Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Many in Hong Kong voice concerns about the fate of Cantonese, including nativists (“localists”) and the general public. Guangzhou is seen as a harbinger of diminishing Cantonese in Hong Kong. News and commentaries paint a gloomy picture of Cantonese in Guangzhou. Yet rarely do we read about surveys on the range of Cantonese use and identity in Guangzhou. Neither do we see analyses on how the social context differences between Hong Kong and Guangzhou may have contributed to the two cities’ unique language situations. Our study delineates the Guangzhou and Hong Kong language situations, comparing mother tongues, ordinary languages, and language attitudes. Cantonese is unrivalled in Hong Kong and remains vital in Guangzhou. We put the two cities’ different use frequency and proficiency of Cantonese and Putonghua (“Mandarin”) in the sociocultural context of motivation and migration. We conclude that some claims of diminishing Cantonese are unsupported. We also address how likely it is that Cantonese will diminish or even be replaced in Hong Kong.

Keywords

Hong Kong Guangzhou nativism Cantonese

Introduction

“Hong Kong’s language and culture are being wiped out systematically,” said Chan Ho Tin, convenor of the nativist Hong Kong National Party (Chan, 2018). Wong Yeung-tat, head of localist group Civic Passion, stated “Our culture [and] language is threatened by the Beijing government [and] Mandarin […] We’re afraid Cantonese may be disappearing” (Huang, 2016). Yau Wai Ching, a leader of localist group Youngspiration, warned that “[…] our local culture and language are diminishing,” and “when the Chinese Communist Party attempted to eradicate the Hong Kong nation [民族, minzu], they started with our language.” Chan, Wong, and Yau are not alone in believing that Cantonese is dying out as a result of a deliberate attempt to replace it with Putonghua (“Mandarin”). Interviews with leaders of almost all localist groups show that a conspiracy to supplant Cantonese is a common view (Sautman, 2018).

Similar to nativism, localism refers to beliefs in Hong Kong that prioritise local interests, often accompanied by anti-mainland-China immigrant sentiment. In this view, the Hong Kong government is pressured by Beijing to demolish Cantonese, a symbol of local culture and identity, so that Hong Kong may assimilate into mainland China. Language policies such as Putonghua Medium of Instruction in Chinese (普教中, pu jiao zhong, PMIC) allegedly manifest such attempts. According to the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS, 2017), “Our Hong Kong identity is perpetually suppressed under the attempts to introduce national education to indoctrinate Chinese identity and [PMIC] to debase the Cantonese that is our mother tongue.” The localist ideology that now disdains Hongkongers’ attachments to “Chineseness” has recently made Cantonese “the core symbol of the local identity that separates Hongkongers from mainlanders.” It differs from the “traditionalist” view that still values Chineseness but holds that Cantonese is superior to Putonghua as “more authentically Chinese because it is older, purer, and closer to classical Chinese” (Wong, 2019).

Many share the pessimistic outlook of Cantonese among localists. In a 2015 study, 2,049 Hong Kong residents were asked how endangered they believed Cantonese was. Only 23.2 per cent responded that Cantonese is “not at all” threatened, while 45.2 per cent believed it is endangered “moderately,” “a lot,” or “critically” (Bacon-Shone et al., 2015). An article in Hong Kong’s Timeout magazine in 2015 asserted that “Hong Kong’s mother tongue is under threat” (Tam and Cummins, 2016). The cover rhetorically asks: “The Death of Cantonese?”

In discussions of diminishing Cantonese, Guangdong provincial capital Guangzhou (廣州) is treated as a precedent for Hong Kong. News articles about Cantonese use in Guangzhou are shared among Facebook pages of advocates of localism. “Today in Guangzhou, tomorrow in Hong Kong” (今日廣州, 明日香港, jinri Guangzhou, mingri Xianggang) is the favourite comment (Hong Kong Localism Power, 2016; Leung, 2018; Studentlocalism, 2018; Pu jiao zhong xue sheng guan zhu zu 普教中學生關注組, 2014; Xiang gang zhong wen jian cha 香港中文監察, 2018). Cantonese concern groups such as the Societas Linguistica HongKongensis (港語學, gang yu xue, SLH), which holds that China’s central government is colonising Hong Kong and eagerly destroying Cantonese at the behest of “Mandarin aliens,” frequently compared Hong Kong to Guangzhou (Andrew Chan Lok-hang, 2018, personal communication), as do some linguists. Hong Kong University linguist Bauer (2018) wrote that “If we want to find a portent of the future fate of Hong Kong Cantonese, I believe all we need to do is to look at what has happened to Guăngzhōu Cantonese […].” In part, the view that Cantonese is declining reflects past media coverage of the 2010 Guangzhou “Shore Up Cantonese” movement (撐粵語運動, cheng yue yu yundong). This movement brought a government retreat on use of Putonghua in media, but a study based on interviews determined that the movement was mainly about local resident concerns around “the current pattern in the distribution of resources in Guangzhou,” that is, the unsubstantiated “sentiment that they are disadvantaged in obtaining school places, jobs, or hospital beds” compared to migrants. Many movement participants were not Cantonese speakers, and language was a focus mainly in order to render the protest about resources “safe” in relation to the authorities (Ho and Lu, 2019).

The information brought out about Guangzhou’s language situation is often incomplete. News articles about Cantonese in Guangzhou appear, but do not present a full picture of the city’s linguistic situation. In Bauer’s (2016) article treating Guangzhou as a possible harbinger, a handful of news articles were brought up; yet observations of Guangzhou can and should be verified by research findings. Drawing implications in a comparison with Hong Kong also requires careful interpretation. Our study thus has two purposes. First, we aim to facilitate readers forming a thorough view of the language situations in Guangzhou and Hong Kong, informing the current discussions of diminishing Cantonese. Second, we seek to answer the question “how likely it is that Cantonese will diminish in Hong Kong, or even be replaced by Putonghua?”

We first explore language use in Guangzhou and Hong Kong, mainly based on a literature review. Both cities’ mother tongues, ordinary languages, and language attitudes are compared. Cantonese is found to enjoy unrivalled status in Hong Kong. Though less strong, Cantonese remains vital in Guangzhou. We then put the two cities’ language differences in a social context, specifically that of motivation and migration. We also explore to what extent political factors can account for the differences. Next, we discuss the resilience of Cantonese as a “strong dialect.” We conclude that Cantonese has continuing significance for Hong Kong.

Mother Tongue

Mother Tongue in Guangzhou

A study of Guangzhou residents’ mother tongue by linguists in 2017 surveyed 155 Guangzhou locals, whose parents had settled in the city before they were born (Shan and Li, 2018). A second study, by sociologists in 2015 of 624 residents with a household registration (戶口, hukou) in Guangzhou, included migrants (Xu and Zhou, 2016).

The younger generation in Guangzhou have not stopped speaking Cantonese. Table 1 shows more young Guangzhou residents had Cantonese as their mother tongue than older groups. Table 2 shows that less of the young locals reported Cantonese as their “only mother tongue.” Yet the survey did not tell us how many locals in each age group spoke Cantonese, perhaps together with another language, as a mother tongue. On average, still, we may infer that the great majority (>78.2 per cent) of locals had Cantonese as mother tongue.

Table 1

Mother Tongue Among Guangzhou and Hong Kong Residents in 2015 (%).

Age group(years)	Guangzhou^a			Hong Kong^b						Overall
Age group(years)	8–15	18–29	>30	6–14	15–24	25–34	35–44	45–54	55–65	Overall
Cantonese	54.7	51.1	46.9	89.3	91.8	85.8	83.0	89.7	90.0	88.1
Putonghua	43.6	29.5	24.7	2.7	3.0	5.6	6.5	3.1	2.1	3.9
OCDs	1.8	19.4	28.4	0.0	1.7	2.8	4.2	4.5	5.9	3.7
English	0.0	0.0	0.0	3.8	0.6	1.8	2.5	0.8	0.5	1.4
Others	0.0	0.0	0.0	4.2	2.9	4.0	3.8	1.9	1.5	2.9

Note: OCDs: other Chinese dialects.

Source: ^a Xu and Zhou (2016); ^b Census and Statistics Department (2016b).

Table 2

Mother Tongue Among Guangzhou Locals (%).

Age group (years)		<18	18–35	36–50	Average
Only Cantonese		68.5	74.1	82.3	78.2
Others	Only Putonghua	31.5	25.9	17.7	6.6
	Only another Chinese dialect				4.1
	≥2 languages				11.0

Source: Shan and Li (2018).

Table 1 shows that more of the younger generation of Guangzhou residents identified Putonghua as mother tongue (Xu and Zhou, 2016). Only 6.6 per cent of Guangzhou locals identified Putonghua as their single mother tongue however (Shan and Li, 2018).

