ (pp. 3, 13), especially in relation to Tam’s and my own home context of Hong Kong. The co-existence of eclectic, frequently interacting artistic forms in Hong Kong offers a radical alternative to both the prevailing global monoculture and to the narrow binary model of Chinese versus English or Putonghua versus Cantonese. Looking at the local and the global from a wider perspective and encouraging a plural cultural climate provides an antidote to established sociocultural models based on binary oppositions. However, the role and efficacy of the arts in cultivating pluralism in Hong Kong are probably more significant than the arts community itself realizes. Respect for difference and diversity is evident to those willing to take a more critically distanced view, even if it is not always evident to the artists and audiences. This positive spirit is palpable in the Hong Kong cultural scene despite the inequalities of arts funding and the lack of a coherent policy. We can say, therefore, that Hong Kong’s hybrid arts scene is both local and international. As a city Hong Kong desires to be both global and local – a world city and a Chinese cultural hub. But the city should look to its arts scene for inspiration if it truly aspires to greater cosmopolitanism, since the arts are more pluralistic, internationalist and open in outlook than most of the city’s discourse communities, the business and financial sectors included.

Chapter 8

References Abbas, A (1997) Hong Kong: Culture and the Politics of Disappearance, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Bolton, K (2000) ‘The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English’, World Englishes, 19(3): 265–85. Bolton, K and Lim, S (2000) ‘Futures for Hong Kong English’, World Englishes, 19(3): 429–43. Crystal, D (2003) English as a Global Language, 2nd edn, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuddon, J A (1991) The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms, 3rd edn, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ho, L (1994) Local Habitation, Hong Kong: Twilight Books/ Department of Comparative Literature, Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. Kachru, B B (1986) ‘The power and politics of English’, World Englishes, 5(2/3): 121–40. Kachru, B B (1990) ‘World Englishes and applied linguistics’, World Englishes, 9(1): 3–20. Kramsch, C (1998) Language and Culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lam, A (2000) ‘Defining Hong Kong poetry in English: An answer from linguistics’, World Englishes, 19(3): 387–97. McArthur, T (1998) The English Languages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pennycook, A (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language, London: Longman. Phillipson, R (1992) Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roy, A (2004) ‘Confronting Empire’ in The Ordinary Person’s Guide to Empire, London: Flamingo/HarperCollins.

181

182

Englishization in Asia

Steiner, G (1991) After Babel – Aspects of Language and Translation, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sun, P S Y (2004) ‘The English language and Chinese people’ in Tam K K and Weiss, T (eds) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 129–48. Tam K K (2004) ‘World Englishes in the age of globalization’ in Tam, K K and Weiss, T (eds) (2004) English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China, Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1–22. Tung, C H (1997) ‘Building on our strengths and investing in our future’, Policy Address, Hong Kong: Government Printer.

9

Englishization in Japanese popular culture: Representation of ethnicity Andrew Moody

Englishization as a mode of cultural and linguistic contact In an early description of the processes of Englishization, Kachru (1986) notes that, as the concomitant process of nativization, it takes place with prolonged contact between English and a native language. While nativization is the process by which features of the native language enrich English and produce a distinctive variety, Englishization is the process by which features of English filter into the native language and produce linguistic change in the lexicon, phonology, syntax or discourse patterns. Although nativization of English varieties is a well-documented and multifaceted process that has produced a wide variety of Englishes, researchers sometimes overlook the simultaneous process of Englishization as a productive linguistic and cultural process. The nativization process of language contact produces rich and colourful arrays of English varieties that differ greatly from one another, but at the same time reverberate similarities. The effects of Englishization, however, are often ‘invisible’ in the sense that they do not produce highly contrastive varieties; and they can easily go unnoticed, with the users of the language assuming that a particular Englishized form or function has always been present in their language. To the degree that language contact produces changes in the linguistic productions of individuals, it can also affect the cultural productions of a society by inspiring new genres, expanding the functions of the language or introducing new cultural artefacts. For example, Matsui (2003) notes that the emergence of Japanese popular music (i.e. J-Pop) was largely influenced by the popularity of popular music in English from US and UK

184

Englishization in Asia

recording artists (see also Fujie 1989). While the linguistic consequences of this influence have been outlined and described by a number of different researchers on J-Pop (e.g. Dowd and Kujiraoka 2002; Moody 2001; Moody and Matsumoto 2003), the musical and cultural influences of pop music in English cannot be underestimated. With the advent of J-Pop, Japanese music borrowed a number of extra-linguistic cultural influences from English-speaking cultural sources: musical styles, instruments, singing styles, names of bands, thematic content for songs, formats of songs, album artwork and promotion of artists, to name only a few. When examining the process of Englishization, therefore, language is certainly one of the ways that cultural contact can take place, but the Englishization process is rarely limited to language. In order to understand how Englishization of language and culture can result from language contact (and an implicit cultural contact), two types of contact need to be identified. The first type takes place with the mode of communication as the primary method of mediation between the two (or more) languages. This is the kind of contact that frequently produces new varieties (i.e. pidgins, creoles, hybridized languages or new Englishes) because speakers are consistently using both languages simultaneously. This type of communicative language contact is usually taken to be the most clearly identifiable type of contact because it requires a relatively large amount of bilingualism within the speech community and, therefore, has come to characterize most of what we understand about language contact. But not all language contact situations necessarily require the non-native language to be used in communicative activities – it is possible for another language to function in ways that are not communicative, but still in contact with the native language, and to thereby retain a role in some sort of contact-oriented transfer. One example of this can be found in the history of English, when Latin grammar was taken as the model for grammatical rules in the 18th century. Although Latin was not used communicatively – indeed, it was, by this time, a dead language – it was used as a model of English grammar, and prescriptive rules for English, such as prohibition of the use of split infinitives or double-negative constructions, were borrowed into English from Latin. This was largely possible because Latin fulfilled non-communicative functions as a model of good grammar. Since these non-communicative functions are largely

Chapter 9

symbolic, we may think of this second type of contact as iconic language contact. Iconic language contact does not entail widespread bilingualism within a speech community and it is not uncommon for the influence of this type of language contact to go unnoticed.

Iconic language contact and the Englishization of Japanese In a survey of attitudes to the presence and the use of English in Japan, 66% of EFL teachers and 83% of students agreed that ‘Japanese are not good at (English) speaking and listening’ (Matsuura, Fujieda and Mahoney 2004, 480). This low assessment of English ability was made despite 74.6% of students and 62% of teachers agreeing with the statement that ‘if Japanese can master English, they can get better jobs’. In addition to the fact that the Japanese tend to assess their own English ability as poor, individual scholars point to a number of external assessments as evidence that Japanese learners – who, in general, have at least six years of English (EFL) education in secondary school – also have unusually low proficiency in English (see Scholefield 1997). For example, a number of individuals have pointed to the mean score of Japanese people taking the TOEFL Internet-based test which, according to data gathered from September 2005 to December 2006, is the lowest (65th out of 65) in Asia (Educational Testing Services 2007). Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine English proficiency in Japan, let alone methods of measuring proficiency or the reasons for it, it is important to note that there is a widespread belief that English proficiency in Japan is not very high, and that communication rarely takes place in English. While it is sometimes suggested that this is related to students’ motivation and anxiety (e.g. Brown, Robson and Rosenkjar 2001), it clearly does reinforce stereotypes that Japan is a monoethnic society and that the lack of bilingualism is indicative of the lack of ethnic or racial diversity. For example, in an often-quoted observation, Edwin Reischauer (1977, 384) notes:

The Japanese have always taken pride in the supposed native purity of their culture and especially its language, but in actuality the language

185

186

Englishization in Asia

ever since it was first committed to writing has been decidedly a bastard tongue like English. The type of mixing that Reischauer alludes to, however, is borrowing and requires that the lexical item be nativized to Japanese phonology, syntax or semantics. It is not the type of language-mixing that takes place between two highly proficient bilinguals in a language. The difference between the two types of language-mixing, borrowing versus code-switching, is suggested by John Maher’s (2005, 91) description of reactions to bilingual code-switching on a radio station:



When the author became a research consultant and occasional radio commentator for Tokyo’s first bilingual, aggressively code switching radio station called J-Wave in 1988, the network was sorting daily hate mail from members of the Tokyo Japanese public. ‘Children and young people will be corrupted by this bilingual “play”’ ran the criticism; ‘young people’s Japanese identity is still in formation and will be wounded, endangered by exposure to English’; ‘bilingualism among the young is unpatriotic’, and so on.

