Hong Kong Students’ Awareness of Cantonised Pronunciation of English
Paul Sze
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on English in Southeast-Asia,
4-6 December 2008, Singapore, National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Introduction
Code-mixing is a feature of everyday conversation in Hong Kong (Li, 1996; Gibbons,
1987). The majority of Hong Kong people speak English as their mother-tongue.
Code-mixing as it is practiced in Hong Kong, involves the importation of English
words into everyday Cantonese. These writers have pointed out that code-mixing is
among the speech repertoire of the Hong Kong bilingual. Li (1996) has investigated
and identified the linguistic motivations behind code-mixing by Hong Kong people.
But in recent years, certain loan words from English have become deeply entrenched
in everyday Cantonese. Their pronunciations have been modified to conform to
Cantonese phonology (hereafter “Cantonised pronunciation”). Their use has become
so widespread that they are often used in preference to their English original form,
and Hong Kong Cantonese speakers often use these loan words without awareness
that they are originally from English. In fact, one may even contend that these
popular English loan words have become part of the Hong Kong Cantonese lexicon.
What happens to these popular loan words, whose pronunciation has been
Cantonised, when Hong Kong people use them in English conversation? Do they use
the original English pronunciation, or do they continue with the Cantonised rendition?
If the latter is the case, does it affect the intelligibility of their spoken English? Will
Hong Kong people who speak English with Cantonised pronunciation be perceived
negatively by other English speakers? To date, there has been some research into
code-mixing in Hong Kong, with Li (1996) being the most comprehensive and
in-depth study. But little has been done on Cantonised pronunciation of English loan
words in Hong Kong Cantonese, and how these popular loan words are rendered in
English conversation among students or bilingual speakers in Hong Kong.
The study reported in this paper is an exploratory investigation into Hong Kong
students’ awareness of Cantonised pronunciation of common loan words from
English. It is expected that this exploratory work will pave the way for further
research into Hong Kong people’s pronunciation of Cantonised loan words when they
1
engage in English conversation. In the following, I begin by pointing out the focus of
code-mixing research that has been carried out in Hong Kong. I shall suggest that the
conventional notion of code-mixing in Hong Kong may not adequately cover the
current trend of Cantonising the pronunciation of English loan words. I will then
illustrate with 5 popular loan words how the pronunciation of English words may be
modified to conform to Cantonese phonology. The study itself will then be reported.
The discussion that follows will centre around a fundamental issue: Does Cantonised
pronunciation matter? This discussion will draw on notions of World Englishes, and
international intelligibility. I will conclude by drawing attention to the slow
development in language assessment in Hong Kong in recognizing varieties of English,
and to Japan’s experience in katakanising English pronunciation.
Code-mixing in Hong Kong
In this paper, my premise is that because of the widespread practice of code-mixing
among Hong Kong people in daily conversation (in Cantonese), those popular loan
words from English will have their pronunciation gradually modified to align with
Cantonese phonology. My hypothesis is once the pronunciations of these loan words
are fully localised, Hong Kong people may not be aware of their original
native-speaker pronunciations. In this section, I outline how code-mixing is practiced
in Hong Kong.
Although English is taught at all schools in Hong Kong, and that it is widely used in
the business sector, the lingua franca that local Hong Kong people use on a daily
basis is Cantonese (Li, 1999). Depending on their education level, Hong Kong people
may be able to function in English at different levels of proficiency, but English is not
used for intra-ethnic communication (Li, 1996). Research into code-switching in Hong
Kong shows that Chinese Hongkongers are subject to strong social norms
disapproving the use of English for intraethnic communication (see review by Li,
2000), although the exact nature and extent of such disapproval remain largely
unexplored (Li, 2000, p. 305). The use of English among Chinese people is limited to a
restricted set of well-defined situations such as university seminars and business
meetings at international firms (Luke, 1998).
One feature of the variety of Cantonese spoken in Hong Kong is that it contains
frequent loan words from English. Several writers have referred to this speech
practice in Hong Kong as code-mixing (e.g., Luke, 1998; Li, 1996, Gibbons, 1987). But
2
what is code-mixing like as it is practiced in Hong Kong? Li (2000a) has provided a
comprehensive review of code-mixing in Hong Kong. For Li, the two main issues
regarding code-mixing in Hong Kong are how Hong Kong people practise code-mixing
linguistically, and why they code-mix. With regard to how code-mixing is realized in
Hong Kong, Li’s review shows that in Hong Kong, code-mixing refers to Cantonese
interspersed with English elements, especially single words. In Hong Kong,
code-mixing is mainly ‘intra-sentential’, and that switching involving linguistic units
above the clause level is rare (p. 305). As this practice may differ from that in other
societies where code-mixing may often involve switching beyond the word level, Li
(1999) prefers to clarify the related terms in this way: “Cantonese interspersed with
English elements, especially single words, is generally referred to as mixed code, and
the sociolinguistic phenomenon itself, code-mixing or (intra-sentential)
code-switching” (p. 7).