In Guangzhou, other Chinese dialects (OCDs) are under more serious threat than Cantonese (Li et al., 2019). These dialects have declined as a mother tongue in Guangzhou, leaving Cantonese and Putonghua as the main choices (Xu and Zhou, 2016). The 2015 study (Xu and Zhou, 2016) indicated that newer settlers chose Putonghua or Cantonese as their children’s first language over dialects they spoke because of Cantonese’s prevalent use in Guangzhou and the national lingua franca status of Putonghua.

Mother Tongue in Hong Kong

Table 1 captures Cantonese’s unrivalled status in Hong Kong: 8 per cent of Hong Kong’s population are ethnic minorities, such as Filipinos, Indonesians, and Caucasians (Census and Statistics Department, 2016a), but 88.1 per cent of Hong Kong’s population have Cantonese as mother tongue, with middle-age groups on the lower end. Putonghua was second as mother tongue, of only 3.9 per cent overall, with middle-age groups at the higher end (Census and Statistics Department, 2016b). OCDs are the mother tongue of only 3.7 per cent and have sharply decreased in Hong Kong. Their decline was likely set in motion by state action. In 1966, almost half of Hongkongers still used non-Cantonese languages at home or as their primary language. These languages began to be abandoned after the colonial government banned their use in schools (Lau, 2005). In the late 1960s, a Campaign to Make Chinese an Official Language (中文成為官方語文運動, zhongwen chengwei guanfang yuwen yundong) began. It resulted in the 1974 recognition of “Chinese” as an official language, but “It was expected that in oral communication [Cantonese] would be prominently used after the granting of legal status to the Chinese language” (Wan, 2018: 140). Guilford (2014) reported that, as Bauer observed, the colonial administration viewed Cantonese as a useful barrier to Hongkongers identifying with mainland China and “As a consequence, Cantonese has thrived in Hong Kong and was not in competition with putonghua as it certainly has been on the mainland.”

Table 3 shows that Hong Kong’s Census and Statistics Department found similar patterns among age groups. Middle-age groups (25–44 years) are on the lower end of having Cantonese as the mother tongue. For OCDs, the intergenerational difference of 2015 was also present in 2012.

Table 3

Mother Tongue Among Hong Kong Residents in 2012 and 2015 by Census and Statistics Department (%).

Age group(years)	6–14		15–24		25–34		35–44		45–54		55–65		Overall
Year	2012^a	2015^b	2012^a	2015^b	2012^a	2015^b	2012^a	2015^b	2012^a	2015^b	2012^a	2015^b	2012^a	2015^b
Cantonese	93.1	89.3	93.5	91.8	88.9	85.8	87.1	83.0	91.2	89.7	89.5	90.0	90.3	88.1
Putonghua	1.4	2.7	1.9	3.0	3.6	5.6	5.7	6.5	2.6	3.1	2.8	2.1	3.2	3.9
OCDs	0.0	0.0	1.7	1.7	1.7	2.8	3.2	4.2	3.4	4.5	5.7	5.9	3	3.7

Note: OCDs: other Chinese dialects.

Sources: ^a Census and Statistics Department (2013); ^b Census and Statistics Department (2016b).

The middle-age range changes the most from 2012 to 2015. Over three years, the biggest drops in Cantonese happened in the age range of 25–44. People whose mother tongue is Putonghua rose slightly, again with the middle range manifesting the largest increase. As mother tongue, other dialects grew slightly from 2012, with the biggest rise among the middle-aged.

Some interpreted the modest decrease in Cantonese and increase in Putonghua and OCDs as “a crisis for Cantonese” ( Apple Daily, 2018), but when a language weakens or is endangered, young people typically cease to acquire it (Krauss, 1992; Schmidt, 1990). The slight decrease in Cantonese over three years occurred among all ages, instead of a pronounced decrease among the youngest, as when languages diminish.

Most likely, in-migration explains the differences over three years. Numbers for languages among all age groups shifted simultaneously. Since a person’s mother tongue will not alter over time, what changed is Hong Kong’s population composition. The percentage having other Asian languages (excluding Cantonese and other Chinese varieties) rose from 1.7 per cent in 2012 to 2.5 per cent in 2015, due to increased Asian migration (Census and Statistics Department, 2016b, 2013). New mainland-China migrants also contributed to the differences. PMRs (persons from mainland China having resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years) were 2.5 per cent of Hong Kong’s population in 2011 and 2.4 per cent in 2016 (Census and Statistics Department, 2018). The median age of PMRs in 2016 was 33.9, much younger than that of Hong Kong’s entire population, that is, 44.3. The 25–44 age group accounted for 49.5 per cent of all PMRs in 2016 (Census and Statistics Department, 2018). Many PMRs choose to become Hong Kong permanent residents; therefore, the portion of more recent immigrants from mainland China among the Hong Kong population could rise over time. With almost half the group being middle-aged, the population composition of the middle-age range could have altered most from 2012 to 2015, which corresponds to observations of mother tongue – that the middle-age ranges invariably experience the biggest changes. Many new migrants had Putonghua or OCDs as their first language, hence the increase in those two and the slight decrease in Cantonese as a mother tongue.

Ordinary Language

Ordinary Language in Guangzhou

Ordinary Language of Guangzhou Residents

Cantonese was the most spoken language for Guangzhou locals, and Putonghua was the most spoken language among residents, as Table 4 shows. Guangzhou residents speak an average of two languages (Xu and Zhou, 2016): 90 per cent of locals spoke two or more languages, presumably Cantonese and Putonghua for most of them (Shan and Li, 2018). Since 8.97 per cent of locals only spoke Cantonese (Shan and Li, 2018), we may infer that the language was spoken by approximately 99 per cent of the surveyed Guangzhou locals.

Table 4

Cantonese and Putonghua as Ordinary Language in Guangzhou and Hong Kong (%).

Group	Guangzhou								Hong Kong
Group	Residents	Locals	Floating population						Residents			Ethnic Chinese	PMRs
Proficiency	Can speak	Can speak	Can understand and speak some Cantonese		Can’t speak, but can understand to some degree		Can’t understand at all		As usual language	As another spoken language	Total	As usual language	As usual language	As another spoken language	Total
Year of Survey	2015^a	2017^b	2016^c	1996^d	2016^c	1996^d	2016^c	1996^d	2016^e	2016^e	2016^e	2016^e	2016^f	2016^f	2016^f
Cantonese	72.2–76.8	99.0	54.6	61.6	30.3	28.8	1.1	9.6	88.9	5.7	94.6	93.9	69.8	23.8	93.6
Putonghua	82.1–90.7	90.0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	1.9	46.7	48.6	1.9	13.5	66.4	79.9
English	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	4.3	48.9	53.2	0.6	0.5	35.4	35.9
OCDs	9.3–40.7	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	2.1	9.0	11.1	3.4	16.2	30.8	47

Note: NA: not applicable; OCDs: other Chinese dialects; PMR: persons from mainland China having resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years.

Sources: ^a Xu and Zhou (2016); ^b Shan and Li (2018); ^c Li (2016); ^d Li (1999); ^e Census and Statistics Department (2016c); ^f Census and Statistics Department (2018).

Cantonese was used more often than Putonghua when communicating with families. Putonghua was more frequently used in professional settings or with peers. More of the surveyed chose Cantonese over Putonghua at home, whereas Putonghua is preferred when speaking with colleagues or classmates (Xu and Zhou, 2016).

A 2019 survey found that 83.1 per cent of 771 parents of primary school students in Guangzhou spoke Cantonese. It also noted however that non-Cantonese languages are declining sharply in Guangzhou, because they “are not backed up by the national language policy and do not enjoy a prestigious status like Cantonese” (Li et al., 2019).

Cantonese among Guangzhou’s Floating Population

In 2017, 38 per cent of Guangzhou’s inhabitants were floating population (Guangzhou Statistics Bureau, 2018). The floating population are inhabitants who registered their hukou elsewhere. They are not recognised as permanent residents of Guangzhou (Duan, 1999). As presented in Table 4, most of the floating population in Guangzhou could understand Cantonese (Li, 1999, 2016). The ability to speak Cantonese, according to scholars, indicates how well a newcomer to Guangzhou may integrate into the local community (Li, 2016).

Table 4 compares surveys conducted in 1996 and 2016. Though twenty years apart, the results are consistent in Cantonese proficiencies among the floating population in Guangzhou. Very few could not understand Cantonese at all. Over twenty years, more of the floating population understood Cantonese to some degree.

