Colonial governance and state incorporation of Chinese language: the case of the first Chinese language movement in Hong Kong

Abstract

Purpose Despite the importance of the first Chinese language movement in the early 1970s that elevated the status of Chinese as an official language in British Hong Kong, the movement and the colonial state’s response remained under-explored. Drawing insights primarily from Bourdieu and Phillipson, this study aims to revisit the rationale and process of the colonial state’s incorporation of the Chinese language amid the 1970s. Design/methodology/approach This is a historical case study based on published news and declassified governmental documents. Findings The central tenet is that the colonial state’s cultural incorporation was the tactics that aimed to undermine the nationalistic appeal in Hong Kong society meanwhile contain the Chinese language movement from turning into political unrest. Incorporating the Chinese language into the official language regime, however, did not alter the pro-English linguistic hierarchy. Symbolic domination still prevailed as English was still considered as the more economically rewarding language comparing with Chinese, yet official recognition of Chinese language created a common linguistic ground amongst the Hong Kong Chinese and fostered a sense of local identity that based upon the use of the mother tongue, Cantonese. From the case of Hong Kong, it suggests that Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of state formation paid insufficient attention to the international context and the non-symbolic process of state-making itself could also shape the degree of the state’s symbolic power. Originality/value Extant studies on the Chinese language movement are overwhelmingly movement centred, this paper instead brings the colonial state back in so to re-examine the role of the state in the incorporative process of the Chinese language in Hong Kong.

A Cross-cultural Comparison of ELT Curricula of Senior Secondary Schools in Mainland China and Hong Kong

“…However, the competition for English-medium instruction (EMI) schools remained fierce due to the enthusiasm of students and parents towards English education. The inclusion of the Chinese language in the official language system did not alter the pro-English linguistic hierarchy, as English continued to be perceived as economically more beneficial than Chinese (Fung, 2021). Consequently, the implementation of the medium of instruction (MOI) policy fine-tuning in 2010 provided schools with greater flexibility in choosing between CMI or EMI for various subjects throughout the curriculum (Hu & Gao, 2018).…”