Although these responses are negative reactions to a style of radio broadcast that was, in fact, hugely popular, they do enunciate some of the stereotypes about the Japanese language and identity that in turn prohibit the types of language production that we see in communicative language contact. The connection between Japanese language and ethnic identity does not allow for this type and contact, and consequently the Englishization of Japanese speech does not take the form of code-switching or language hybridization. Therefore, instead of looking at communicative language contact as the dominant mode of contact – and the dominant source of Englishization – we should instead look at Englishization as it has resulted from iconic language contact. The most clearly identifiable form of Englishization that has taken place in Japanese is represented by the lexical transfer that has created a huge vocabulary of English loanwords in Japanese (see Hoffer and Honna 1988; Honna 1995; Kay 1989; Loveday 1990; McCreary 1990). Honna (1995) notes that 10% of Japanese vocabulary and 13% of the words used in daily conversation are borrowings. While borrowing may potentially

Chapter 9

take place from any language, Honna also notes that ‘60%–70% of new words in the annually revised dictionaries of neologisms are from English’ (ibid., 45). English loanwords in Japanese are nativized phonetically and morphologically according to Japanese structure, and many undergo semantic alteration in the process of borrowing so that they are used differently from their English etymons. The phenomenon of Japanese borrowings from English does not happen in spite of the typical six years of English study, but as a result of it. Honna (ibid., 59) comments on the relative lack of success that English education has had in raising English proficiency in Japan and argues that the educational system has instead served as a point of contact for lexical transfer:



The collective energy and time spent by more than 60 million Japanese who have to study English for six years is truly enormous, and it must have been useful for something. I propose that it has been used for facilitating the influx of English loans into Japanese.

Whereas communicative language contact may produce higher levels of English proficiency, or different types of contact phenomena, iconic language contact has produced the phenomenon of borrowing from English, and the structural changes that naturally follow from borrowing. For example, Kotera (1985), Nagata (1988) and Tsubaki (1987) have all discussed the borrowing of new phonemes or phonological processes (e.g. elision) that result from lexical borrowing. In addition, there have been a few studies of graphological influences upon Japanese from English (e.g. Saint-Jacques 1987; Twine 1984) largely as a result of lexical borrowing. Substantially less attention has been given to the Englishization of Japanese syntactic structures. The research on Japanese syntax is not reviewed in detail here [a short introduction can be found in Moody and Matsumoto (in press)], but, in brief, it has been proposed that there are three types of syntactic Englishization effects taking place within Japanese: •

Less ellipsis and more use of person-referring terms in Japanese (Alfonso 1966; Fujii 1988; Miura 1979)

•

Sentence as proposition rather than discourse turn (Tokoro 1986)

•

Passive with an extended semantic function, for example not restricted to adversative connotations in Japanese (Kachru 1994).

187

188

Englishization in Asia

These Englishization effects, however, are not widely attested within the literature on Japanese and English contact, and there is little consensus about the presence of such effects of Englishization on the grammar of Japanese.

Pop culture as a site for linguistic and cultural description Linguists have for some time been reluctant to use data from popular culture as evidence of sociolinguistic or linguistic phenomena within a society, primarily because the data do not represent spontaneous or natural speech. In recent years, however, there has been a trend to examine pop culture artefacts as the source of sociolinguistic statements about language. These have included sociolinguistic analyses of popular music (see Cutler, 1999; Lee 2006a; Pennycook 2003; Simpson, 1999) and television (see Lee, 2006b; Thornborrow and Morris, 2004). Approaches to the language of popular culture differ from traditional sociolinguistic approaches to language. Pop culture artefacts typically include innovative pronunciations, syntax or speech styles that are frequently exaggerated or stylized for artistic effect. The primary reason for this is that pop culture produces stylized products that are targeted for consumption by specific groups within a population. To this degree, pop culture does not necessarily reflect the language practices of a speech community, but rather represents the language practices that have marketable value within that community. Unlike traditional approaches to sociolinguistics, therefore, linguistic studies of pop culture do not attempt to identify the language practices or, in the case of non-native environments, the language abilities of a speech community. Sociolinguistic approaches to popular culture are instead important because they tell us something about the popular attitudes that certain groups in a society might share towards language in general, or towards specific types of linguistic performances. Pop culture is an especially suitable area for the examination of attitudes because highly desirable types of linguistic performance are modelled within popular culture. These might be highly salient features that are naturally undergoing a process of selection in longterm language change, such as the features of ‘Valley Girl’ speech (see

Chapter 9

Preston 2003) that were popularized in Frank Zappa’s 1982 song ‘Valley Girl’ (Zappa 1982). On the other hand, the features of pop culture speech might be highly marked as belonging to the speech of a particular group and their use is expanded as the musical genre grows and develops. This is the case with African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and the worldwide spread of hip-hop music (see Mitchell 2001). For both types of sociolinguistic data from pop culture, however, the speed at which language spreads through a pop culture community is what makes pop analyses of language especially appealing. Because pop culture can respond to relatively new trends, fashions or ways of thinking, it allows researchers to have very recent information about how language attitudes within the community are changing.

Englishization of Japanese language and pop culture Several important conclusions have been drawn within the analysis of English in Japanese popular culture, viz. •

Stanlaw (2000, 2004) and Moody (2000) note that English is an unmarked language in J-Pop and can be used to contribute expressively to songwriting.

•

Moody and Matsumoto (2003) argue that J-Pop artists can reduce the distance between English and Japanese by using code ambiguation as a bilingual strategy. When songs use code ambiguation, a message in English is transmitted simultaneously with the Japanese message. While this strategy of language play reduces the emotional distance between the two languages, it can also be used to obscure the ethnicity of the singer.

•

Moody (2006) observes the development of language entertainment as an emerging genre of television programmes and argues that it actively challenges many of the stereotypes that Japanese cannot use English communicatively.

The picture of Japanese pop culture and its relationship with English that emerges from these studies is quite different from what is suggested by the low proficiency and massive borrowing that results from iconic language contact. Instead, Japanese popular culture reinvents the ideal user of

189

190

Englishization in Asia

English as one that is equally able to express him/herself in English or Japanese, and English emerges in the pop culture as a defining feature of Japanese pop culture. To the degree that this reinvention is inconsistent with the ideology that Japanese alone should represent Japanese ethnic identity, and that English should only be used in intra-ethnic communication, the creative representation of Japanese identity portrayed in popular culture is both multilingual and multiethnic.

Soramimi as Englishization of Japanese language and culture Moody and Matsumoto (2003) identified one type of code ambiguation as a typical form of language play in J-Pop music. The effect of code ambiguation functions cognitively because the sound of a lexical expression in one language mimics the sound of an expression in another language. The following example from Moody (2001) illustrates a somewhat unsophisticated way in which code ambiguation may function: (1) So, Saint name, Saint name, Burning Love

oimotometeru



1000 Crazy Love 1000 sennen sennen ichigeki mune-ni abite from Go (2000) In the first line quoted in (1) above, the lyrics from the single’s lyrics sheet list the words ‘Saint name, Saint name’. The meaning of these words is not very apparent within the context of the song. There is nothing else in the song about saints – or even any religious imagery, except the use of the word ‘Hallelujah’ – and the expression itself is equally vague. Is it a formula to name a saint, where the individual’s name follows the title ‘Saint’? However, when listening to the song the line of lyrics is indistinguishable from the second line of lyrics in Japanese, ’sen nen sen nen’ ‘one thousand years, one thousand years’. The aural presentation of the song appears to begin each line with the same intelligible expression, ‘sen nen sen nen’. However, the lyric writers replace the first instance of this phrase with an English phrase that sounds very similar to the Japanese one. In this case, there is incongruity between what is sung and what is written in the lyric

Chapter 9

sheet. It may seem that the singer is singing a Japanese message, but by looking at the lyric sheet it appears that it is an English message. Because the decoding of the message may be in either Japanese or English, the message is ambiguous in terms of which code is used. The example of code ambiguation in (1) is relatively unsophisticated because the message encoded in English is nonsensical. Moody and Matsumoto (2003) point out a number of other uses of code ambiguation that require more sophisticated uses of English that sounds like Japanese. For example, code ambiguation employs English phrases that sound similar to Japanese expressions to obscure potentially lewd or obscene lyrics. Another use of code ambiguation is to obscure the ethnic identity of the singer. By choosing pronunciations of Japanese that are very much like an English speaker’s pronunciation of Japanese – at times even unintelligible to native Japanese speakers – the singers’ ethnic and linguistic background might be imagined to be more mixed than it in fact is. One possible source of code ambiguation is in the Japanese pop culture tradition of soramimi ‘empty ear’, and an understanding of soramimi can illustrate the possible role that Englishization of Japanese popular culture can take when communicative contact with English is minimal. Soramimi is the Japanese expression for when people think they have heard something, but it is typically used in Japanese popular culture to describe a mondegreen, or mistaken lyric.1 There are a number of examples of these mistaken lyrics within English popular music culture. For example, the lyrical phrase ‘excuse me while I kiss the sky’ from Jimi Hendrix’s classic rock song ‘Purple Haze’ (Hendrix 1967) has often been confused with ‘excuse me while I kiss this guy’. Soramimi, however, demonstrate the prevalence of English language popular culture artefacts within Japan, and how one type of artefact, pop music, has generated a Japanese-language genre of language play. The genre probably first developed in the 1970s when a number of English-language pop songs were on the radio at the same time as Japanese language J-Pop 1

The Oxford English Dictionary explains that the term ‘mondegreen’ was coined in 1954 by S Wright, who describes mistaking a lyrical phrase from the ballad ‘The Bonny Earl of Murray’, found in Percy’s Reliques. The phrase ‘laid him on the green’ was confused with ‘Lady Mondegreen’.