Ordinary Language in Hong Kong

Ordinary Language of Hong Kong Residents

The Hong Kong population by-census differentiates two kinds of spoken language. The first is “usual language”: “the language a person uses in daily communication at home.” The second is “another language/dialect”: a spoken language not used as frequently. Five population censuses/bi-censuses record the ordinary language in Hong Kong from 1996 to 2016. Table 4 presents the result in 2016.

For twenty years, Cantonese had consistently dominated as language in daily communication. Cantonese was the “usual language” for 88.5–90.8 per cent of the entire population (8 per cent were ethnic minorities) from 1996 to 2016. Adding those who use Cantonese as “another language,” Cantonese is spoken by 94.6–96.5 per cent of Hong Kong’s population (Census and Statistics Department, 2006, 2016c).

Putonghua as a second language has been on the rise since the 1997 handover. Still, only 1.9 per cent in 2016 identified Putonghua as their “usual language.” People who spoke Putonghua as “another language” increased steadily from 1996 to 2011, with the biggest rise – 9.1 per cent – in 1996–2001. The rise slowed down and has plateaued since 2011. Within the five-year period of 2011–2016, the increase was only 0.2 per cent (Census and Statistics Department, 2006, 2016c).

Hakka (客家話), Chiu Chow (潮州話), and Fukien (福建話) were the most spoken OCDs, according to the by-census. Taken together, the three dialects were usual spoken languages of 4.2 per cent in 1996, but of only 2.1 per cent in 2016 (Census and Statistics Department, 2016c).

Cantonese remains the usual spoken language at work. People preferred Cantonese and English to Putonghua in professional settings. In 2015, 85.8–92.1 per cent of employed persons “must” or “often” use Cantonese when communicating with colleagues and clients (Census and Statistics Department, 2016b); it was 7.2–10.9 per cent for Putonghua. Most Putonghua users at work were employees of mainland Chinese firms (Evans, 2013a). Most Hong Kong-employed persons never used Putonghua when meeting or chatting with colleagues and 70.1–71.7 per cent seldom or never spoke Putonghua when interacting with clients (Census and Statistics Department, 2016b).

The status of English in Hong Kong is higher than that of Putonghua, though not surpassing Cantonese. Table 4 shows that more spoke English than Putonghua. English is also preferred above Putonghua in professional communication. In formal settings or when a non-Cantonese speaker is present, English is almost always chosen over Putonghua. The retention of English was also observed in the Civil Service, where very little Putonghua (0.8 per cent) was used (Evans, 2013a). A 2015 study involving 2,049 respondents found English used by 33.2 per cent with colleagues and 48.1 per cent with clients; Putonghua was third at 15 per cent and 37.8 per cent. Cantonese came first at 97.3 per cent as language used with colleagues and 94.3 per cent with clients; 86 per cent used English for work-related writing and reading, but only 16 per cent used simplified characters, associated with Putonghua, in work-related writing and 21 per cent in work-related reading (Bacon-Shone et al., 2015). What’s more, English-speaking Hongkongers on average earned 17 per cent more than non-English-speaking counterparts. English-proficient immigrants earned 45–53 per cent more. The financial return from learning Putonghua was only 1.6 per cent (Lui, 2007).

English medium of instruction (EMI) is used for all but Chinese language classes in more than 100 secondary schools. Students and parents often consider EMI schools more prestigious than the 300-plus CMI (Chinese as the Medium of Instruction) schools (Li, 2017). All Hong Kong universities basically use English as their medium of instruction (MOI).

Cantonese among PMRs

New migrants are sometimes seen as a threat to Cantonese’s status in Hong Kong. PMR language use sheds light on this issue. In a 2016 study, 78.2 per cent of surveyed new mainland-China migrants came from Guangdong. Many spoke Cantonese before settling in Hong Kong (Society for Community Organization, 2016). As Table 4 shows, in 2016 at least 93.6 per cent of PMRs could speak Cantonese, and 69.8 per cent used it as their “usual language.” Putonghua was the “usual language” of only 13.5 per cent PMRs. Moreover, PMRs were only 2.4 per cent of the whole population in 2016 (Census and Statistics Department, 2018). Most spoke Cantonese every day and could hardly jeopardise the status of Cantonese in Hong Kong.

Language Attitudes

This section explores language attitudes of residents in two regions by examining integrative and instrumental orientation. Gardner and Lambert (1972: 14) defined integrative orientation as a person’s attitude towards the language community, whereas instrumental orientation is associated with “a desire to gain social recognition or economic advantage.”

Language Attitudes in Guangzhou

Attitudes towards Cantonese show highly positive integrative orientation. Guangzhou respondents found Cantonese far more “friendly,” “approachable,” or “likeable” than Putonghua (Shan and Li, 2018; Xu and Zhou, 2016; Yang and Lin, 2013). Locals also identified Cantonese as a marker for Guangzhou identity (Shan and Li, 2018). Putonghua was associated with social impacts and utilitarian values. Attitudes towards Putonghua showed a high level of instrumental orientation, comparable to that of Cantonese (Shan and Li, 2018). Putonghua is connected with social status and politeness, surpassing Cantonese in associations with being “educated” (Xu and Zhou, 2016; Yang and Lin, 2013). Respondents whose families settled in Guangzhou more recently were more positive towards Putonghua on both integrative and instrumental dimensions (Shan and Li, 2018).

A generational difference may exist in language attitudes. A study conducted in a Guangzhou primary school reported that students gave Putonghua more favourable evaluations than Cantonese in both integrative and utilitarian dimensions, including friendliness, politeness, social status and trustworthiness (Han, 2012). This difference may be explained by the surge of new migrants to Guangdong after 1990. From 1990 to 2000, Guangdong’s population increased by 37.5 per cent; many were new migrants from the floating population (Yang, 2016). In the study, only 44.5 per cent students self-identified as “Guangzhou people.” For many Guangzhou youngsters, one or both sides of their families are migrants. They have learnt Cantonese, but perhaps out of necessity. Their emotional ties to Cantonese are not as strong as Guangzhou locals.

To summarise, Guangzhou people, especially locals, were highly positive towards Cantonese. Locals also identified with the cultural identity associated with the language. A generational difference might exist in language attitude, possibly because many younger people in Guangzhou are offspring of migrants. On the other hand, Guangzhou people value Putonghua for its instrumental value. Attitudes towards Putonghua are positive, especially among newer settlers and the younger generation.

Language Attitudes in Hong Kong

Hong Kong people show a high level of integrative orientation towards Cantonese. Cantonese is thought to sound “friendly and familiar” (Ho, 2013). A 2012 study found the overall integrative index for Cantonese to be higher than English and Putonghua. Comparing a study in 2001, the 2012 study suggested Cantonese was growing stronger as the mark of Hong Kong identity since the handover (Lai, 2012). In a 2015 survey, 81.4 per cent identified “Cantonese” as the language of Hong Kong’s culture. Half of the respondents were concerned about the future of Cantonese, believing to some extent that Cantonese was endangered (Bacon-Shone et al., 2015). Overall, Hong Kong people have developed a strong connection with Cantonese.

While respondents recognised some instrumental value in Putonghua, their integrative motivation was low. Putonghua, often associated with opportunities, was at most seen as a means to be socially competitive (Ho, 2013; Lai, 2012). In 2009, people had the least integrative orientation for Putonghua among the three languages (Lai, 2012). Respondents disagreed that Putonghua sounded “friendly” or “familiar” (Ho, 2013). Among the 52.4 per cent of respondents who identified solely as “Hongkongers,” Putonghua was associated with lower social classes. A few respondents showed bias against its speakers (Lai, 2011).

Linguist Lai (2011) of the Education University of Hong Kong has said that a pragmatic portrayal detached from nationalism has allowed Putonghua to land softly in Hong Kong. Still, Putonghua came third in the instrumental domain, after English and Cantonese (Lai, 2012). Some Hong Kong residents found Putonghua limited in utility value. A few interviewed students did not find Putonghua to be important, since they did not speak the language, except in classes dedicated to learning it (Lai, 2011). Only 17 per cent of respondents picked Putonghua as their first language of business (Bacon-Shone et al., 2015). Therefore, although Putonghua did better in the instrumental domain than the integrative domain, Hong Kong people still found it less useful than Cantonese and English.

Mainland-China Putonghua-speaking migrant students at Hong Kong secondary schools reported that they were isolated outsiders (Gu, 2011). Even Cantonese speakers from Guangdong still regarded their language as deficient and inferior to the speech of locals, indicating an incentive for native Cantonese speakers from mainland China to acquire Hong Kong Cantonese (Gu, 2011). York University linguist Keith Tse (2019, personal communication) believes English comes next (after Cantonese) as the language of education and professional activities, whereas Putonghua remains an external variety reserved mainly for communication with mainland China. English also more strongly symbolises Hong Kong identity (Lai, 2011).