What are the motivations for Hong Kong people to code-mix? In answering this
question, writers have often referred to the “bilingual Hong Kong speaker”, whose
mother tongue is Cantonese but who can function in English. The bilingual Hong
speaker has Cantonese and English at his/her disposal, but code-mixes for a variety
of reasons.
In an early study of code-mixing in Hong Kong, Luke (1998) identifies two motivations
for language mixing in Hong Kong: expedient language mixing and orientational
language mixing. Expedient mixing refers to the type of language mixing in which
expedience and pragmatic needs are the primary motivations, for example, the use
of words such as ‘program’ (computer programs), ‘turbo’, and ‘Walkman’.
‘Orientational mixing’ refers to the type of language mixing in which identification
with the better educated and a western outlook are the primary motivations.
Li (2000), a more recent publication, does not fully agree with Luke’s theory. Li
proposes two main reasons for code-mixing in Hong Kong: (1) lack of congruence
between English vocabulary and Chinese lexis, and (2) a desire to express more
precisely what one wants to say, especially at the formative stage of code-switching
(p. 311). Based on the two main reasons, Li identifies 4 specific motivations for
code-mixing in Hong Kong:
- euphemisim
- specificity
- bilingual punning
- economy of language
3
For Li (1999), hence, the main motivation for code-mixing is linguistic: “English
expressions are preferred often because no satisfactory translation equivalents are
available…. Using the Chinese equivalents, therefore, would often entail wanted
semantic loss or gain …. the Hong Kong bilingual, being concerned about the exact
meaning intended, selects an expression from the linguistic resources at his or her
disposal which best reflects what he or she wants to say” (p 8). In other words,
code-mixing is practiced consciously by the Hong Kong bilingual for the purpose of
communicative effectiveness. Li concludes: “… after a prolonged period of contact,
Cantonese and English in Hong Kong have converged considerably in the mind of the
Hong Kong bilingual, who draws on linguistic resources available in order to better
reflect what he or she wants to say” (p. 31)
I wish to draw attention though, to the fact that in recent years, it has become a
widespread practice for Hong Kong people to use loan words from English in their
everyday conversation. Some of these loan words have in effect become part of the
Hong Kong Cantonese lexicon. These loan words may be used by monolingual Hong
Kong people or those who may not be able to function efficiently in English, such as
pre-school children and newly-arrived immigrants from the Mainland. For instance,
in analysing the English acronyms DJ (disc jockey) and OT (overtime work), which are
used by most Hong Kong people in preference for their Cantonese equivalents, Li,
(1999) observes that they have been transferred into Hong Kong Cantonese for so
long that Hong Kong people may not be conscious of their English origin.
Hence, the use of English loan words in Hong Kong Cantonese cannot simply be
attributed to conscious code-mixing by Hong Kong bilinguals. There is a difference,
for example, between the employment of academic English terms in a tutorial
conducted in Cantonese at a university in Hong Kong, and the free, spontaneous, use
of popular English loan words by two youngsters in a friendly chat. In the latter
context, which involves English loan words being absorbed into the Hong Kong
Cantonese vocabulary, the pronunciation of these words will often be modified to
conform to Cantonese phonology. In fact, in a study of phonetic borrowing from
other languages in written Cantonese in Hong Kong, Li (2000b) found that English is
commonly used in Hong Kong as a resource for expressing Cantonese morphemes in
print. (That is, English words are used in written Cantonese to represent those
Cantonese words which do not exist in Standard Written Chinese.) This kind of
“code-mixing” in written Cantonese is becoming common in informal contexts and
publications. This suggests that we may need an alternative perspective from which
4
to view this emerging linguistic practice in Hong Kong, on top of seeing it as
conscious choice of code for accurate communication of meaning.