191

192

Englishization in Asia

songs were growing in popularity. Radio programmes would often host telephone ‘call-in’ shows where listeners were invited to contact the radio station and talk about the music they liked, dedicate songs to friends and discuss mistaken lyrics. Today mondegreens are also discussed on television and on the Internet (see ‘Soramimi Hour Update’ 2008). Examples in (2) and (3) below are from a single segment devoted to soramimi in the television programme Tamori Kulabu, ‘Tamori Club’. During the programme the host, Tamori, and his sidekick, Hajime Anzai, read the mondegreens sent to them by listeners and then play the lyrical phrase of the song that is mistaken to sound like a Japanese lyric. The mistaken Japanese lyrics are usually not nonsensical, unlike the code ambiguated lyrics in (1) above, but they are without a context in the song’s lyrics. The television programme plays part of the song and creates a context for the mondegreen in much the same way that a music video creates a context for a song. Throughout the bit of the song that is played, the English lyrics are broadcast as subtitles of the song. When the mondegreen is delivered, however, the mistaken Japanese lyrics are inserted instead and they work like the punchline of a joke. While it does not need to be the case, the soramimi are often somewhat lewd or lascivious in nature. The mondegreen in (2) below is inserted into the song by the Beatles, ‘I Want To Hold Your Hand’. The music video portrays a man with bulging eyes, an open mouth and an extended tongue in front of the camera. A policeman chases after the man by following a wet trail along the road. When the policeman finally catches up with the man, water can be seen shooting randomly throughout the picture and seems to be originating from the man’s waist as he dances about with the same crazed look on his face. The mondegreen appears on screen in place of the actual lyric ‘I want to hold your hand’: (2) a



Tell you something

I think you’ll understand

b Then I’ll say that something



aho-na hounyou han



crazy urinating criminal

The mondegreen evokes a hilarious response from the two hosts and five other guests who have joined him to watch the soramimi videos, and all

Chapter 9

seven individuals continue to sing the song’s chorus, ‘I want to hold your hand’. Similarly, the example in (3) below is built around the Carpenters’ hit ‘Sing, Sing a Song’. This well-known song includes a short section in which a children’s choir sings the chorus. During this section, and a few lines before, an older man named Mr Shiga is seen crossing out the day in his pocket calendar, with only one day left before his retirement. In the next scene, however, he is walking through a residential neighbourhood, presumably on his way home, when he finds some women’s underwear in a bush in front of a house. As Mr Shiga picks it up, a policeman appears to take him away. The next scene begins with the children’s chorus singing and office workers give Mr Shiga a bouquet of flowers. Everyone looks confused as he begins to cry. He cries even more when a co-worker comes in and gives him an official document with the word 解雇 kaiko (fired) written across the top. In the citation of the soramimi below, the original English lyrics are included in parentheses above the mistaken lyrics. (3) a

… good enough for anyone else to hear



b

Just sing, sing a song.



c

[CHORUS] La La La …



d Sing, (sing a song)



Shiga-san



Mr Shiga



e (Let the world sing along)



naitawa

Shiga-naa



cried?

Hey, Shiga.



f (Sing of what there could be)



Shiga

nande

kubi



Shiga, why were you fired?

193

194

Englishization in Asia

After viewing the soramimi, a group of five additional guests discuss with Tamori and Hajime Anzai how easy it is to confuse the English spoken words with the Japanese subtitles. While soramimi tell us very little about the use of English in Japanese society, or about the proficiency levels of Japanese English speakers, they do identify an early and important cultural source of code ambiguation as a cultural practice. However, the fact that this type of cultural practice arises from language contact is not easily identifiable. The soramimi appear to glorify the inability to understand English lyrics, but they also reduce the cultural distance between English pop music and Japanese popular culture, allowing an easier exchange of cultural and linguistic forms, genres and practices between the two languages.

Demographic changes in Japanese society and the Englishization of culture Although it may seem that the Englishization of popular culture is creating a fantasized image of a multilingual and multicultural Japanese society, there is good reason to suspect that the pop image is less a fantasy than an inevitability. In this section, I discuss some of the demographic changes in Japan and how they are imaginatively reflected in various forms of popular culture artefacts. Overall, these imaginative reflections challenge older ideologies of race and language in Japanese society: namely, the ideology that the Japanese language is the necessary and sufficient defining feature of the Japanese race.2 However, Maher (2005) argues that the recent trend 2 The strong version of the ethnicity/language equivalence ideology is given its clearest expression within the study of Nihonjinron, ‘the study of Japanese people’. Lie (2001, 185) explains:

Nihonjinron writers have often identified the Japanese language as the basis of Japanese uniqueness. Roy Miller (1982, 32) calls it the ‘major sustaining myth of Japanese society’. Like most Nihonjinron arguments, however, much of the evidence for the uniqueness of the Japanese language turns out to be absurd, banal, fanciful, wrong or mystical.

Although there are less extreme versions of the Nihonjinron ideology – versions that do not attempt to scientifically prove the uniqueness of Japanese speakers – the tendency to use language as the central defining feature of Japanese social identity is widespread (Miller 1977, 1982).

Chapter 9

of ‘metroethnicity’ is dominant within Japanese culture, although his concern is with the ethnic minorities (such as Ainu, Okinawans or Zainichi ‘ethnic Koreans’). About the relationship between metroethnicity and linguistic expression of identity, Maher (pp. 88–89) says:

… Japanese and minority alike, are eager to embrace multiculturality, cultural/ethnic tolerance and multicultural lifestyle, especially when it comes to friendships, music and the arts, eating and dress. It is a kind of post ethnicity state whereby both Japanese and ethnic minorities ‘play’ with ethnicity (not necessarily their own) for aesthetic effect. It involves a cultural crossing, self-definition made up of borrowing and do-it-yourself, a sfumato of blurred ‘identities’, what one might term Metroethnicity. The operating system of this Metroethnicity is Cool.

Although Maher focuses on the functioning of metroethnicity within Japan’s ethnic minority communities, he notes that the trend may be found throughout Japan, regardless of ethnicity. Even though the trend of ‘play’ with ethnicity may be a relatively new one among young people in Japan, it is not a new feature of J-Pop music or musicians’ behaviour, or among other actors in Japanese popular culture. However, Japan’s demographics have changed in recent years in such a way that these types of play are more fashionable and can be found among individuals other than tarento ‘talent’ (celebrities). Maher identifies ‘cool’ as the operative motivation in metroethnicity, and it seems that popular culture has given ethnic crossing much of its status as ‘cool’. The interaction of popular culture with very real changes in Japanese social structure and demography, therefore, has produced a more widespread change in attitudes and behaviour among young, urban Japanese.

Returnees in Japanese society and popular culture A number of scholars have noted the effect that ‘returnees’ have had on the Japanese educational system (e.g. Kanno 2000; Macdonald and Kowatari 1995; Yashiro 1995). Kikoku shijo (returnee) is the group of Japanese students who, after spending at least a year of school abroad – usually because the students’ families are working overseas for a limited period of time – return to Japan and re-enrol in school. Although the number of returnees was quite low in the 1960s and 1970s, the numbers increased

195

196

Englishization in Asia

dramatically throughout the 1980s to reach a high of 13,313 returnees in 1990 (MEXT 2005). The number has shrunk somewhat since then (perhaps because slower economic growth from 1995 has led fewer families to work abroad) to 10,298 returnees in 2003 (ibid.).3 More important, the phenomenon of returnees has been discussed in the popular media (see French 2000; Twaronite 1996). The most influential effect of returnees has been the modification of the secondary and tertiary entrance examination systems to accommodate these students, who typically don’t perform well on the tests, with a number of entrance spaces designated for them. From the point of view of ethnic identity and the changes to identity that have followed from demographic changes, a number of writers suggest that returnees have frequently not been seen as ‘fully acculturated’ to Japanese culture, and somewhat ambiguous ethnically. For example, in an interview for The Chicago Tribune in 1990, Rika Maranaka, who moved to Chicago at age 11 and lived in the USA until she was 24, says about Japanese employers that ‘they look at my background in Chicago and then they look at me and they say, “Mo Nihonjin ja nai”, (“You are no longer Japanese”) … Then I usually don’t get hired’ (Yates 1990). This kind of response, reported by a number of returnees as typical, is a challenge to ethnic identity in that it treats individuals with international experience as outsiders. White (1988, 106) explains this, as follows:



3

When Japanese leave Japan, their membership is suspended. Every year they are away, reentry as members of the group – reestablishment of relationships to the satisfaction of those at home – becomes more difficult. It is particularly difficult if after reentry they betray their exposure to foreign ways, which reminds others of the severing of bonds. Reentry raises questions of identity that can be silenced only by strict conformity and virtual denial of the foreign experience.