Overall, both the integrative and the instrumental orientation of Cantonese far exceed Putonghua in Hong Kong. Cantonese has become an integral part of cultural identity, whereas Putonghua is the language of outsiders. Although some recognise Putonghua’s utility value, many more find it less useful than Cantonese and English. English shows higher instrumental and integrative orientation than Putonghua and the instrumental value for respondents even surpasses Cantonese (Lai, 2012).

Comparison of Guangzhou and Hong Kong

Cantonese is the mother tongue for most people in both Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Putonghua is the second major mother tongue in Guangzhou. In Hong Kong, Putonghua is much less important, as a mother tongue of only 3.9 per cent in 2015 (Census and Statistics Department, 2016b). The peaks were found in the middle-age groups in Hong Kong.

The two cities also differ in the proficiency and use frequency of both Putonghua and Cantonese. While almost 90 per cent of Guangzhou-surveyed locals spoke Putonghua, only 1.9 per cent of Hong Kong residents used Putonghua most often in daily communication. More Hong Kong residents spoke Cantonese than Guangzhou counterparts. In professional communication, Cantonese is used more frequently in Hong Kong. Although new migrants to both cities acquire Cantonese to some degree, Hong Kong PMRs are more proficient in the language and use it more often than Guangzhou’s floating population.

OCDs, such as Chiu Chow and Hakka, are diminishing in both cities, as off-spring of their speakers acquire Cantonese or Putonghua as first languages. In both cities, we see intergenerational differences in residents who speak OCDs as their mother tongue.

Behind the Differences: Motivation and Migration

Three common themes exist when linguists explain second language acquisition (SLA): formal, cognitive, and sociocultural (Thomas, 2013). Formal theory focuses on the nature of the language. The cognitive approach focuses on learners’ inherent capacities. The third theme, sociocultural theory, focuses on languages’ social functions. Through the sociocultural lens, learning is inseparable from language use. This third approach looks into the social and affective context as well as the learner’s personal aspiration for a particular identity (Myles, 2013). Though we may ask why SLA cannot be explained by a mix of all three lenses, so far no one approach to date has succeeded in capturing them all (Myles, 2013). Since we seek to explain language use differences in two cities, we adopt the sociocultural approach.

Still, within the sociocultural “camp,” there exists a wide array of approaches. To examine the social context in language use differences, we take “motivation,” a central factor in Gardner and Lambert’s (1959) socio-educational model, and supplement that with a discussion on migration’s impacts.

Motivation in SLA has been studied since the 1950s and is well researched today (Sturgeon, 2017). It plays the leading role in Gardner’s socio-educational model, one of the most dominant models in SLA research. In Gardner’s model, motivation for SLA is inherently connected with social-cultural identities and socio-political factors (Gardner and Lambert, 1959). The advantage of Gardner’s model, and hence the explanatory power of the motivation factor, lies in its non-static nature and that it allows us to use both qualitative and quantitative data. Treating motivation as both an output and input, the model is dynamic: not only does language learning affect people’s attitude towards the language, but their attitudes also determine learning outcomes (Gardner, 1985). Scholars also recognise the necessity for sociocultural SLA research to be both quantitative and quantitative (Véronique, 2013).

Why, then, do we supplement the motivation factor with a discussion on migration? Because historically SLA discourses have been territorialised. In the past few decades however, a heightened visibility of contact has inspired new ways of talking about language and social practices, with some linguists beginning to adopt a more mobile and hybrid construct (Canagarajah, 2017).

Traces of migration are certainly visible in Hong Kong and Guangzhou, especially the latter. When migrants arrive, SLA, multi-lingualism, and language shifts occur in the region as language contact ensues (Kerswill, 2006). Thus, though often neglected, we must consider migration in our comparison.

Motivation

Gardner (2007) found two contexts for motivation. The first context is educational, such as the expectation of educational systems, instructor skills, and classroom atmosphere. The second is the cultural–social world and cultural beliefs surrounding a learner. In a culture, a learner may have beliefs about the value and relevance of acquiring a language. One of its dimensions is “integrativeness,” which reflects a learner’s interest in the target community where this language is spoken.

We may use the two motivation contexts to explain why more Guangzhou locals spoke Putonghua than their Hong Kong counterparts. In the educational context, the phenomenon is explained by distinctive educational environments in the two regions. China’s Law on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language states that Putonghua shall be used as the basic language in education except where otherwise provided for in law (State Council PRC, 2000). Enacted in 2012, the Guangdong National Language Regulations specifies Putonghua as the basic language in all educational institutions (Guangdong Province, 2011). These policy practices, echoing national language policy, may be a response to increasingly heterogeneous student populations (Li et al., 2019). In Guangzhou schools, both instruction and evaluation are carried out in Putonghua. Guangzhou’s education system expects students to have a good command of Putonghua. In Hong Kong, the educational goal is biliteracy and trilingualism (兩文三語, liang wen san yu). “Trilingualism” refers to students’ ability to speak Cantonese, Putonghua, and English, although proficiency levels are not defined (Education Bureau GovHK, 1997). Students must study Putonghua, but school authorities may decide whether Chinese is taught in Putonghua or Cantonese. Only 16.4 per cent of Hong Kong primary schools and 2.5 per cent of secondary schools (mainly for junior forms) adopted Putonghua as the sole MOI for Chinese language. Other schools use either only Cantonese or a mix of the two languages to teach Chinese language (HKGov, 2018). Most Hong Kong students do not spend school time speaking or listening to Putonghua, unlike in Guangzhou, where the higher expectations and a more favourable Putonghua learning environment motivate students to speak Putonghua better.

In the cultural context, the motivation of Hong Kong locals also differs from that of Guangzhou locals. Guangzhou respondents held an overall positive view towards Putonghua, associating it with social status, utility, and politeness. Though lower than Cantonese, Putonghua’s integrative dimensions are still positive, indicating Guangzhou locals’ interest in the Putonghua-speaking community. In comparison, Hong Kong people’s attitude towards Putonghua is neutral or negative. In school and professional communications, Putonghua was thought to be of limited utility and Hong Kong locals are not interested in the Putonghua-speaking community. Only 15.3 per cent of respondents identified as “Chinese” (Lai, 2011). Few of the rest saw Putonghua as a national identity marker. Unlike in Guangzhou, Putonghua was thought by some respondents as a language of the “uneducated” (Ho, 2013). This, together with the limited instrumental value that Hong Kong “locals” see in Putonghua, renders them less motivated than Guangzhou locals to acquire Putonghua.

Gardner’s framework may also help us understand why new mainland-China migrants in Hong Kong are more proficient in Cantonese than those in Guangzhou. For PMRs speaking OCDs, their children have high educational motivation to learn Cantonese as a second language, since it is the MOI for most schools. They are also more motivated because Cantonese has higher cultural relevance in Hong Kong than in Guangzhou.

Migration

Migrants constitute a much higher proportion of the Guangzhou population than its Hong Kong counterpart. In 2016, PMRs were only 2.4 per cent of Hong Kong’s population (Census and Statistics Department, 2018). For Guangzhou, 38 per cent of inhabitants in 2017 were “floating population” (Guangzhou Statistics Bureau, 2018). Guangdong’s out-of-province floating population was 2.2 times the size of its in-province floating population, so most Guangzhou new migrants had not been Cantonese speakers (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2012).

Here, we consider two main effects of migration on language change (Lewis, 1982). First, it affects migrants. Coping with everyday tasks requires migrants to learn the regional language (Colins, 2009). Second, migration has sociolinguistic consequences on destination societies. For instance, West African rural-to-urban migration led to increasingly multi-lingual host communities and encouraged lingua francas (Kerswill, 2006).

According to scholars, internal migration in mainland China promotes Putonghua (Zhang and Xu, 2008). Linguist Zhan (2001) believes that the massive in-migration substantially contributed to promotion of Putonghua in Guangdong. Among Guangzhou’s two dominant languages, Putonghua is the national lingua franca and Cantonese the regional lingua franca. Migrants see the need to learn Putonghua or Cantonese, while Guangzhou locals find it helpful to acquire Putonghua as more migrants join the community.

The migration perspective accounts for two language differences between the two cities. For one, it explains why mainland-China migrants in Hong Kong are more prone to acquire Cantonese than migrants in Guangzhou. As migrants often choose to learn the dominant language of the region as their second language, newcomers to Hong Kong pick Cantonese. For Guangzhou migrants, however, the decision is not as clear-cut since Putonghua is also dominant in Guangzhou. Moreover, as most Guangzhou locals speak Putonghua, Guangzhou migrants can get by without high proficiency in Cantonese.

