Biliteracy and Trilingualism｜The government should return to its original intention and re-examine Hong Kong's language policy｜Li Xiaoying

It is generally believed that Hong Kong’s language policy can be traced back to the Official Languages ​​Ordinance enacted by the British Hong Kong Government in 1974. This law not only rewrites the path of educational development in Hong Kong’s colonial society at that time, but also contributes to the development of education in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region after the reunification in 1997. It has an important influence. It can be said that this is the only work done by the British Hong Kong government in terms of language policy.

As for the Education Commission Report No. 6: Overall Policy for Improving Language Proficiency issued by the Education Commission in 1996, it clearly pointed out the future development path of language education in Hong Kong, and provided suggestions and directions for the further development of language education policies, but The recommendations put forward in the "Report" mainly focus on education. They are not the language policy of the whole society, let alone have no legal status.

As for Hong Kong's return to the motherland, the language and legal documents related to Hong Kong are mostly cited in Article 9 and Article 136 of the Basic Law.

Article 9 regulates the language requirements of the SAR government in the administrative, judicial and legislative organs; and Article 136 empowers the Hong Kong SAR government to formulate local language education policies in accordance with local conditions.

Therefore, in terms of language policy from the British-Hong Kong period to the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the "two languages" have legal status, while the "trilingual" is a policy proposal, that is, it does not have legal status, and is more controversial and vague. .

Written by: Dr. Li Xiaoying, Director-General of Hong Kong Future Education Association

It's time to think about the priority issue of China and Britain

For the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the SAR government that has returned for more than two decades, the "biliteracy and trilingualism" policy is a policy "commitment" that began in the first SAR government, and it is also the responsibility of Hong Kong as a special administrative region of China.

The main dispute between Chinese and English in Hong Kong currently focuses on the priority of the issue, that is, whether the government can use English in accordance with the Basic Law prior to using Chinese in accordance with the Basic Law, or whether to use English according to the requirements of the British Hong Kong government. And use Chinese under "necessary conditions"?

There are already certain voices in the society on this issue, and it also requires the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government to show courage to face and think about it.

The controversial issue of "trilingualism" is even more complicated. This includes the issue of the clear status of English, that is, is English a "native language" or "near native language" or what kind of functional role does it play?

Similarly, is Cantonese an official language or a folk or family communication language?

Is Putonghua an "academic language" or "mother tongue" or a "foreign language" acquired as a second language?

Obviously, the various self-confessed statements of the government in the past are difficult to justify.

Because once English is defined as a mother tongue, it is almost mother tongue, or it is clearly considered that it is not a mother tongue, it will have an impact on Hong Kong society, and it will not only limit education, but also reflect on political issues.

But if English is not clearly defined, how can Hong Kong society or individual citizens maintain their competitiveness in terms of further education and citizen job requirements?

This is a real problem.

At the same time, Cantonese is a strong social language in Hong Kong, and its status is self-evident.

From a national perspective, Cantonese, as the main communication language in the Lingnan area, needs to be respected just like the local dialects across the country. However, as the national lingua franca, Mandarin is currently a bit embarrassing and helpless in Hong Kong.

Article 19 of the national "Constitution" clearly stipulates that "the country promotes the use of Mandarin throughout the country." Logically speaking, the "Constitution" is the parent law of the Basic Law, and the content of the latter and the former should not have any contradiction.

In other words, although the Hong Kong SAR government pursues "one country, two systems," it cannot violate the Constitution.

At the same time, the whole country should also include Hong Kong. After all, Hong Kong is China's Hong Kong. Regardless of personal preference, this Chang Zong does not need to say much.

"Mandarin education" has become two different "freaks"

Since the return of Hong Kong, in terms of social use, Putonghua has inevitably become an important working language in both the financial industry and the retail industry, but the controversy in the education field has become more acute.

On the one hand, with the rise of local populism in Hong Kong, the teaching of Putonghua has been vilified and marked as the erosion and oppression of the regime; on the other hand, the status of Putonghua in the education field has been hanging up in the air. Various governments have different levels of Chinese language education goals related to Putonghua. The education part is put on hold.

This makes Putonghua neither the teaching language nor the status of the mother tongue, making it a "freak" of dissimilarity.

In fact, after opening the various versions of the Chinese Language Education Curriculum Guidelines after Hong Kong's return, the status and function of Putonghua are very clear.

In the latest edition of "Chinese Language Education: Curriculum Guide for Key Learning Areas (Primary One to Secondary Six)" in 2017, the curriculum documents clearly establish the status of Chinese Language Education Key Learning Field in the school curriculum. The task is to make students: "Can speak fluent Cantonese and communicate in Mandarin".

In order to improve Hong Kong’s international competitiveness, special requirements are also required: "In addition to the balanced learning of written language (including style and classical Chinese) and spoken language (including Cantonese and Putonghua), Chinese language education must also pay attention to the students mastering traditional Chinese characters. Should have the ability to recognize and read simplified characters."

In addition, the curriculum documents also specifically pointed out Hong Kong’s existing advantages in promoting Putonghua: "Since Putonghua has become one of the core curriculums in Hong Kong’s primary and secondary schools, schools have provided students with many opportunities to learn Putonghua both in and out of class. In addition, in recent years, Hong Kong has exchanged ideas with the mainland. Increasingly frequent, it is more conducive for schools to create a rich Mandarin learning environment, which helps to enhance students' confidence and ability to communicate with others in Mandarin." And further pointed out that based on such advantages, schools are required to "provide more people who practice Mandarin in the field of Chinese language education." Opportunity to strengthen self-study."

It can be seen that although the status of Putonghua is not clearly addressed in the curriculum documents, there are still plans in the curriculum documents for how Hong Kong will practice "biliteracy and trilingualism", but why is the biliteracy and trilingualism policy reduced to such a point?

The reason for this is that "in the eyes of a thousand people, there are a thousand Hamlets."

Issues in general education have become controversial issues in academic circles in recent years.

(Profile picture)

Don’t let “Hong Kong-style English” and “Hong Kong-style Putonghua” become the future

At present, Mandarin Chinese has the most controversy regarding the policy of "biliteracy and trilingualism", and it mainly focuses on the issue of whether Mandarin can improve learning effectiveness.

But the interesting thing is that if this question is changed to English, it seems to be no problem.

One of the reasons for Hong Kong’s education reform is the problem of mother tongue education, but under this problem, in nearly 100 schools with English as the language of instruction, whether English plays a functional role or whether it pays attention to the issue of learning effectiveness is An inexplicable political and social issue.

Similarly, when we earnestly discuss and inquire about the status of English and Mandarin in Hong Kong today, this unresolved issue that has caused many officials to stay away often seems out of place.

Should we give positive encouragement to students who are able to master the use of "biliteracy and trilingualism"?

If our society as a whole agrees and is willing to go in the direction of "biliteracy and trilingualism," but it cannot be reflected in the most important entrance examination, does it seem a bit funny and paradoxical?

Should we face the social status of two languages ​​other than Cantonese?

This is a question worth pondering and discussing.

The time that has passed cannot be traced. We cannot ask those who have already worked to return to campus for "biliteracy and trilingualism" re-education. But are we going to continue to let Hong Kong in the future be Hong Kong-style English and Hong Kong-style Putonghua?

Or when apologizing, it is constantly emphasized that Putonghua was learned in elementary school, and it is constantly rationalized and even becomes a sign of the future Hong Kong people. Does this show that the SAR government's ability to afford it is lacking?

This... Think about it together!