The decline in the number of returnees follows a general decline in school enrolments in elementary and lower and upper secondary schools. Elementary school enrolments have declined from their 1981 peak of 11,925,000 students to 7,201,000 in 2004. In 1981 elementary returnees would have made up approximately 0.04% of elementary students, but in 2004 it was 0.08% (MEXT 2005). Therefore, despite the apparent decline in the number of returnees, they have been increasing proportionally as a group of all students.

Chapter 9

Therefore, although the returnee experience is becoming more common within Japan, it nevertheless represents a challenge to conceptions of identity that do not allow for foreign experience. The fact that 73% of the 570,000 Japanese living in Western countries were living in either North America, Australia or New Zealand (see Figure 9.1 below) suggests that cultural Englishization is a likely result of the returnee experience. Returnees represent a ‘safe’ type of Englishization of culture in that they are, for the most part, not racially different from their classmates who don’t have overseas experience. They are an invisible population that is able to blend into the non-returnee population without much difficulty. ������ ����� ������� �����

����� ������� ������ ��������� � ��� �������

������� ����� Figure 9.1 Japanese in Western countries in 2002 (Maciamo 2005b)

Within popular culture, however, the returnee experience has been reimagined as a ‘cool’ experience that is largely portrayed as edifying of Japanese society. For example, in 2001, the third year of the children’s animated television show Motto Ojamajou Doremi, the producers decided to add a fifth child to the ensemble cast. The newest member of the show, Momoko Asuka, was a returnee and demonstrated sometimes halting Japanese language abilities. This, however, did not prevent her from becoming an active and contributing member of the group within the show. Similarly, popular culture has placed a high value on New York-born Hikaru Utada’s returnee status within the highly competitive J-Pop market. For many, she represents the energy and innovation that returnees offer. Perhaps the most well-known returnee in Japanese society, however, is the Crown Princess Masako, who was born as Masako Owada. The Crown Princess lived in Moscow before starting elementary school in Japan, and

197

198

Englishization in Asia

finished her secondary and tertiary education in the United States. These images of returnees in Japanese popular culture are usually associated with positive evaluations of the returnee experience, although there is still much about the experience that is considered to be negative. The popular image of returnees, therefore, presents an alternate discourse about the returnee experience and attempts to incorporate the ethnic challenges that returnees represent into the mainstream of Japanese life.

International marriage and children of mixed race in Japanese society and popular culture Curtin (2002) notes that there has been a 650% increase in the number of ‘international marriages’ – that is, where one member of the union is not a Japanese citizen – in Japan from 1970 to 2000, and that the birthrate in international marriages in 2000 was 2.9, somewhat higher than average. Curtin concludes that ‘if international marriages keep increasing and birthrates for such unions remain high, then the demographics should ensure that Japan will become a more multi-ethnic society in the future’. Since 2000, the number of international marriages has dropped slightly from 36,263 to 36,039 in 2003, but as a proportion of the total number of marriages in Japan, international marriages have increased from 4.5% to 4.9%. However, the vast majority of international marriages are between Japanese men and Asian women (Yasumoto-Nicolson 2005) and do not represent a strong source of Englishization influences in Japanese culture. However, within Japanese popular culture, the phenomenon of racial diversity is highlighted by the highly visible children of mixed race from international marriages between Japanese and non-Asians. Although this group is a relatively small proportion of international marriages, it tends to dominate within portrayals of international marriage in popular culture. Likewise, the children of this sub-group of international marriage are often called haafu (half) and are well represented in Japanese popular culture. For example, some of the best-known Japanese/Western couples in Japanese culture are actor Kumiko Gotoh and her F1 driver boyfriend Jean Alesi, or the actor couple Kiyoshi and Helen Nishikawa. Of course, the couple that is probably best known both within and outside Japan is Yoko Ono and John Lennon. Children of mixed race are also easy to find within popular culture

Chapter 9

generally, and especially in J-Pop music. Kaera Kimura, Anna Umemiya and Meisa Kuroki are all popular models who are of mixed race, and the hugely popular J-Pop stars Namie Amuro and Crystal Kay (Williams) are also both of mixed race. Although these international marriages and their children are not a common phenomenon in Japanese society, they do represent a highly visible group; and to this extent, therefore, they promote images of an increasingly multiethnic Japan that is not nearly so visible outside of popular culture.

Resident aliens and naturalized citizens in Japanese society and popular culture Although resident aliens make up a relatively small proportion of Japan’s population, they have been on the increase in recent years, and the number of naturalized citizens has also increased dramatically. In 2003 there were 1,915,030 registered aliens living in Japan, but those from English-speaking countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) made up only 93,500 (4.9%) of their total number (Maciamo 2005a). While one would not expect that this group would be likely to have a significant effect on the Englishization of language or culture in Japan, it is highly represented among the tarento in Japanese popular culture. These include Dave Spector, Bob Sapp, Patrick Harlan, Kent Derricott and JERO (aka Jerome Charles White, Jr) and many many more from the United States. In addition to Western tarento from the USA, C W Nicol from England and Robert Baldwin from Canada are also widely known English-speaking celebrities. The large number of English-speaking celebrities from the USA is to be somewhat expected because resident aliens from there make up about half of those from English-speaking countries. They are not, however, representative of resident aliens, 74% of whom come from Asia (Maciamo 2005b). The image of resident aliens presented in popular culture is somewhat different from the actual demographics of resident aliens in Japan: most appear to be Westerners, though Asian resident aliens are much greater in number. The effect of this is that, within popular culture, the attitudes that are cultivated in favour of a resident alien population are highly ‘Englishized’ in the sense that the primary stereotype of a resident

199

200

Englishization in Asia

alien that is portrayed within the media is an image of an English-speaking resident. Also, the Englishization of stereotypes about resident aliens results not from actual communicative language contact; in order to be an English-speaking tarento one must be a fluent speaker of Japanese. Instead, Englishization takes place through iconic language contact. This opposition to the actual demographic changes which are currently underway in Japanese society borrows essentially positive attitudes towards Englishized portrayals of resident aliens – namely, the notion that Western celebrities are ‘cool’ – and allows this attitude to extend to all resident aliens. This is an important step in the process of acceptance of immigration that must take place in the coming years in Japan, and which already has led to the naturalization of 400,000 foreign-born Japanese citizens. Caryl and Kashiwagi (2006, 23) explain:



For mostly economic reasons, Japan must open itself to other ethnicities. Japan’s population is not only aging rapidly, but starting to decline. By the year 2050, it is expected to fall from 128 million now to around 105 million. To keep the economy viable, experts say, the country must let in more immigrants – not just guest workers, but foreign-born naturalized citizens. A government panel acknowledged that in a report this summer, while at the same time recommending that the foreign percentage of the total population not exceed 3 percent, roughly double what it is now.

In 2000, Japan ranked 19th out of 20 nations for the per capita number of new citizenships granted, roughly 118 per million people (NationMaster 2006). This, will, however, need to change in the future (as the number of citizenships is already up dramatically from previous years) and it appears that positive attitudes toward this change are already a part of popular culture.

Conclusions The Englishization of Japanese language and culture is an important part of the development of Japanese popular culture, and it develops from language (and cultural) contact. However, it is useful to recognize two different types of language contact: communicative language contact and

Chapter 9

iconic language contact. Whereas the former produces the types of language variation that have come to characterize the study of New Englishes or World Englishes, the latter produces Englishization within the native language. Therefore, the effects of iconic language contact have been to produce an Englishization of both the Japanese language and Japanese culture. Indeed, these Englishization effects have been observed in both the language and the styles of popular culture. Mondegreens, which are known as ‘soramimi’ in Japanese, illustrate the effect of Englishization within iconic language contact: language-mixing (i.e. code-switching) does not occur, but code ambiguation allows a Japanese text to emerge independent from the English text. In this way, the English text is marginalized as a cultural artefact; it only has value to the degree that it can be reinterpreted as meaningful in Japanese. While an early and still popular artefact of Englishization is a parody of Western, and especially English, pop culture, Japanese pop culture has emerged as one of the world’s most economically advanced and powerful popular cultures (Powers and Kato 1989). But the Englishization of Japanese popular culture does not simply mimic the popular culture of English-speaking countries. Instead, it cultivates and applies attitudes from popular culture towards actual changes that are taking place in Japanese society. Each year Japan is becoming more multicultural, and ethnicity becomes more difficult to describe as monoethnic. Three demographic influences in particular – returnees, international marriage/children of mixed race and an increase in the number of resident aliens and naturalized citizens – are likely to have an important effect on the type of language contact in Japan. Each of these demographic influences should promote communicative language contact (such as the type that results from bilingualism and multiculturalism) instead of iconic language contact. If indeed these demographic changes do continue to occur within Japan and English begins to be used in ways that are more similar to communicative language contact, it is likely that we will first see the effects of a nativized variety of English in popular culture artefacts. For the time being, however, Englishization of Japanese appears to be the dominant effect of language and cultural contact.