Cantonised pronunciation of loan words from English
It is within the experience of many people that when loan words from another
language become part of the local lexicon, their pronunciation will undergo
phonological assimilation to conform to the phonology of the local language. This
process of phonological assimilation of borrowing has generally been confirmed by
research (e.g., Suleiman, 1983; Kilgour & Hendrickson, 1992). In the Asia-Pacific
context, Japanese has been extensively studied with respect to borrowings from
English (Nakagawa, 1996; Honna, 1995; Hayashi & Hayashi, 1995). McCreary (1990),
for example, has shown how English words that have become standard lexical items
in everyday Japanese undergo the phonological processes of vowel insertion for
consonant clusters, back clipping, front- and mid-deletion, and other simplifications.
Thus, McDonald’s (as in McDonald’s restaurant) becomes makudonaludo; ‘football’
becomes futobaru; and ‘golf’ becomes gorufu. The underlying phonological
processes have turned these words into Japanese-sounding vocabulary.
What happens to an English word when it is imported into Hong Kong Cantonese?
The first study of lexical borrowings from English into Hong Kong Cantonese was
conducted by Chan and Kwok (1982). Li (1999) investigated the imprint that English
had made on Hong Kong Cantonese after the handover of sovereignty in 1997. The
data for this study, however, was written Chinese in the Hong Kong press. Overall,
there has been little research on Cantonised pronunciation of loan words from
English that made use of speech data.
Although Li’s study (1999) is based on written data, the analysis has provided
evidence of phonological assimilation when English loan words are used in
Cantonese. Li cited the examples of the English words van and cool, which are “often
pronounced with a clear Cantonese flavor characterized by the use of a syllable-initial
/w/ in the former, and the dropping of the syllable-final lateral in the latter” (p. 29).
But overall, there has been a dearth of research on the pronunciation of English loan
words in Hong Kong Cantonese. We do not have a published glossary of loan words
from English used in everyday Cantonese conversation, or detailed published
analyses of the processes of phonological assimilation that result in the
pronunciation of these loan words in Cantonese. Nevertheless I shall illustrate these
5
possible processes by analyzing 5 example English loan words in Hong Kong
Cantonese below. (In the following, the phonetic symbols I use are those advocated
in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, 1999.)
Example 1:
Original word in English: bus 
Pronunciation in Hong Kong Cantonese: 
Phonological assimilation: The voiced bilabial plosive  in English becomes the
unaspirated bilabial plosive  in Cantonese. The English central vowel  becomes
the Cantonese central vowel . The English coda consonant  becomes an extra
syllable  in Cantonese because Cantonese does not have coda consonants. s is
chosen as the inserted vowel probably because auditorily, it is close to the English
alveolar fricative .
Example 2:
Original word in English: fans (meaning in ‘admirers’) 
Pronunciation in Hong Kong Cantonese: 
Phonological assimilation: The English  becomes the Cantonese . Like ‘bus’, the
coda consonant  becomes an extra syllable s.
Example 3:
Original word in English: store 
Pronunciation in Hong Kong Cantonese: 
Phonological assimilation: The Cantonese phonological system does not have  in
the onset position. The first consonant  in the English consonant cluster  is
rendered in Cantonese as an extra syllable . The English voiceless alveolar plosive
becomes the Cantonese unaspirated alveolar plosive . The English back vowel
 is rendered as the Cantonese back vowel .
Example 4:
Original word in English: game (as in ‘computer game’) 
Pronunciation in Hong Kong Cantonese: 
Phonological assimilation: Cantonese has the rhyme , but not .
Example 5:
Original word in English: buffet 
Pronunciation in Hong Kong Cantonese: 
Phonological assimilation: Although the Cantonese  is quite close to the English
6
, there is no word in Cantonese which is pronounced as . A new
approximation which represents an existing word in Cantonese is .
The above examples illustrate some of the possible assimilation processes that take
place when English loan words are pronounced in daily Cantonese. However, these
examples must not be seen as generalizations. For example, the resulting Cantonese
pronunciation may not always represent an existing word in Cantonese, such as .
The criteria for the choice of tone for the resulting Cantonese pronunciation also
require further research.
Do localized pronunciations of loan words influence L2 learners’ pronunciation of the
same words in the target language? Reedy (1999) studied the proliferation of
English loan words in Japanese, and postulated that this would have significant
ramifications for the learning of English as a foreign language in Japan. Reedy posited
that this could to “the fossilization of katakanized pronunciation patterns with
respect to the acquisition of English word” (p. 98). Reedy acknowledged that further
studies need to be conducted to support this proposition.