Migration’s far-reaching sociolinguistic impacts on the destination societies also explains why, as a native language, Cantonese is stronger in Hong Kong. Guangzhou locals have acquired Putonghua, the national lingua franca, as their second language since the surge of in-migrants began after China’s economic reform in the 1990s, motivated by a desire for better communication with other community members (Zhang, 1997). Although mainland migrants also influence Hong Kong society, the impact is relatively minor. After all, Guangzhou’s in-migration has been on a much larger scale than Hong Kong for the past decade.

Behind the Differences: Political Factors?

Readers may ask “since we are putting language use differences in a social context, to what extent have political factors contributed to the differences?” To answer properly, we need to examine what “political factors” mean in our discussion. Political landscape shapes language use. Yet, top-down language policymaking is only part of the landscape. Language changes through a complex mix of policy pressure and individual actions (Wright, 2016). That is to say, we cannot leave out the other part of the landscape – the political identities, orientation, and values of individuals – that a state cannot control.

Let us first consider language policy. The term refers to officially mandated language use rules within a nation-state (Spolsky, 2012). A clear example is the legal establishment of an official language. In some circumstances, members of a speech community may have authority to force others to use a different variant (Spolsky, 2012). For instance, Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan banned public use of Taiwanese to ensure all would come to speak Mandarin (Sandel, 2003). However, such coercive efforts are now unlikely to succeed. One needs only to consider the analogy of a speed limit – the law itself does not guarantee that all members abide by it. In practice, linguists’ plans rarely work. In ethnocratic Malaysia, for example, questioning the dominant status of the Malays’ language, Bahasa, may be regarded as seditious, but a 2020 study found that “Bahasa has only added to the multi-lingual repertoires of non-Malays, rather than replaced it” (Albury, 2020). Top-down policies for linguistic homogeneity come up against strong counter-pressures from the actual demographic situations. Ethnicity, identity, and religion are among the many powerful forces that resist nationalist hegemony (Spolsky, 2012).

How then may language policies account for language use in Guangzhou and Hong Kong? As mentioned in the “motivation” discussion above, the differences in educational language policies partially account for Guangzhou locals’ better fluency in Putonghua. Nevertheless, this policy difference itself does not evidence a diminution in locals’ mother tongue retention. Promotion of another language does not necessarily diminish a mother tongue, as native French speaker acquisition of English in Quebec shows (Statistics Canada, 2017).

Increased Putonghua fluency in Hong Kong has not been at the expense of Cantonese. Putonghua is not hegemonic. The critique of government promotion of Putonghua has implied that Hong Kong public schools are being used to diminish Cantonese fluency. Yet, the default policy is “[Cantonese] mother tongue teaching” in primary schools (PSs). For secondary schools (SSs), the only alternative to Cantonese is an English MOI. There is no evidence that PMIC – Putonghua as the MOI to teach Chinese language – has impaired students’ Cantonese-speaking ability. Some journalists claim that more than 70 per cent of PSs use Putonghua as the MOI (Bielicki, 2019; Coca, 2018), without clarifying that PSs are only permitted to use Putonghua as MOI to teach Chinese language and can choose and switch between PMIC and CMIC (Cantonese as MOI for teaching Chinese language subject). No parents in a study of three PSs objected to PMIC as impairing their children’s Cantonese ability (Wang and Kirkpatrick, 2020). Further, schools have only partially implemented PMIC: in 2018, Secretary of Education Kevin Yeung Yun-hung stated that the most recent survey showed 16.4 per cent of PSs and 2.5 per cent of SSs had full PMIC; 55.3 per cent of PSs and 34.4 per cent of SSs had PMIC/CMIC mixed mode; and 28.3 per cent of PSs and 63.1 per cent of SSs had full CMIC (HKGov, 2018).

On the other hand, the politics of individuals may explain why Cantonese has been stronger in Hong Kong. Recent observations also point to the further strengthening of Cantonese in Hong Kong, not its diminishing. In 2015, 81.4 per cent of the Hong Kong respondents associated “Cantonese” closely with Hong Kong’s culture, distinct from mainland China (Bacon-Shone et al., 2015). At present, Cantonese is politicised as the mark of a Hongkonger identity, and linguistic marginalisation goes the other way. During Hong Kong’s intense 2019 protests, Taiwan and mainland people, mainly students and professionals, were menaced when publicly speaking Putonghua and some had to be evacuated by their governments (Ellis, 2020; Financial Times, 2019; Huang, 2020; Wang, 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was shunning of Putonghua speakers from the outset, as 101 restaurants announced their refusal to serve them. The special administrative region’s (SAR’s) Equal Opportunities Commission received more than 600 complaints about such discrimination (Chu, 2020; SCMP, 2020; Sun, 2020).

The Resilience of Cantonese

Cantonese seems vital in Hong Kong and Guangzhou despite government efforts to promote Putonghua. In fact, scholars see Cantonese as “the strongest Chinese dialect in terms of prestige and the number of mainland Chinese attracted to learn it” and perhaps the only one where “dialect writing in its speakers’ actual language use is very common” (Li, 2006). In 2019, linguists could still write that Cantonese “is generally considered the only [Chinese language] which can match Putonghua in terms of both geographical and social strength” (Li et al., 2019).

Two unique attributes of Cantonese contribute to its resistance to outside influence. First, unlike OCDs, Cantonese has a written form widely used among friends and seen in ads and newspapers (Yip, 2010). It spread in popular literature from the 1970s onwards, and scholars noticed it by the 1990s. Written Cantonese is in all media and is popularised online. A 2011 study of ads found plentiful Cantonese characters and grammar (Bruche-Schulz, 1997; Lister, 2011; Snow, 1994; Tong, 2018). Linguist Lau Chaak-ming found this trend accelerating since 2013, strengthening Cantonese (Harbeck, 2016). Even the US government’s Radio Free Asia has recognised that written Cantonese “has enjoyed a popular resurgence in recent years across the Pearl River Delta, with the advent of SMS mobile phone messaging and text-based social media” (Wong, 2018). Second, Cantonese is allowed as a language in Guangdong’s media (Ji, 2016). Though the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language specifies that Putonghua should be the basic language for radio and TV, certain native languages can be used if they have been approved by the state, Cantonese being one of them (Central People’s Government, 2005).

The awareness of Cantonese speakers to preserve the language also contributes to its viability in China. For Cantonese in Guangzhou, the attitude of primary school student parents in a 2019 survey illustrates such importance: 83.3 per cent of the 771 surveyed parents agreed that “It’s necessary for people living in Guangzhou area to master and continue using Cantonese” (2.7 per cent disagreed). Some 85.4 per cent believed family environment is very important for children’s mastery of Cantonese. The analysts concluded that “the first two generations of local Cantonese-speaking parents [and grand-parents] appear to be increasingly active in maintaining Cantonese as an important element in the third generation children’s linguistic repertoire,” indicating that despite state policies promoting Putonghua in schools and migration to Guangzhou, “Cantonese has regained some importance as the regional lingua franca, as families with Cantonese-speaking parents and grandparents have become aware of the need to preserve Cantonese for cultural heritage and a sense of belonging” (Li et al., 2019).

Conclusion: Cantonese’s Continuing Significance for Hong Kong

Cantonese’s unrivalled status in Hong Kong, as mother tongue and ordinary language, contrasts with how Putonghua shares its prominent status in Guangzhou. Guangzhou residents show higher Putonghua ability and Cantonese is stronger in Hong Kong, but OCDs are diminishing in both. Putting the differences in social context, we examine how they can be explained by motivational and migration factors. Because of the higher educational expectations and more positive language attitudes, Guangzhou locals are more motivated than Hongkongers to acquire Putonghua. Cantonese’s stronger position in Hong Kong is also explained by a smaller migration impact. Cantonese’s higher relevance and greater importance in education contributed to Hong Kong PMRs’ higher proficiency in the language, compared to migrants in Guangzhou. Given the complexity of social context in the two regions, to say “Guangzhou today, Hong Kong tomorrow” is an oversimplification.

At present, Cantonese in Hong Kong flourishes. It is the usual language of 93.9 per cent of ethnic Chinese and mother tongue of 88.1 per cent of the whole population, far surpassing any other language in daily use (Census and Statistics Department, 2018). According to Bauer (2018), “the Cantonese language seems to be doing relatively well in Hong Kong following the handover to China in 1997.” Hong Kong Polytechnic University linguist Evans (2013b) notes that Cantonese has penetrated the high domains once reserved for English after the handover and is now used by the government and legislature. Chinese University of Hong Kong linguist Lau Chaak Ming (2019, personal communication) regards Cantonese as “stronger than most languages (including many national/official languages) in the world.” Indeed, with 82 million native speakers, Cantonese is the eighteenth largest of the world’s 7,000 languages (Ethnologue, 2019).