201

202

Englishization in Asia

References Alfonso, A (1966) Japanese Language Patterns: A Structural Approach, Tokyo: Sofia University Press. Brown, J D, Robson, G and Rosenkjar, P R (2001) ‘Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies, and language proficiency of Japanese students’ in Dornyei, Z and Schmidt, R (eds) Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 361–98. Caryl, C and Kashiwagi, A (2006) ‘This is the new Japan: Immigrants are transforming a once insular society, and more of them are on their way’, Newsweek, 11 September, 22–25. Curtin, J S (2002) ‘On international marriages in Japan’, Glocom Platform: Japanese Institute of Global Communications, http://www.glocom.org/ debates/200203_curtin_inter/index.html. Cutler, C A (1999) ‘Yorkville crossing: White teens, hip hop and African American English’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(4): 428–44. Dowd, N L and Kujiraoka, A (2002) ‘English in Japanese pop music: Analyses and perceptions’, Higashi Nihon Kokusai Daigaku Kenkyuu Kiyou (Higashi Nippon International University Research Bulletin), 7:11–28. Educational Testing Service (2007) Test and Score Data Summary for TOEFL Internet-based Test, Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. French, H W (2000) ‘Japan unsettles returnees, who yearn to leave again’, The New York Times, 3 May, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res =9903E6DF1139F930A35756C0A9669C8B63. Fujie, L (1989) ‘Popular music’ in Powers, R G and Kato, H (eds) Handbook of Japanese Popular Culture, New York: Greenwood Press, 197–220. Fujii, N (1988) ‘Factors which influence the explicit/implicit manifestation of subjects’ in Lowenberg, P H (ed.) Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case Studies, 1987 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 112–37.

Chapter 9

Go, H (2000) ‘Hallelujah, Burning Love’, CD single, Sony (Japan) 4684. Hendrix, J (1967) ‘Purple Haze’, on ‘Are You Experienced’, CD, Experience Hendrix B000002P5Y. Hoffer, B L and Honna, N (1988) ‘The influx of English into the Japanese language’, Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 8(2): 15–33. Honna, N (1995) ‘English in Japanese society: Language within language’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16(1/2): 45–62. Kachru, B B (1986) The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-native Englishes, English in the Global Context Series, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, B B (1994) ‘Englishization and contact linguistics’, World Englishes, 13(2): 135–54. Kanno, Y (2000) ‘Bilingualism and identity: The stories of Japanese returnees’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 3(1): 1–18. Kay, G S (1989) ‘Gairaigo revisited’, English Today, 5(3): 32–35. Kotera, S (1985) ‘Elision in loanwords adopted from English’, The Bulletin of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 178:3–6. Lee, J S (2006a) ‘Crossing and Crossers in East Asian pop music: Korea and Japan’, World Englishes, 25(2): 235–50. Lee, J S (2006b) ‘Linguistic constructions of modernity: Korean-English mixing in TV commercials’, Language in Society, 35(1): 59–91. Lie, J (2001) Multi-ethnic Japan, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Loveday, L (1990) ‘Lexical transfer as Westernization? The sociocultural semantics of contemporary Japanese loanwords’, Doshisha Studies in English, 51:168–89. Macdonald, G and Kowatari, A (1995) ‘A non-Japanese Japanese: On being a returnee’ in Maher, J C and Yashiro, K (eds) Diversity in Japanese Culture and Language, London: Kegan Paul, 249–69.

203

204

Englishization in Asia

Maciamo (2005a) ‘Foreigners in Japan’, Japan Reference, http://www.jref. com/society/foreigners_in_japan.shtml. Maciamo (2005b) ‘Japanese citizens living abroad’, Japan Reference, http:// www.jref.com/society/Japanese_living_abroad.shtml. Maher, J C (2005) ‘Metroethnicity, language, and the principle of Cool’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 175/176:83–102. Matsui, A (2003) ‘Attitudes toward English in Japan through J-Pop’, Gengo Bunka (Language and Culture), 11:140–49. Matsuura H, Fujieda, M and Mahoney, S (2004) ‘The officialization of English and ELT in Japan: 2000’, World Englishes, 23(3): 471–87. McCreary, D R (1990) ‘Loan words in Japanese’, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 1:61–69. MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology – Japan) (2005) School Education, http://www.mext.go.jp/english/ statist/05101901/005.pdf. Miller, R A (1977) The Japanese Language in Contemporary Japan: Some Sociolinguistic Observations, Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Miller, R A (1982) Japan’s Modern Myth: The Language and Beyond, New York: Weather Hill. Mitchell, T (ed.) (2001) Global Noise: Rap and Hip-Hop Outside the USA, Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press. Miura, A (1979) ‘The influence of English on Japanese grammar’, Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese, 14:3–30. Moody, A J (2000) ‘Beyond “shooby-dooby-doo-wah”: An examination of English lyrics in Japanese pop music’, Gengo Bunka (Language and Culture), 8:1–8. Moody, A J (2001) ‘J-Pop English: Or, how to write a Japanese pop song’, Gengo Komyunikeeshon Kenkyuu (Language Communication Studies), 1:96– 107.

Chapter 9

Moody, A (2006) ‘English in Japanese popular culture and J-Pop music’, World Englishes, 25(2): 209–22. Moody, A and Matsumoto, Y (2003) ‘“Don’t touch my moustache”: Language blending and code ambiguation by two J-Pop artists’, Asian Englishes, 6(1): 4–33. Moody, A and Matsumoto, Y (in press) ‘Englishization of the Japanese passive construction’ in Ishiguro, T and Luke, K K (eds) Grammar in Crosslinguistic Perspective: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Japanese, Chinese and English, Bern: Peter Lang. Nagata, T (1988) ‘The settlement of phonemes of foreign origin and people’s attitude toward them’, Sophia Linguistica, 23/24:307–15. NationMaster (2006) ‘Immigration statistics > new citizenships (per capita) by country’, NationMaster.com, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_ new_cit_percap-immigration-new-citizenships-per-capita. Pennycook, A (2003) ‘Global Englishes, Rip Slyme, and performativity’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4): 513–33. Powers, R G and Kato, H (eds) (1989) Handbook of Japanese Popular Culture, New York: Greenwood Press. Preston, D R (2003) ‘Presidential address: Where are the dialects of American English at anyhow?’, American Speech, 78(3): 235–54. Reischauer, E O (1977) The Japanese Today: Change and Continuity, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Saint-Jacques, B (1987) ‘The Roman alphabet in the Japanese writing system’, Visible Language, 21(1): 88–105. Scholefield, W (1997) ‘The teaching and learning of English in Japan since 1945: An overview’, Babel, 32(1): 16–20, 37–38. Simpson, P (1999) ‘Language, culture and identity: With (another) look at accents in pop and rock singing’, Multilingua, 18:343–67. Soramimi Awaa Appudeeto (Soramimi Hour Update) (2008), http://www7a. biglobe.ne.jp/~soramimiupdate.

205

206

Englishization in Asia

Stanlaw, J (2000) ‘Open your file, open your mind: Women, English, and changing roles and voices in Japanese pop music’ in Craig, T J (ed.) Japan Pop!: Inside the World of Japanese Popular Culture, Armonk, NY: M E Sharpe, 75–100. Stanlaw, J (2004) Japanese English: Language and Culture Contact, Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Thornborrow, J and Morris, D (2004) ‘Gossip as strategy: The management of talk about others on reality TV show “Big Brother”’, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(2): 246–71. Tokoro, K (1986) Nihongo: Shikou to retorikku (Japanese: Thought and rhetoric), Tokyo: Takumi Shuppan. Tsubaki, N (1987) ‘On some quasi-Japanese sounds’, The Bulletin of the Phonetic Society of Japan, 186:29–32. Twaronite, L (1996) ‘Some Japanese remain abroad to gain ‘returnee’ status’, International Herald Tribune, 13 February, http://www.iht.com/ articles/1996/02/13/return.t.php. Twine, N (1984) ‘The adoption of punctuation in Japanese script’, Visible Language, 18(3): 229–37. White, M (1988) The Japanese Overseas: Can They Go Home Again?, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Yashiro, K (1995) ‘Japan’s returnees’, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 16(1/2): 139–64. Yasumoto-Nicolson, K (2005) ‘International marriage still means Japanese man and Asian woman’ in What Japan Thinks, http://whatjapanthinks. com/2005/11/29/international-marriage-still-means-japanese-man-andasian-woman. Yates, R (1990) ‘Japan’s ‘returnees’ face rejection, find that coming home isn’t easy’ in EyesOnJapan.com, 23 September, http://www.davidap.com/ japn/jp40.htm: reprinted from The Chicago Tribune. Zappa, F (1982) ‘Valley Girl’ on ‘Ship Arriving Too Late To Save a Drowning Witch’, CD, RKODisc USA 10537.

