|
Hello! I'm doing a study of the type of English spoken in Hong Kong as part of my
MPhil course. I'd like to know from any Cantonese speakers from Hong Kong if they
consider Hong Kong English to be a legitimate form of English in its own right, or
if they think Hong Kong speakers should follow the norms of English as followed in
L1 countries such as the UK&Ireland/US&Canada/Aust.&NZ.
To focus the question a bit more. The following features are typical of Hong Kong
English:-
(1) On the phonemic level: not distinguishing between /i/ and /i:/; reduced use of
the schwa phoneme; not distinguishing between say 'pot' and 'port' (I can't seem
to get this page to accept phonemic symbols, so I have to illustrate by example!)
(2) On the grammatical level: treating mass nouns as count nouns e.g. alphabets,
equipments, furnitures, staffs etc.; omission of the 's' in the 3rd person and plural
inflections, so "a bowl of noodle" etc.
Do you think these features of Hong Kong English should be as acceptable as the features
found in so-called "inner-circle" countries (UK, US etc.), or should Hong Kong speakers
follow accepted L1 country speaker norms? (if the second, which variety? UK or US
or Australian)
Although I'm mainly interested in what Hong Kong people think, anyone should feel
free to contribute to this question if they find it interesting (but please indicate
your nationality before your answer).
Cheers!
|
|
|
Hong Kong people speak English poorly as a rule. The better they speak the less the
exhibit the idiosyncracies you have described. Singapore English is a much better
example of an acceptable alternate form of English.
|
|
Greetings from Hong Kong.
We've started to learn English from kindergarten but most Hong Kong people can't
speak English. They can write or read but they can't speak.
|
|
|
Not all write that well either.Writing well in another language is difficult.
|
|
|
But don't you think that there's a kind of 'Hong Kong English' developing?
|
|
|
If anything such a phenomenon was more prevalent earlier. English is in decline in
Hong Kong. Besides what kind of a useless research project is this? There is Swedish
English, Japanese English, German English, French English , Chinese English etc.
why single out Hong Kong. All non-native speakers have common problems with pronunciation
and structure.
|
|
|
Thanks for the inciteful comments Steve. If only I'd known it was useless earlier,
I never would have started it. You're one heck of a smart guy.
|
|
I realized immediately that he meant 'insightful'. I would have thought that a man
with language credentials like yours would have no problem deciphering a little spelling
mistake like that.
Anyway, for your information:
insightful - Showing or having insight; perceptive
|
|
|
I wouldn't classify versions of English as spoken by non-native speakers as variants
of the standard language, and I'm not sure what point there is in studying them.
One might as well study French Chinese.
|
|
|
In defense of the point of this topic, there are many things that I would personally
see no point in studying, but that does not mean that studying those things is completely
worthless endeavour. Perhaps some interesting, hitherto unknown, information could
come out of a study of 'Hong Kong' English (that is, if there is such a thing).
|
|
|
should have been "is 'a' completely. . ."
|
|
Adam
You are a true son of our education system. As long as the tax payer is footing the
bill there is not subject of study or research that is so useless, far-fetched or
obscure that a self-satisfied, self-styled intellectual should not indulge in it.
|
|
Steve,
Always a joy having an exchange of thoughts and ideas with.
|