Should the current educational environment and immigration scale persist, Cantonese will continue to thrive in Hong Kong. Commenting on studies, Baptist University educationalist Poon (2010), author of a leading monograph on language use in Hong Kong, said “Cantonese will continue to thrive as long as schools continue to teach in this language and if there are no laws that ban the native dialect.”

The central and Hong Kong governments have not sought to change from the current Cantonese and English MOIs. They have not indicated a long-term plan to use Putonghua as the MOI in Hong Kong schools. Hong Kong’s Secretary of Education has said that the choice of MOI, even for the Chinese language subject, is determined by each school and the government has no plans to evaluate the schools’ choice (HKGov, 2018). Hong Kong youth overwhelmingly study Chinese language in Cantonese and only a small number take the Diploma of Secondary Education Examination in Putonghua (2.8 per cent in 2018; Lee, 2018).

There are no indications that currently Beijing is considering the language situation as problematic in Hong Kong. China’s central government finds aspects of Hong Kong’s educational system as problematic, particularly “the lack of patriotic teaching in schools” (Huang, 2016). There is however no indication that it sees Hong Kong’s language situation as presenting difficulties or evinces a need for a language policy for the SAR, as economic factors impel Hong Kong people to learn Putonghua. Thus, while Cantonese was the usual language of 94 per cent of Hong Kong’s ethnic Chinese in 2016, there had already been large increases in bilingualism and trilingualism in the preceding two decades: in 1996, 25.3 per cent of Hongkongers could speak Putonghua, but by 2016 it was 48.6 per cent. Similarly, 38.1 per cent of Hongkongers in 1996, but 53.2 per cent in 2016, could speak English (Liu, 2017).

Instrumentalism is the main reason for Hongkongers’ growing fluency in Putonghua and English (Liu, 2018). A study of SAR job ads found that where Chinese language requirements were specified, 97 per cent required and 3 per cent preferred spoken Cantonese, while 79 per cent required and 21 per cent preferred spoken Putonghua (Hong Kong Unison, 2016). There has been a large increase in Putonghua-speaker staffing in firms of all origins throughout key economic sectors. The CEO of executive search firm Wellesley has said that more than 90 per cent of searches in Hong Kong require Mandarin fluency at least (Bloomberg, 2020). In short, the need to know Putonghua for work obviates any necessity for the authorities to force it on Hongkongers.

Furthermore, linguists do not see Hong Kong’s language policies as motivated to undermine Cantonese. According to linguist Stephen Evans, evidence suggests that the Cantonese MOI policy implemented in 1998 was motivated by educational considerations. If it was politically motivated, the policy seems more like a subversive move by the new administration than a scheme to pacify Beijing (Evans, 2013b). As to teaching PMOI (Putonghua as the MOI), linguist David Li (2019, personal communication) of Hong Kong Polytechnic University disagrees, noting that all countries encourage young people to learn national languages in addition to the regional lingua franca. According to Li (2019, personal communication), “it’s an obligation for the local government to ensure that local young people grow up being able to converse with others in Putonghua, though not up to L1 standard.” Linguist Lau Chaak-Ming (2019, personal communication) also sees no attempt so far to lower Cantonese and does not find policies to be politically motivated.

Even if Hong Kong’s MOI does change, the viability of Cantonese in Guangzhou, despite more adverse conditions for the language, allows for a more optimistic view on its Hong Kong prospects. In Hong Kong, the migration impact is much smaller. Its people are just as, if not more, emotionally attached to Cantonese than Guangzhou counterparts, while having a much more negative attitude towards Putonghua. Where speakers value their native language highly, the language will thrive. University of Maryland linguist Zhou (2019) has underscored the role of the people in influencing China’s language policies and practices.

Other factors also point to the unlikelihood that Cantonese will be replaced by Putonghua in Hong Kong. Declining use of OCDs, because they enjoy less prestige than Cantonese and have no support in official language policy, strengthens Cantonese’s prevalence in Hong Kong. Moreover, mother tongue proficiency in a locality does not necessarily diminish as bilingualism becomes more common. Quasi-universal mother tongue retention among Uyghurs and Tibetans disconfirms claims that Cantonese will necessarily be threatened in Hong Kong (Elterish, 2015; Han and Johnson, 2020; Tang et al., 2016).

While Putonghua is commonly viewed as threatening Cantonese, English is rarely brought up as a competitor. Yet, as discussed, the status of English in Hong Kong is much higher than that of Putonghua. In view of English’s prevalence in daily use and a more positive language attitude among Hong Kong residents, English presents as much, if not more, of a challenge to Cantonese in Hong Kong.

Schiffman (1996) has written that “Language is… never the factor that gives rise to, brings about and causes things to happen, but rather language mirrors social conditions, mirrors man’s relationship to man.” In Hong Kong, Putonghua itself is perhaps not the cause of people’s concern. Rather, it may be that it is the image behind it that arouses Hong Kong people’s anxiety. Cantonese is seen as a marker of a unique Hong Kong identity, whereas Putonghua is associated with mainland China, Chinese visitors, and for many, Beijing’s authority. As Hong Kong Baptist University’s Choi (2017), discussing language, observed:

since the second decade of the twenty-first century […] [Hong Kong] identity has strengthened, or one can say hardened, to become some kind of ethnic identity, as it involves a clear “othering”: “us,” the Hongkongers, and “them,” the Mainlanders.

The possibility of Cantonese becoming endangered renders many uneasy; yet, efforts are better spent on promoting Cantonese’s standard Romanisation, for example, than subscribing to a conspiracy theory of supplanting Cantonese. Linguist Li (2017) believes that the non-alphabetic nature of Chinese makes it more difficult to learn and retain. While pinyin, the standard Roman script for Putonghua, is available for mainland Chinese and Hong Kong to learn Putonghua, a standardised Romanisation system for Cantonese is lacking. Short of Roman script, Hong Kong South Asian students find learning Cantonese challenging and frustrating. A Philippine-born student, whose parent speaks Cantonese, found plentiful opportunities to speak Cantonese at home. Still, the student said Putonghua was easier to acquire due to the availability of pinyin. Li (2017) therefore recommends the promotion of a “standardised, keyboard-friendly Romanization system like JyutPing,” which would facilitate in-class and independent Cantonese learning.

The first to initiate a project compiling a Cantonese-to-Cantonese dictionary, linguist Lau Chaak-Ming believes that when people perceive a language as dying when it is not, this misconception weakens the language. As we take steps to preserve Cantonese, misinformation can cause tremendous damage. It diverts people’s attention away from effective Cantonese conservation. As Lau Chaak Ming (2019, personal communication) put it, “[L]inguistic pessimism is hurting Cantonese, more so than other languages or governmental policies, at least in Hong Kong.”

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Barry Sautman is a political scientist and lawyer at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. His research includes China–Africa links,China’s lending and the Belt and Road Initiative,Hong Kong nativism in comparative perspective,and Yellow Peril ideology and the COVID-19 pandemic. He has published monographs and articles in leading social science and law journals and serves on the boards of the Chinese in Africa/Africans in China Research Network and the journal Asian Ethnicity . His latest monograph is 中国在非洲: 话语与实踐 ( China in Africa: Discourse and Practice ) (北京: 中国社会科学文獻出版社).

Email: sobarrys@ust.hk

Xinyi Xie is currently a Juris Doctor candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School,York University,Canada. Her research interests include contemporary Chinese society and Chinese law.

References

Albury

(2020) Multilingualism and mobility as collateral results of hegemonic language policy. Applied Linguistics 41(2): 234–259.doi:10.1093/applin/amy054

Apple Daily (2018) Cantonese crisis. Available at: https://hk.news.appledaily.com/local/daily/article/20180505/20382122 (accessed 7 October 2019).

Bacon-Shone

Bolton

Luke

(2015) Language use, proficiency and attitudes in Hong Kong. Social Sciences Research Centre. Available at: www.ssrc.hku.hk/files/language_2/HK_lg_survey_Final.pdf (accessed 7 October 2019).

Bauer

(2016) The Hong Kong Cantonese language: current features and future prospects. Global Chinese 2(2): 115–161.doi:10.1515/glochi-2016-0007

Bauer

(2018) The Hong Kong Cantonese language: quo vadis? Available at: www.undergrad.hk/16715 (accessed 26 November 2018).

Bielicki

(2019) Hong Kong identity and the rise of Mandarin. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/hong-kong-identity-and-the-rise-of-mandarin/ (accessed 18 October 2020).

Bloomberg (2020) Mainland Chinese bankers are taking over Hong Kong’s financial sector, displacing their local peers in top roles. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/3105098/mainland-chinese-bankers-are-taking-over-hong-kongs (accessed 18 October 2020).