10

Englishization with an attitude: Cantonese-English lyrics in Hong Kong Angel M Y Lin

Hip-hop in Hong Kong has been known to both Hong Kong and other audiences mainly through the local band LMF (LazyMuthaFuckaz), which started in the mid-1990s and was disbanded in 2003. In recent years, the local hip-hop scene has been less animated than in the days of LMF. However, the Fama, a 2-emcee hip-hop group formed by MC Six-Wing and MC C-Kwan in 2000, which in 2002 came under the tutorage of DJ Tommy and joined his music production company (DJ Tommy is a former LMF member, the DJ in LMF), has strived to keep hip-hop music alive in the Hong Kong music scene. It is by far the most popular local hip-hop group since LMF and has enjoyed a certain degree of commercial success. LMF rocked the local music and media scene by being the first local band to put slang into its lyrics in publicly released albums and live performances, and by adopting a strongly resistant, defiant, social- and media-critique stance (see Ma, 2001, 2002a, 2002b). LMF’s lyrics are largely in Cantonese, and when English is used, it is mainly crude English slang, e.g. ‘Do you know what the fuck I’m saying?!’ LMF’s sociolinguistic positioning can be said to be mostly that of the Hong Kong Cantonese working-class youth: the speaking style projects a powerful, defiant, angry, workingclass Cantonese youth image, with lots of ‘rage’, called ‘fo’ (which literally means ‘fire’) in Cantonese. Fama, however, has its own distinct style. From the outset, it seemed to want to rectify the common notion in Hong Kong – largely due to LMF’s influence – that hip-hop music must be related to slang or an ‘angry young man’ image: as Li (2006) pointed out in her study of hip-hop music in Hong Kong, Fama appeared to want to correct Hong Kong people’s ‘misconceptions’ about hip-hop music. In one of its songs, called ‘FAMA

208

Englishization in Asia

Praise’, the band rapped in the lyrics about these misconceptions (English translations are given in pointed brackets < > after the Cantonese lyrics): 要你條頭巾 包勻全身 唔駛審你九成扮拉登 仲要係Hip Hop 嗰隻 我哋邊一樹有野講 (Lyrics and translations from Li 2006, 51) In these lines, Fama seems to be aiming to disassociate itself from the hiphop image sometimes projected by MC Yan (a former LMF rapper and lyricist), who aligns himself with the Muslim cause and writes conscious raps that criticize the Bush government (e.g. in his song, ‘War Crimes’; see also Figure 10.1).

Figure 10.1 MC Yan in his kaffiya (headwear) and anti-WTO (World Trade Organization) T-shirt

In another verse of ‘FAMA Praise’, the band rapped about how its own style is different from the commonly held view that hip-hop in Hong Kong is about profane language (mainly as a result of LMF’s style in the late 1990s and early 2000s):

Chapter 10

三百萬個唔正常唔聽廣東說唱 (referring to Canto-rap in the text) 佢哋以為Hip Hop 就係粗口 點知聽到農夫幾首先至發覺 等一等 咦 有啲野諗 等 幾千萬個押韻從我口 (Lyrics and translation from Li 2006, 51) Although Fama’s two emcees want to correct people’s ‘misconception’ that hip-hop music must involve profane language or angry words, they do have an attitude of their own. For instance, they readily identify themselves as hip-hop artists who are more into fun-making than idol-making. In their lyrics they say they are more like ‘siu-jeuhng’ (fun-making masters) than ‘auh-jeuhng’ (idols). They also jeer at those ‘pretend-to-be hip-hop’ artists who know little about hip-hop music but only get themselves dressed up in hip-hop style clothes. In one of their songs they also critique the selfseeking, rude, pushy public manners of many Hong Kong people – for example, that they seldom greet strangers and fight to get seats on public transport. Fama thus represents the development of a new stance and attitude in Hong Kong’s local hip-hop music scene. In many ways, unlike LMF, they seem to enjoy having fun and making jokes, while also putting forward some social and media critique; and all the time they stress their genuine friendship with their music fans, and address the loneliness of many Hong Kong adolescents (called ‘yan-bai ching-nihn’ – ‘hidden youth’). In short, they present themselves as genuine, caring friends of youths in Hong Kong, especially those who are struggling at school and don’t know how to express themselves. In the analysis of the Englishization of their lyrics in the following sections, I discuss how Fama crafts a comfortable Cantonese-English bilingual lyrical style along with a comfortable Hong Kong Cantonese-English bilingual

209

210

Englishization in Asia

identity – which also stands in contrast to LMF’s mainly Cantonese lyrical style. Fama is funny, humorous and thoughtful; the Fama emcees do not present an angry, defiant, or working-class image; nor are they anti-middleclass or anti-English (in Hong Kong, the middle-class is usually Englishconversant whereas the working-class is usually limited in its Englishlanguage competence). Fama, in brief, projects the image of what many school adolescents seem to aspire to: being well-educated, thoughtful, humorous, intelligent, bilingual and fond of verbal play. The members of the band are not particularly good-looking and not particularly rich, but they do come across as caring, sincere and approachable friends of Hong Kong’s young people, and perhaps as ‘near-age’, and ‘near-peer’ role models. They just look, and sound, like the ‘next-door (school) boy’ (see Figures 10.2 and 10.3) and, in their lyrics, they do seem to want to come across as sincere and close friends (like ‘elder brothers’) to many school adolescents.

Figure 10.2 Fama’s 2 emcees: Six-wing and C-kwan

Chapter 10

Figure 10.3 Fama performing at TVB’s Live House Concert (local pay-TV music channel)

Crafting an Englishized art-name for a CantoneseEnglish bilingual identity of the two emcees Fama’s two emcees draw on Cantonese-English bilingual resources in both their lyrics and in the art-names that they have crafted for themselves. MC Six-wing (or ‘6-wing’, ‘Six-wing’) is the art-name of Luhk Wihng-Kyuhn (his real name in Cantonese). In Hong Kong, many young people have pet names or nicknames which are formed by playing on the bilingual features of their names, and Six-wing represents an example of this common cultural practice. The Cantonese word ‘Luhk’ (the family name of MC 6-wing) sounds the same as the word for number ‘six’ in Cantonese, and so MC 6/Six-wing has formed his English art-name by this process. In his lyrics, he raps his name proudly in this bilingual way. (Again English translations are given in pointed brackets < > after the Cantonese characters; and the original English lyrics are in bold type):

211

212

Englishization in Asia



Example 1



俾支筆我寫歌詞



我寫左幾萬字



俾支咪我 Rap 我好寫意! 我叫做 S-I-X-W-I-N-G, S-I-X-W-I-N-G, Sing!



(From the song: ‘456-wing’)

One has to listen to the way he raps his name to notice the Englishized Cantonese verbal play that MC 6-wing has mobilized to form his English name in a fun, innovative, bilingual way. When he raps the English letters for his name in the song, ‘456-wing’, which is basically a song about himself, he raps it in a characteristically Cantonese intonation, with the tones of the English letters of his name as follows:

S6-I6-X1-W1-I2-N6-G1

Cantonese has six commonly used tones (marked 1–6) and each syllable must be marked with a tone as tones are morphemically differentiating. (Cantonese morphemes are mostly monosyllabic, and the same syllable spoken in different tones constitutes different morphemes.) By rapping the spelling of his ‘English’ name (Six-wing) in a Cantonese tonal way, he has crafted his bilingual identity in an innovative manner: in its segmental features, it is an English name, but in its suprasegmental features (tones and intonation) it sounds like a Cantonese name. Such clever CantoneseEnglish linguistic hybridity seems to be a feature of most of Fama’s lyrics in their 2006 album, ‘Music Tycoons’ (Yam-ngohk Daaih-hang). MC C-gwan (Si-gwan)1 has a similarly interesting bilingual art name. His real name is Chehng Si-gwan. Since the Cantonese word ‘Si’ sounds like the English letter ‘C’ and ‘gwan’ is a polite address term (like the English address term, ‘Mr/Ms’), C-gwan has been used commonly in Hong Kong to mean ‘Mr/Ms C’, along with ‘A-gwan’ (Mr/Ms A), ‘B-gwan’ (Mr/Ms B), for referring to someone anonymously in a polite way. In a sense, by forming his art name in this way, C-gwan seems to also imply some self-irony or 1

C-kwan is the name used in the public media. In this paper, I also use C-gwan to be consistent with the Yale transcription system for transcribing Cantonese.

