Acceso usuarios
John E. Joseph
Discussions of language and identity in Hong Kong have followed a regulär pattern of trying to determine which one from among a small ränge of sociolinguistic identities is most likely to emerge äs definitive öfter 1997.
The two principal candidates are usually a Chinese identity grounded in Putonghua, and a Hong Kong identity grounded in Cantonese. Secondary to these is an international identity grounded in English. Some analysts have ventured strong predictions that one or the other of these language-identity nexuses may be lost entirely. Others assume that a Hong Kong identity grounded in Cantonese will dominate, with Putonghua and English serving merely äs auxiliary languagesfor dealing with the central government and the international business Community respectively. The present article inquires into some ofthe assumptions underlying these discussions that may bear rethinking. Recent work on the whole notion of "Chinese" identity suggests that sociolinguistic studies may not have taken account of its füll complexity. Indeed, the concept of "identity" itselfmay need to be rethought in the context of post-1997 Hong Kong. Two modes for reconceiving it will be considered, one based on the Western idea ofambiguity, the other on the Daoist ideal of transcending oppositions. The Hong Kong language Situation, including the relevant constitutional positions on language, is surveyed, and an attempt is made at characterizing it within a Bakhtinian model of heteroglossia.