Bruche-Schulz

(1997) “Fuzzy” Chinese: the status of Cantonese in Hong Kong. Journal of Pragmatics 27(3): 295–314.doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(95)00048-8

Canagarajah

(2017) Introduction: the nexus of migration and language: the emergence of a disciplinary space. In: Canagarajah

(ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Migration and Language. New York: Taylor and Francis , pp. 1–28.

10.

Census and Statistics Department (2006) A114 proportion of population aged 5 and over able to speak selected languages/dialects, 1996, 2001 and 2006. Available at: https://data.gov.hk/tc-data/dataset/hk-censtatd-census06c-2006-population-bycensus-statistical-tables (accessed 7 October 2019).

11.

Census and Statistics Department (2013) Thematic household survey No.51. Available at: https://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11302512013XXXXB0100.pdf (accessed 7 October 2019).

12.

Census and Statistics Department (2016a) Ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Available at: www.bycensus2016.gov.hk/data/snapshotPDF/Snapshot10.pdf (accessed 7 October 2019).

13.

Census and Statistics Department (2016b) Thematic household survey No.59. Available at: www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11302592016XXXXB0100.pdf (accessed 7 October 2019).

14.

Census and Statistics Department (2016c) A111 proportion of population aged 5 and over able to speak selected languages/ dialects by year. Available at: www.bycensus2016.gov.hk/tc/bc-mt.html (accessed 7 October 2019).

15.

Census and Statistics Department (2018) Hong Kong 2016 population by-census – thematic report: persons from the mainland having resided in Hong Kong for less than 7 years. Available at: www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp459.jsp?productCode=B1120101 (accessed 7 October 2019).

16.

Central People’s Government (2005) The law of the People’s Republic of China on the standard spoken and written chinese language. Available at: www.gov.cn/ziliao/flfg/2005-08/31/content_27920.htm (accessed 7 October 2019).

17.

Chan

(2018) Faced with the colonisation of China, the only way out for Hong Kong is independence. Available at: www.peoplenews.tw/news/ff7f0979-a0ea-448e-901f-d7a91176099b (accessed 9 October 2019).

18.

Choi

(2017) Should the Chinese language be taught in Putonghua? Contested identities in post-1997 Hong Kong. York University, Asia Colloquia Papers 7(1): 3. Available at: https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/34188 (accessed 7 October 2019).

19.

Chu

(2020) Virus or not, the law remains the law, and it forbids discrimination. Available at: https://hongkongfp.com/2020/04/05/virus-or-not-the-law-remains-the-law-and-it-forbids-discrimination/ (accessed 18 October 2020).

20.

Coca

(2018) Hong Kong is fighting back against a mandarin language invasion. Available at: www.ozy.com/around-the-world/hong-kong-is-fighting-back-against-a-mandarin-language-invasion/87198/ (accessed 18 October 2020).

21.

Colins

(2009) Globalization and Language in Contact Scale, Migration and Communicative Practices. London: Bloomsbury.

22.

Duan

(1999) The floating population in our country. Southwest Population 75(1): 9–12.

23.

Education Bureau GovHK (1997) Medium of instruction. Available at: www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-secondary/moi/guidance-index.html (accessed 7 October 2019).

24.

Ellis

(2020) Can Hong Kong endure as a financial centre? Available at: https://am.prod.euromoney.psdops.com/article/b1jsr3gxwl8wvf/can-hong-kong-endure-as-a-financial-centre (accessed 18 October 2020).

25.

Elterish

(2015) The construction of Uyghur urban youth identity through language use. In: Smith Finley

Zang

(eds.) Language, Education, and Uygur Identity in Urban Xinjiang. London: Routledge , pp. 75–94.

26.

Ethnologue (2019) What are the top 200 most spoken languages? Available at: www.ethnologue.com/guides/ethnologue200 (accessed 7 October 2019).

27.

Evans

(2013a) Language in transitional Hong Kong: perspectives from the public and private sectors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31(4): 347–363.doi:10.1080/01434632.2010.497218

28.

Evans

(2013b) The long march to biliteracy and trilingualism: language policy in Hong Kong education since the handover. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 33: 302–324.doi:10.1017/S0267190513000019

29.

Financial Times (2019) Hong Kong offices become new battleground in protests. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3037919/protests-riots-lone-wolf-attacks-what-next-hong-kong (accessed 18 October 2020).

30.

Gardner

(1985) Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

31.

Gardner

(2007) Motivation and second language acquisition. Porta Linguarum 8: 9–20.

32.

Gardner

RC.

Lambert

(1959) Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie 13(4): 266–272.doi:10.1037/h0083787

13855818

33.

Gardner

RC.

Lambert

(1972) Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House.

34.

(2011) “I am not qualified to be a Honkongese because of my accented Cantonese”: Mainland Chinese immigrant students in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 32(6): 515–529.

35.

Guangdong Province (2011) Guangdong national language regulations. Available at: http://www.gd.gov.cn/gkmlpt/content/0/140/post_140269.html#6 (accessed 7 October 2019).

36.

Guangzhou Statistics Bureau (2018) The size and distribution of Guangzhou population in 2017. Available at: www.gzstats.gov.cn/gzstats/tjgb_qtgb/201802/cf533209a9cc46d08da1f6070a65067e.shtml (accessed 7 October 2019).

37.

Guilford

(2014) Here’s why the name of Hong Kong’s “Umbrella Movement” is so subversive. In: Quartz . Available at: https://qz.com/283395/how-hong-kongs-umbrella-movement-protesters-are-using-their-native-language-to-push-back-against-beijing/ (accessed 7 October 2019).

38.

Han

(2012) An analysis of the language attitudes and identity of primary school students in Guangzhou. Journal of Southwest University 10(1): 201–205.

39.

Han

Johnson

(2020) Chinese language policy and Uyghur youth: examining language policies and language ideologies. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 35(4): 1–14.doi:10.1080/15348458.2020.1753193

40.

Harbeck

(2016) The state of Cantonese language in Hong Kong. US–China today. USC US–China Institute. Available at: https://uschinatoday.org/features/2016/06/24/the-state-of-cantonese-language-in-hong-kong/ (accessed 7 October 2019).

41.

HKFS (2017) Twenty years of hardship under China and the struggle against enemy for our fate: declaration of students’ unions of higher institutions on the fall of Hong Kong twenty years ago. Available at: https://hongkongfp.com/2017/06/28/student-unions-12-hong-kong-colleges-opt-july-1-democracy-march (accessed 27 June 2017).

42.

HKGov (2018) LCQ21: the use of Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese language subject in primary and secondary schools. Available at: www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201802/07/P2018020700609.html (accessed 7 October 2019).

43.

CCR

(2013) Language attitudes after the handover: communication and identity in 2013 Hong Kong. International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and Social Sciences 2(3): 6–27.

44.

W-C.

(2019) Culture versus the state? The “Defend-My-Mother-Tongue” protests in Guangzhou. The China Journal 81(1): 81–102.doi:10.1086/699253

45.

Hong Kong Localism Power (2016) Facebook. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E6%9C%AC%E5%9C%9F%E5%8A%9B%E9%87%8F-107178349368557 (accessed 7 October 2019).

46.

Hong Kong Unison (2016) Chinese language requirements in the Hong Kong job market: a survey of job advertisements. Available at: www.unison.org.hk/DocumentDownload/Researches/R201605%20Job%20Ad.pdf (accessed 18 October 2020).

47.

Huang

(2020) Meet the mainland Chinese who are living in fear in Hong Kong. Available at: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3031883/meet-mainland-chinese-who-are-living-fear-hong-kong (accessed 18 October 2020).

48.

Huang

(2016) Nintendo is renaming Pikachu in one of its largest markets, and Hong Kongers are not happy. in: Quartz. Available at: https://rb.gy/ukhwbc (accessed 9 October 2019).

49.

(2016) Preserving Cantonese television & film in Guangdong: language as cultural heritage in South China’s bidialectal landscape. Inquiries 8(12):1-3. Available at: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1506/preserving-cantonese-television-and-film-in-guangdong-language-as-cultural-heritage-in-south-chinas-bidialectal-landscape

50.

Kerswill

(2006) Migration and language. In: Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik: an International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter , pp. 2271–2285.

51.

Krauss

(1992) The world’s languages in crisis. Language 68(1): 4–10.doi:10.1353/lan.1992.0075

52.

Lai

(2011) Cultural identity and language attitudes – into the second decade of postcolonial Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 32(3): 249–264.doi:10.1080/01434632.2010.539692

53.

Lai

(2012) Tracking language attitudes in postcolonial Hong Kong: an interplay of localization, mainlandization, and internationalization. Multilingua 31(1): 83–111.doi:10.1515/mult.2012.004

54.

Lau

(2005) A dialect murders another dialect: the case of Hakka in Hong Kong. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 173: 23–35.