Chapter 10

modesty: that he is just a ‘Mr C’, some anonymous nobody in this world. And when he raps it in his song, ‘ABC-gwan’ (which is essentially a song about himself), he has blended English into Cantonese almost seamlessly:

Example 2



OK 各位觀眾 我想問ABC 之後係個咩字呀？ (君!) 冇錯　咁我地大家一齊講一次「ABC君EFG」



Come on 人人開開心心　個個興興奮奮 跟我講下英文ABC君

In Example 2 above, we can see that MC C-gwan blends English words and letters into his Cantonese lyrics which evolve around wordplay on his bilingual name: ‘C-gwan’. Also, instead of calling upon his audience to rap A-B-C-D-E-F-G (the normal English alphabetic order), he inserts his own name smoothly into this English alphabetic verse in the English alphabet song, which is familiar to many students in Hong Kong. The result is a clever bilingual wordplay that many Hong Kong students can readily recognize and enjoy.

Drawing on resources from three language varieties (Cantonese, English, Putonghua) to facilitate rhyming Code-mixing and code-switching enhance the poetic resources available to the lyricist and facilitate rhyming in the verses. Fama has frequently mixed English letters, words or phrases into its Cantonese ‘matrix’ to enhance both internal and sentence-final rhymes. For instance, in the following example, the English word ‘seat’ is used to rhyme with the final Cantonese word ‘鐵’ (‘tit’ in Yale transcription) in the previous line.

213

214

Englishization in Asia



Example 3: The rhyming words are italicized, and their phonetic transcription in the Yale system is given in round brackets ( ):



你楂保時捷 (jit)　我司機楂地鐵 (tit) 你坐兩個人　我有二百個seat



(from the song ‘The Whole City Rejoices’)

In the next example, to enhance the rhyming resources in their lyrics, the emcees also draw on Putonghua (PTH), the spoken form of Mandarin Chinese, the standard spoken language of China. PTH is not a language spoken by most Hong Kong people as their native tongue – they mainly speak Cantonese as their L1 – but it has grown in importance as a political language in Hong Kong since its return to China in 1997.

Example 4: The rhyming bi-syllabic words are italicized and their phonetic transcription given in round brackets ( ):



別人笑我訓街邊 (gaai-bin) 我比他人更開心 (kai xin) {spoken in PTH}

The Cantonese word ‘gaai-bin’, meaning ‘street-side’, rhymes with the PTH-pronounced word ‘Kai xin’, which means ‘happy’. When this line is rapped, the word meaning ‘happy’ is pronounced in PTH to make it rhyme with ‘gaai-bin’, which would not be the case in Cantonese where ‘happy’ is pronounced as ‘hoi-sam’. By doing this verbal play with three languages, the rhyming resources are enhanced. This works because Fama’s audience consists mainly of Hong Kong students and young adults who have been exposed to both English and PTH education in school and so are able to decode and recognize the rhyming fun of the trilingual lyrics.

Inserting English words with discourse marking functions Sometimes, English words are inserted into an otherwise Cantonese ‘matrix’ to serve discourse marking functions. For instance, in the following example, the insertion of the English words not only serves rhyming

Chapter 10

purposes (all the words rhyme: Go, no, oh, so, no), but also marks out the transitions of the different units in the stanza. The English words also serve as attention-getters: that is, the sudden switch to English in the otherwise largely Cantonese lyrics helps to draw the audience’s attention to what is to follow; they help to demarcate and highlight boundaries of idea units.

Example 5: The English words serving as discourse markers are in bold.



GO! 大大步走上前大大步



走屬於你自己既路, 唔好著人地對鞋, 走人地條路

NO! 我諗我搵到



大大步走上前大大步 我冇博大霧 featuring?

< big, big steps, making my own big steps, I haven’t tried to gain by featuring (in big stars’ songs)> 話我博大路 我淨係知道冇狗仔隊跟我



冇o靚妹仔跟我 仲憎我話我



OH! 有人話我似阿 rain.



SO!又話我似祖名



NO! 你話我似兩個巨星 我唔敢認

我淨係希望有一日你會話佢地兩個都幾似陸WING



呢首歌我淨係要你識得 我Six-Wing 我冇得逼你覺得我得



,

215

216

Englishization in Asia

但萬一你覺得我得 Throw Your Hands Up!



(from the song ‘456-wing’)

In Example 5 above, we can see that the English words starting each sentence were all said in an exclamatory tone. They seem to be parallel interjection particles, which serve the function of expressing the emcee’s strong feelings, upon hearing what others say about him, in a parallel, repeated, semantic and emotional pattern somewhat like this:

Go! (showing the emcee’s strong determination to express his agency by finding and going his own way, and not by copying or following others)





No! (to reinforce his strong feeling when he urges the audience not to follow others>



Oh! (to express his strong feelings of unhappiness and surprise at this: others say that he looks like ‘Rain’)



So! (to express his strong feeling about being repeatedly said to look like other big stars)



No! (to express his determination to reject these comparisons and his desire to be recognized on his own).

By using these English interjection particles in a systematic way (e.g. sentence-initial positions followed by a few lines providing the context of these emotions), the lines form a neat semantic and sound pattern. There are other interesting instances of the two emcees switching between English and Cantonese. They do not seem to have any psychological hangups about using English for the local Hong Kong audience and they appear to project the image of their audience as similar to themselves: young people in Hong Kong with the bilingual resources to decode, recognize and enjoy their ‘bilingual-ness’ and bilingual (and sometimes trilingual) rhymes. In a sense, they rap/speak like the ‘next-door (school) boy’, and seem to assert a comfortable bilingual and bicultural identity. This appears to contrast with the approach of their hip-hop predecessors, LMF. Davy Chan, an experienced music-maker and producer in the

Chapter 10

Hong Kong music scene, and a former member of LMF, commented in an interview with the author that Fama’s happy, humorous lyrical style is more suitable for the current social atmosphere (in the mid- and late2000s) than in the late 1990s when the economic situation in Hong Kong was poor and people in general were very angry with the government and the ruling elite. At that time, LMF expressed rage in its lyrics, for instance using Cantonese slang, and this seemed to resonate well with the feelings of the public then. Phat Chan, another main LMF rapper/vocalist expressed similar sentiments about the changed circumstances and expressed his personal liking for Fama’s lyrical style in an interview with the author, saying : ‘There are not so many things in society to scold about now! Why not have fun?’2

Coda This study represents a very preliminary analysis of Fama’s bilingual lyrical style. Much more work needs to be done and future interviews with Fama’s two emcees and their ‘manager’, DJ Tommy, will shed more light on their style and how Englishization of their lyrics contributes to their unique lyrical style and the kind of Englishized, bilingual identities they seem to be crafting for themselves and their audience.

References Li, W C (2006) ‘The Emergence and Development of Hong Kong Hip Hop and Rap Music Since the 1980s’, MPhil thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Ma, E K W (2001) Underground Radicals, Hong Kong: Ming Pao. Ma, E K W (2002a) ‘Emotional energies and subcultural politics in post-97 Hong Kong’, Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, 3(2): 187–90. Ma, E K W (2002b) ‘Translocal spatiality’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 5(2): 131–51. 2

I have been doing research on the lyrics of LMF and interviewed former LMF members, including M C Yan, Davy Chan and Phat Chan. Efforts are being made to conduct interviews with DJ Tommy as well as Fama’s emcees, Six-Wing and C-Kwan.

217

218

Englishization in Asia

Notes on Contributors

David BARTON is Professor of Language and Literacy and Director of the Lancaster Literacy Research Centre at Lancaster University. He received his PhD from the University of London. His research interests cover ethnographic studies of literacy practices in communities, workplaces, educational settings and online; the textually mediated social world; adult literacy education; and the language practices on Web 2.0 sites such as Flickr. His recent books include Improving Learning in College (Routledge, 2009), Literacy, Lives and Learning (Routledge, 2007) and Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context (Cambridge University Press, 2005). Guo Yingtao earned his first MA from Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS), China, and his second MA from Warwick University, UK. He is currently working on a PhD in GDUFS. Mike INGHAM is Associate Professor of English at Lingnan University, Hong Kong. He is a critic as well as an actor and director, and has been actively involved in theatre activities in Hong Kong since the early 1990s. Among his numerous publications are City Voices: Hong Kong Writing in English from 1945–Present (Hong Kong University Press, 2003) and City Stage: Hong Kong Playwriting in English (Hong Kong University Press, 2005), Staging Fictions: The Prose Fiction Stage Adaptation as Social Allegory (Edwin Mellen, 2004) and Hong Kong: A Cultural and Literary History (Hong Kong University Press, 2007). His previous work in Hong Kong includes experience in language in education at the Institute of Language in Education and the Hong Kong Institute of Education. His own educational background is in European languages and literatures.