There is consensus among scholars that in the pronunciation of L2 speakers, L1
phonological transfer is unavoidable (Jenkins, 2006). It is not surprising, therefore,
that Hong Kong people speak English with a “Hong Kong accent.” To date, there have
been several studies and descriptions of the phonological features of the Hong Kong
accent of English (e.g., Hung, 2000; Setter, 2006; Stibbard, 2004; Peng & Setter, 2000).
These empirical studies or descriptions based on a comparison of English and
Cantonese phonology typically focus on the pronunciation problems exhibited by
Hong Kong Cantonese ESL learners or speakers when they are engaged in English
speech/conversation. As contended by Chan and Li (2000), “most of the Cantonese
ESL learners’ difficulties with English pronunciation may be accounted for by
reference to fundamental differences between the phoneme inventories of the two
languages, the characteristics and distribution of the phonemes, the permissible
syllable structures and the rhythmic patterns of the two languages in question” (p.
83). But little research has been done on Cantonised pronunciation of loan words
from English.
The present study investigates Hong Kong students’ awareness of Cantonised
pronunciation of English loan words. The next section reports on the design and
results of the study.
7
The Study
This study aims to investigate Hong Kong students’ awareness of the Cantonised
pronunciation of some English loan words used in their daily conversation. Two
listening tasks were designed and administered on a total of 185 Secondary Four
(Grade 10) students at a school in Hong Kong. These students, like most of their
Secondary Four counterparts in Hong Kong, would have studied English for a
minimum of 10 years. The level of student intake of this particular school was above
average. According to their teachers, their attitudes towards learning English were
generally positive.
The 185 students were gathered on the afternoon of a normal school day for the two
listening tasks. The purpose of the study was announced to the students. They were
then each given a tasksheet containing the two listening tasks. (See Appendix for the
tasksheet.)
Task 1: Target words embedded in sentences
Task 1 consisted of 10 sentences. Each sentence contained the target word to be
tested, and the target word was not indicated to the students. The sentence was read
aloud to the students 3 times at normal speed. The students listened and circled the
word in each sentence which they thought represented a Cantonised pronunciation.
The 10 target words were: game, E, show, coupon, social, concerned, buffet, souvenir,
souvenir, tiramisu, and, physics. These 10 words are among some of the popular loan
words in Hong Kong whose pronunciation has been Cantonised for everyday
conversation.
Task 2: Target words in word pairs
In Task 1, the students had no idea of the target words tested. Task 2 aimed to find
out whether there was any difference if students’ attention was brought to focus on
the target words. In Task 2, each of the target words was read aloud to the students
in 2 ways: in Cantonised pronunciation and in RP (Received Pronunciation). The order
of the 2 pronunciations was varied for the 10 target words. The students listened to
the 2 renditions for each word and circled the one which they thought represented a
Cantonised pronunciation.
After the tests, the students answers were tallied and computed. This paper presents
8
the results of Task 1 only. The results are given; the percentage that follows each
target word represents the percentage of the 185 words who correctly heard the
Cantonisied pronunciation.
Game: 67.6%
E: 27.0%
Show: 49.7%
Coupon: 44.3%
Social: 26.4%
Concerned: 28.6%
Buffet: 79.5%
Souvenir: 56.2%
Tiramisu: 41.1%
Physics: 69.1%
Discussion
The percentages shown above range from the lowest 27% for the word E, and the
highest 79.1% for the word buffet. For 6 of the ten words, less than half of the
students were aware of the Cantonised pronunciation. How should the results be
interpreted? Do the figures indicate a high or level of awareness of Cantonised
pronunciation? Perhaps more importantly, does it matter whether Hong Kong
students are aware of Cantonised pronunciation or not?
In the absence of data from similar research, either with regard to Hong Kong English
or other varieties of English, any interpretation and any subsequent discussion can’t
avoid being speculative. Hence, rather than drawing firm conclusions from the data, I
shall point to a number of issues that merit further attention and exploration, in my
attempt to address the issue of whether Cantonised pronunciation matters or not. I
am aware that different people may have different interpretations of the results, but
to facilitate my discussion below, I shall take the stance that data obtained indicate a
low level of awareness of Cantonised pronunciation.
Cantonised pronunciation as part of Hong Kong English?