55.

Lee

(2018) Hong Kong’s Chinese language curriculum may be “trimmed” down, concerning educators. Harbour Times, 12 September, 18.

56.

Leung

(2018) In: Facebook . Available at: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008271524482 (accessed 7 October 2019).

57.

Lewis

(1982) Human Migration: A Geographical Perspective. London: Croom Helm.

58.

(1999) Survey on floating population adaption to Guangzhou society. Lingnan Journal of Chinese Studies 3: 78–82.

59.

CSD

(2017) Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, Literacies and Identities. Berlin: Springer.

60.

DCS

(2006) Chinese as a lingua Franca in greater China. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26: 149–176.

61.

(2016) Current situation and problems of floating population assimilation into society: the example of Guangzhou. Journal of Lanzhou Institute of Education 32(5): 33–35.

62.

Gao

(2019) The complexity of family language policy decisions: the case of Cantonese and other regional Chinese varieties. Circulo de Linguistica Aplicada a la Comunicacion 79: 63–78.

63.

Lister

(2011) Written Cantonese in Hong Kong advertisements. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Occasional Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 2, pp. 1–9. Available at: www.mun.ca/linguistics/more/mlwpl/Lister_2011.pdf (accessed 7 October 2019).

64.

Liu

(2017) Cantonese v Mandarin: when Hong Kong languages get political. BBC, 29 June.

65.

Liu

(2018) A comparative study of language attitudes in Hong Kong: towards English, Cantonese and Putonghua. International Journal of English Linguistics 8(3): 195–208.doi:10.5539/ijel.v8n3p195

66.

Lui

H-K

(2007) The returns to language ability in Hong Kong: before and after the handover. Applied Economics Letters 14(2): 121–125.doi:10.1080/13504850500425741

67.

Myles

(2013) Theoretical approaches. In: Herschensohn

Young-Scholten

(eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , pp. 46–70.

68.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (2012) Guangdong Province 6th National Census of 2010 Important Data Report. Available at: www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjgb/rkpcgb/dfrkpcgb/201202/t20120228_30384.html (accessed 7 October 2019).

69.

Poon

AYK

(2010) Language use, and language policy and planning in Hong Kong. Current Issues in Language Planning 11(1): 1–66.doi:10.1080/14664201003682327

70.

Pu jiao zhong xue sheng guan zhu zu 普教中學生關注組 (2014) 今日廣州, 明日香港, [包容] 下啦! In: Facebook . Available at: https://www.facebook.com/scholars.say.no.to.PMI/photos/a.601314826602128/753575001376109 (accessed 7 October 2019).

71.

Sandel

(2003) Linguistic capital in Taiwan: the KMT’s mandarin language policy and its perceived impact on language practices of bilingual mandarin and tai-gi speakers. Language in Society 32(4): 523–551.doi:10.1017/S0047404503324030

72.

Sautman

(2018) Hong Kong nativism and the Chinese communist colonial conspiracy to crush Cantonese. In: Hong Kong Sociology Association 20th Annual Conference, Hong Kong, 1 December 2018.

73.

Schiffman

(1996) Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge.

74.

Schmidt

(1990) The Loss of Australia’s Aboriginal Language Heritage. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

75.

SCMP (2020) Disease fans flames of anti-mainland sentiment in City. SCMP, 4 February.

76.

Shan

(2018) Language attitude of Guangzhou people and inheritance of Cantonese identity. Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning 3(3): 33–41.

77.

Snow

(1994) A short history of published Cantonese: what is a dialect literature? Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 4(1): 15–30.

78.

Society for Community Organization (2016) Survey on discrimination against mainland immigrants in Hong Kong. Available at: www.soco.org.hk/publication/publication_index.htm (accessed 7 October 2019).

79.

Spolsky

(2012) What is language policy? In: Spolsky

(ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , pp. 3–15.

80.

State Council PRC (2000) Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language (Order of the President No.37). Available at: http://www.gov.cn/ziliao/flfg/2005-08/31/content_27920.htm (accessed 7 October 2019).

81.

Statistics Canada (2017) English–French Bilingualism reaches new heights, statistics Canada. Available at: www12.stacan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x2016009/98-200-x2016009-enc.cfm (accessed 20 August 2020).

82.

Studentlocalism (2018) 昨日廣州今日香港. Facebook . Available at: https://www.facebook.com/studentlocalism/ (accessed 7 October 2019).

83.

Sturgeon

(2017) Aptitude, attitude and motivation as predictors of foreign language learning.doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.15457.10085

84.

Sun

(2020) Language barriers. SCMP, 28 March.

85.

Tam

Cummins

(2016) The death of Cantonese? Available at: www.timeout.com/hong-kong/blog/the-death-of-cantonese-050816 (accessed 7 October 2019).

86.

Tang

Jin

et al. (2016) Affirmative inaction: education, language proficiency, and socioeconomic attainment among China’s Uyghur minority. Chinese Sociological Review 48(4): 346–366.doi:10.1080/21620555.2016.1202753

87.

Thomas

(2013) History of the study of second language acquisition. In: Herschensohn

Young-Scholten

(eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , pp. 26–45.

88.

Tong

CTM

(2018) Translating memories: the fight over Pikachu in Hong Kong. Journal of Intercultural Studies 39(5): 543–556.doi:10.1080/07256868.2018.1508004

89.

Véronique

(2013) Socialization. In: Herschensohn

Young-Scholten

(eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , pp. 271–271.

90.

Wan

PKK

(2018) The rise of Hong Kong identity and political mobilizations vis-à-vis China. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.

91.

Wang

Kirkpatrick

(2020) Students’ and parents’ perceptions of trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools. International Journal of Multilingualism 17(4): 430–447.doi:10.1080/14790718.2018.1509980

92.

Wang

(2020) From protests to riots to lone wolf attacks. What next, Hong Kong? Available at: https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3037919/protests-riots-lone-wolf-attacks-what-next-hong-kong (accessed 18 October 2020).

93.

Wong

(2019) Authenticity, belonging, and charter myths of Cantonese. Language & Communication 68: 37–45.doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2018.10.011

94.

Wong

(2018) “Independence for Guangzhou” slogans seen on streets of southern Chinese city. Available at: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/independence-for-guangzhou-slogans-seen-streets-of-southern-chinese-city-03132018101338.html (accessed 7 October 2019).

95.

Wright

(2016) Language choices: political and economic factors in three European states. In: Ginsburgh

Weber

(eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language. London: Palgrave Macmillan , pp. 447–488.

96.

Xiang gang zhong wen jian cha 香港中文監察 (2018) 今日廣州, 明日香港 [Today in Guangzhou, tomorrow in Hong Kong]. Facebook . Available at: https://www.facebook.com/HKCLM/posts/2179514672264750 (accessed 7 October 2019).

97.

Zhou

(2016) On language use and language attitude of the youths and adolescents in Guangzhou. Applied Linguistics 99(3): 20–29.

98.

Yang

(2016) Analysis of the population change in Guangdong province. China Health Industry 216(25): 105–107.

99.

Yang

Lin

(2013) Comparison of emotional evaluation and status evaluation of Putonghua and Cantonese: taking candidates of Putonghua proficiency test in Guangzhou as an example. Journal of Hanshan Normal University 34(5): 92–96.

100.

Yip

(2010) The writing system. In: Guide to Cantonese. Available at: https://guidetocantonese.wordpress.com/start/the-writing-system/ (accessed 7 October 2019).

101.

Zhan

(2001) Enlightenments from the application of language and characters in Guangdong. Academic Research 2001(8): 121–124.

102.

Zhang

(1997) On migration’s impact on Guangzhou language. South China Population 1997(1): 44–48.

103.

Zhang

(2008) Mobilization and the promotion of Putonghua. Applied Linguistics 2008(3): 43–52.

104.

Zhou

(2019) Language Ideology and Order in Rising China. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Today in Guangzhou,Tomorrow in Hong Kong? A Comparative Study of the Language Situation in Two Cities

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Mother Tongue

Mother Tongue in Guangzhou

Mother Tongue in Hong Kong

Ordinary Language

Ordinary Language in Guangzhou

Ordinary Language of Guangzhou Residents

Cantonese among Guangzhou’s Floating Population

Ordinary Language in Hong Kong

Ordinary Language of Hong Kong Residents

Cantonese among PMRs

Language Attitudes

Language Attitudes in Guangzhou

Language Attitudes in Hong Kong

Comparison of Guangzhou and Hong Kong

Behind the Differences: Motivation and Migration

Motivation

Migration

Behind the Differences: Political Factors?

The Resilience of Cantonese

Conclusion: Cantonese’s Continuing Significance for Hong Kong

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biographies

References