Notes on Contributors

KOO Yew Lie is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at the National University of Malaysia. She has published extensively on English and applied linguistics. Her research interests include language, culture and literacy in diverse environments. She was the chief editor of 3L, the Journal of Language Teaching, Linguistics and Literature from 2001–06. Her recent publications include: ‘Meaning-makers in global contexts: literacy, language and culture in diversity’ (Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, National University of Malaysia, 2008); ‘Employer perceptions on graduate literacies in higher education in relation to the workplace’ (coauthored with Vincent Pang and Fadhil Mansur), ESP World, 4(20); and ‘The social construction of literacy of Malaysian Chinese parents: perceptions of parents towards the language and literacy practices of two teenage children’ (co-authored with Soo Hoo Pin Lick, The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal). Carmen K M LEE is Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. She completed her PhD in Linguistics at Lancaster University. Her research areas include social aspects of language and literacy, linguistic practices on the Internet, and multilingual identities online. Over the past few years, she has carried out projects and published on various types of computer-mediated communication, including electronic mail, instant messaging, mobile phone texting and, more recently, Web 2.0 technologies such as Flickr and Facebook. Angel M Y LIN received her PhD from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada in 1996. She has since led a productive teaching and research career in the cutting-edge areas of sociocultural theories of language education, new media communication studies, youth cultural and feminist media studies, critical discourse analysis, and language-in-education policy and practice in postcolonial contexts. Her publications include numerous articles and book chapters, and the books Classroom Interactions as Cross-cultural Encounters: Native Speakers in EFL Lessons (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2006) and Bilingual Education: Southeast Asian Perspectives, which is forthcoming from Hong Kong University Press.

219

220

Englishization in Asia

Liu Yan is Professor and Dean of the Faculty of English Language and Culture at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China. She received her PhD from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Apart from the many articles she has published on English and literature, she has authored a book Motherhood in Modern Drama (China Books, 2004) and co-edited Rereading Britain Today: Essays in British Literary and Cultural Studies (Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2007). Andrew Moody is Associate Professor of English at the University of Macau where he teaches sociolinguistics and varieties of English. His research interests include English in Asian popular culture and the development of World Englishes in Asia. He has published chapters in books on English linguistics and sociolinguistics, and his articles have appeared in World Englishes, Asian Englishes and American Speech. He is currently preparing an edited book on Asian Pop English. Kwok-kan Tam is Chair Professor and Dean of Arts and Social Sciences at the Open University of Hong Kong and was formerly a Professor in English at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He received his PhD from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has published extensively on English, comparative literature and drama. Among his books are: English and Globalization: Perspectives from Hong Kong and Mainland China (Chinese University Press, 2004), Anglophone Cultures in Southeast Asia (Heidelberg University Press, 2003), Sights of Contestation: Localism, Globalism and Cultural Production in Asia and the Pacific (Chinese University Press, 2002) and Shakespeare Global/Local: The Hong Kong Imaginary in Transcultural Production (Peter Lang, 2002). His new book Gender, Discourse and the Self in Literature: Issues in Mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong is forthcoming from the Chinese University Press. Lian-Hee WEE studied linguistics at Rutgers University where he developed the Inter-tier Correspondence Theory as a solution to the problem of opacity in phonology. Since then, he has worked as a research fellow at City University of Hong Kong and as a faculty member at the National University of Singapore before joining Hong Kong Baptist University as Assistant Professor of English. Fascinated by the intricate phonological patterns found in Chinese languages, including the Mandarin, Min, Yue and Hakka clusters, and the Englishes of Hong Kong and Singapore, Wee

Notes on Contributors

appeals to both phonetic and phonological analytic tools in his studies on prosody, syllable structure and the interface between phonological tone and music. XU Zhichang is an Assistant Professor in the English Department of the Hong Kong Institute of Education. He completed his doctoral study at Curtin University of Technology in 2005. He has taught English, Chinese and applied linguistics courses in Beijing, Perth and Hong Kong. His current research interests include linguistic features of Chinese English, language education and teacher training. Kosaku Yoshino is Professor of Sociology at Sophia University in Tokyo and was previously a Professor at the University of Tokyo. He received a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science. His areas of specialization are nationalism and globalization in Japan and Southeast Asia. His best-known books include: Cultural Nationalism in Contemporary Japan: A Sociological Enquiry (Routledge, 1992) and A Sociology of Cultural Nationalism (Nagoya University Press, 1997). He has also edited and published Consuming Ethnicity and Nationalism: Asian Experiences (Curzon Press and the University of Hawaii Press). He is currently writing a book on the impact of ‘Englishization’ on various social processes and networks in and out of Asia.

221

222

Index

acrolect 53, 91–93 basilect 53, 91–93 biculturalism 163, 174 bilingualism 102, 106, 163, 174, 184–86, 201 Cantonese 14, 20, 33–37, 41, 49–50, 52, 100, 102, 126, 129–30, 164–65, 171, 174–75, 180, 207–8, 210–17 code-mixing 7, 33–37, 40–41, 43, 46–47, 100, 119, 123, 175, 213 code ambiguation 189–91, 194, 201 code-switching 7, 46–47, 93, 99–100, 119, 124, 167, 175, 186, 201, 213 communicative language contact 184, 186–87, 200–201 computer-mediated communication 1 context context as co-text 131 context, cognitive 131 context of culture 131 context of situation 95, 131

cultural capital 89, 104, 108–9, 112, 115, 130 cultural imperialism 140 cultural intermediaries 72, 81–84, 98 cultural pluralism 32, 163 cultural values 52, 105, 140–54, 156–61 deficit hypothesis 127 depoliticization of English 42 discourse communities 166, 179 dominance hypothesis 127 ethnicity 39, 41, 84–85, 92, 113, 178, 183, 189, 194–95, 201

flickr 1–28 globalization 7–8, 15, 24–26, 33, 38, 70, 75, 77, 81, 88–90, 97–98, 113, 115,119–121, 125, 127–28, 131–32, 135, 140–41, 148–53, 168 glocal 2, 24–28, 120–21, 123–26, 128–30, 135–36, 152–54 Hong Kong 1, 11, 14–15, 17–18, 20–21, 32–37, 41, 49–50, 52, 55, 66, 70, 128, 130, 133, 143, 162–80,  207–17 Chinglish 167

hybrid 26, 32–35,  41, 43, 96–98, 101–2, 104–5, 112, 126, 128, 136, 163–65, 180, 186, 212 identity 1, 2, 9, 24–27, 32–43, 46–47, 50–52, 56, 63, 65, 80, 84–85, 93, 98, 102, 105, 110–11, 119–21, 125, 130–35, 140, 151, 166, 168–69, 180, 186, 190–91, 194–97, 210–12, 216–17 indigenization 52–53, 55, 65, 95 Inner Circle 93–95, 97, 99–100, 109 Japan 79, 83, 103, 174, 183–201 J-Pop 183–84, 189–90, 192, 195, 197, 199 mondegreen 191–93 soramimi 190–94, 201

language-lite theatre 175–76 linguistic imperialism 8, 71, 80, 89, 105, 167 linguistic market framework 121, 135 linguistic pluralism 8 literacy practices 1, 2, 9, 26, 88, 94, 96–100, 115

Index

mainland China 1, 11, 14, 17, 19–20, 71–72, 80, 82–84, 122 Malay 38, 43, 46, 48, 54–58, 60–62, 74–75, 80–81, 84–85, 91, 94, 100– 101, 104 Malaysia 32–33, 38–39, 41, 43, 70–85, 88–115 Mandarin 14, 36–37, 41, 46–48, 64, 100, 102, 104–6, 111–13, 119–21, 123, 125–26, 130, 132, 164, 214 mesolect 91–93 mixed code 11, 35, 173–74 multilingualism 7, 9, 16, 28, 65, 95–96, 98, 102, 105–6, 114–15, 121, 127 multilingual literacy 98–100 nativization 33, 38, 41, 94–95, 125–26, 128, 135, 183 Outer Circle 93, 104, 114 pluriliteracy 106, 114 Putonghua 36, 119–36, 163–65, 171, 174, 180, 213–14 Gangtai-nization 126, 129–33, 135–36

Singapore 32–33, 38–39, 41–43, 46–66, 163, 167, 172 Singlish 47, 59–60, 167

sinicization 162–64, 174 sociocultural models 180 standard English 40, 54–55, 58, 92, 101, 108 Taiwan 1, 11, 14, 20, 22, 37, 128–30, 143 transnational ethnicity 83 Web 2.0 1–2, 4–5, 7, 9, 15, 24, 27–28

223