In recent years, a number of scholars have pointed out that as there now exist a big
varieties of English, and that non-native speakers of English, who have far
outnumbered native speakers (Crystal, 1997; Graddol, 1997), use English as a
9
medium of communication or lingua franca with each other, there is no need for L2
learners to worry about not attaining a native-like pronunciation (Jenkins, 2000;
Kirkpatrick, 2006). Kirkpatrick (2006) has even expounded on the disadvantages of
insisting on a native-speaker model in the teaching of English as a second language,
both in terms of teacher confidence and learner morale. Like Jenkins (2006),
Kirkpatrick calls for a lingua franca, or bilingual approach, which emphasizes the
learning of linguistic features, cultural information, and communicative strategies,
rather than aiming to attain native-speaker standards. Kirkpatrick argues that such an
approach is particularly suited for Hong Kong and Japan, where the majority of
teachers and learners speak Cantonese and Japanese, respectively, as their mother
tongue.
One perspective from which to conceive of the situation is to treat Cantonised
pronunciation as part of Hong Kong English. After all, Hong Kong people are familiar
with Cantonised English words used in every Cantonese conversation, and will have
little difficulty understanding these words when they are used in English conversation
between themselves. In my view, this position can be supported with reference to
the notion of World Englishes (Kachru, 1992, McArthur, 1998). If we follow this line of
argument, the next logical question is ask is: Has Hong Kong English established itself
as a variety of English?
Although a number of writers have recognized Hong Kong English as a variety (e.g.,
Bolton, 2008). However, some writers contend that since English is seldom used for
intraethnic communication, it has not achieved the status of a variety, unlike for
example, Singapore: ““Hong Kong has not developed a nativized variety of English on
a par with Singaporean English” (Li, 1999). Some writers take a more cautious
position (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 2007), and suggest that Hong Kong English may be
emerging as a variety.
Hence, if we accept Hong Kong English as a variety, then we can accept Cantonised
pronunciation as a feature of Hong Kong English pronunciation. But it may still take
some time, especially outside of the academia (Li, 2007), for that to happen. In the
meantime, Cantonised pronunciation could be regarded as mispronunciation by
many people.
Cantonised pronunciation internationally intelligible?
Another perspective, a more pragmatic one, from which to view the occurrence of
10
Cantonised pronunciation is to ask whether it undermines their intelligibility when
Hong Kong people engage in spoken communication with English speakers from
other places. Hung (2002), has argued that the issue of "international intelligibility"
should not be approached from the viewpoint of speakers of traditional varieties of
English, but from a truly international perspective. For him, therefore, the most
pragmatic approach is to accept the local variety of English as a legitimate basis to
build on, and to teach our learners sounds or features no found in it only where they
are truly important for international intelligibility.
To date, little research has been on the international intelligibility of Hong Kong
English. The only study of the international intelligibility of Hong Kong English has
been done by Kirkpatrick, Deterding, & Wong (2008). In this study, samples of
recordings of extended discourse obtained from three female and three male
final-year English majors at the Hong Kong Institute of Education were played to
groups of university students in Singapore and Australia. The listeners were asked to
complete worksheets based on the recordings in order to determine the extent to
which they found the Hong Kong speakers intelligible. They were also asked to
evaluate the extent to which they thought the Hong Kong speakers were intelligent
and likeable, and to give reasons for their choices.
Kirkpatrick, Deterding, and Wong (2008) set the intelligibility benchmark as 80% of
the questions on the worksheet correctly answered. On the basis of this threshold,
they conclude from the results that educated Hong Kong English is highly intelligible
in contexts outside Hong Kong and to people who may not be familiar with Hong
Kong voices. The average overall intelligibility score for listeners for heard the
speakers only once was 81 per cent. The Hong Kong female speakers are particularly
intelligible with these listeners getting an average score of 86 per cent. (This
compares with a lower average intelligibility score for the males of 74 per cent.)
Of course, the subjects in this study were English-major undergraduates. Little is
known about the international intelligibility of English spoken by speakers from other
sectors and education levels in Hong Kong. Moreover, little is known about the effect
of Cantonised pronunciation of loan words on international intelligibility.
In due course, research may be able to tell us whether Cantonised pronunciation
matters or not as far as intelligibility is concerned. In the meantime, there are two
related issues worth of attention. First, if more and more loan words are used in daily
conversation and if the practice of Cantonising their pronunciation continues, will
11
this undermine the international intelligibility of Hong Kong English? Second, even if
intelligibility is not at stake, will students and candidates who display considerable
Cantonised pronunciation in high-stakes English oral exams be disadvantaged?
To recap, some work has been done on the international intelligibility of Hong Kong
English, but further research is needed before any firm conclusion can be drawn. The
subjects of the studies by Kirkpatrick are English-major undergraduates. Further
research needs to cover speakers of Hong Kong English in different work sections,
and at different education levels. Furthermore, intelligibility studies on Hong Kong
English have so far concentrated on its phonological system. Further research will
need to look at the effect of Cantonised pronunciation on the international
intelligibility of Hong Kong English.
Cantonised pronunciation accepted in public exams?
The discussion so far has not led to a strong objection to Cantonised pronunciation
when Hong Kong people engage in English conversation. However, a practical issue
that concerns Hong Kong people, in particular students, is whether Cantonised
pronunciation is accepted in high-stakes speaking exams. With the movement
towards criterion-referenced assessment in public exams in Hong Kong,
pronunciation has been identified as a separate grading criterion in the speaking
section of such public English proficiency examinations as the Territory-wide System
Assessment (TSA), School-based Assessment (SBA), Hong Kong Certificate of
Education Examination (HKCE), and Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers
(LPAT). If Cantonised pronunciation is treated as errors, then candidates who use
them will be doing themselves a disservice. What is the status of Cantonised
pronunciation, or indeed Hong Kong English pronunciation, in public speaking exams
in Hong Kong?
Despite calls for attention to Hong Kong English by academics in recent years, the
notion has not begun to be heeded in the school and public examination system.
Criteria for assessing pronunciation in the public examinations have remained elusive,
although they have avoided referring to native-speaker standards. In the
School-based Assessment for upper secondary students, which is administered by
schoolteachers on their own students, the pronunciation performance descriptor for
Level 6, the highest level, in the Speaking assessment, is stated as: “(Candidates) can
pronounce all sounds/sound clusters and words clearly and accurately; can speak
fluently and naturally, with very little hesitation, and using intonation to enhance
12
communication” (HKEAA, 2005, p. 31). In the Language Proficiency Assessment for
Teachers of English, the pronunciation descriptor for Level 5, the highest level, in the
Speaking Assessment, is phrased as: “Reads (the assessment passage) in a fully
comprehensible way with no systematic errors in pronunciation and uses stress and
intonation in a very natural way” (Education Bureau, 2007, p. 71).
To recap, as far as public examinations are concerned, virtually nothing has been
done to study and explicate what acceptable pronunciation is for Hong Kong people
either for intra-ethnic or for international communication. As these are high-stakes
examinations, candidates will likely take a “safer” approach, and stick to the “old
varieties of English” (Hung, 2002). This is especially so since as pointed by Li (2007),
within the Chinese communities, the advocacy of non-native varieties is “not
welcomed by such key stakeholders as local teachers of English, business leaders, the
examinations authority, including the benchmark developer), and indeed the
government itself. In addition, parents are likely to resist the idea of suing a
non-native model of English in school, thinking that it is much less prestigious
compared with a NS-based model” (p. 14). As such, candidates for these high-stakes
public examinations who do not follow a native-speaker model may disadvantaged.
But given the rapid development of the notion of World Englishes, how to assess
pronunciation will become a pressing question (Canagarajah, 2006)). It is time that
the education and examination system in Hong Kong started looking into the issue.
Cantonised Pronunciation as a continuing trend?
Perhaps the experience of Japan will provide some enlightenment on the effect of
nativised phonology on the acquisition of English pronunciation by L2 learners.
English lexical items are widely borrowed into the Japanese language. In the process,
the pronunciations are modified to conform to Japanese phonology, and are written
down in the katakana syllabary. These katakana English expressions then become
part of the Japanese language in everyday conversation. However, Japanese
syllabification and phonemic features often make the loan words very distinct in form
from the English (Berendt, 2006). In other words, the resulting Japanised words could
sound very different from original English pronunciations. This has prompted Smith
(2006) to consider the effect of this practice on the learning of English by Japanese
speakers:
… to what extent does an active knowledge of katakana English aid or hinder the
learning of English or how might this knowledge affect or relate to the use of
13
English by native speakers of Japanese who are also proficient in a variety of
English? Does a knowledge of katakana English have nay bearing on language
learning or on the use of English as a second language by native speakers of
Japanese? (p 78)
Smith outlines some common patterns that Japanese speakers apply when
translating English words into Japanese pronunciations. Smith emphasizes that,
despites some variations, these conversions are rule-governed, and are to be
distinguished from poor pronunciations or mispronunciations. His overview of these
common patterns shows that “a great deal is lost in translation from English to
Japanese pronunciation” (p. 73). Smith then asks a question that has great relevance
for the Hong Kong situation: To what extent is it possible to recover an English
pronunciation from its katakanised equivalent? Smith calls this process “back
translation.” His observation is that back translation is difficult: “speakers will be
greatly assisted in back translation if they already know the corresponding words or
names in English, but without this knowledge, they are in serious trouble and no
doubt will not be able to construct corresponding terms in English” (p. 73). That is to
say, Japanese speakers cannot rely on their knowledge of katakana English in learning
or working out the pronunciation of English words.
An analogy for Hong Kong would be that it is unlikely that students in Hong Kong will
be able to apply their conscious knowledge, if it exists, Cantonised pronunciations of
loan words in acquiring and capturing the pronunciation of English vocabulary. If
knowledge of nativised pronunciation may not help, does it hinder pronunciation
acquisition. In the case of Japanese speakers, Smith affirms that carefully designed
experimental studies will be necessary to arrive at a clear answer to the question.
Conclusion
It is now a widespread practice in Hong Kong Cantonese conversation to take words
from English and Cantonise their pronunciation. These words have more or less
become part of the Hong Kong Cantonese lexicon, and the Cantonised pronunciation
is often used in preference to their original native-speaker pronunciation by bilingual
speakers in Hong Kong in everyday conversation. Monolingual Cantonese speakers
may not even be aware that these are originally English words. Given this situation, is
it likely that Hong Kong people will continue to use the Cantonised pronunciation
when they engage in all-English speech events?
14
The study reported in this study investigated Hong Kong students’ awareness of
Cantonised pronunciation of English. Although this is not a territory-wide survey, the
results suggest that Hong Kong students may have a low awareness of Cantonised
pronunciation. The logical question for TESOL professionals in Hong Kong to ask then
is: Does this matter? From the point of view of World Englishes, we may think of
Cantonised pronunciation is part of Hong Kong English, a variety of English to be
recognized. It must be remembered, though, that unlike the case of Singaporean
English, there is still disagreement within the academia whether Hong Kong English
has developed to a point where it can be recognized as a variety of English. Moreover,
there may be strong opposition within Hong Kong to the recognition of a non-native
variety for business and education.
A pragmatic approach, then, is to evaluate Cantonised pronunciation on the basis of
international intelligibility. However, research on the international intelligibility of
Hong Kong English has only started, and this research has so far focused on the
phonology of Hong Kong English. We know little about how intelligible the
Cantonised pronunciation of loan words from English will be to speakers of other
varieties of English. Further research may be able to shed more light on these issues,
but before we have any concrete evidence on whether Cantonised pronunciation
matters, two issues require attention. First, public examinations have not taken any
concrete steps to respond to the developing notion of World Englishes, and as a
result, candidates whose pronunciation does not conform to a native-speaker model
may be disadvantaged, even if their spoken English does not present any intelligibility
problems. Second, the trend of using loan words from English and Cantonising them
in Cantonese conversation is developing rapidly in Hong Kong, and if this trend
continues, will intelligibility become a “problem”? In this regard, the experience of
katakanised English in Japan may provide valuable lessons for Hong Kong.
***
Acknowledgment: I am indebted to Ms Stephanie Yeung, who allowed me to conduct
the awareness tests with all Secondary Four students at her school.
References
Berendt, E., et al. (2006). English loan words of Japanese elementary school children.
Asian Englishes, 8(2), 26-45.
Bolton, K. (2008). English is Asia, Asian Englishes, and the issue of proficiency. English
15
Today, 24(2), 3-12.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Changing communicative needs, revised assessment
objectives: Testing English as an international language. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 3(3), 229-242.
Chan, A. Y. W., & Li, D. C. S. (2000). English and Cantonese phonology in contrast:
Explaining Cantonese ESL learners' English pronunciation problems. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 13(1), 67-85.
Chan, M., & Kwok, H. (1982). A study of lexical borrowing from English in Hong Kong
Chinese. Hong Kong: Centre of Asian Studies, University of Hong Kong.
Crystal, D. (1997). Engish as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Education Bureau (2007). Language proficiency assessment for Teachers (English
Language) handbook. Hong Kong: Education Bureau, Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Gibbons, J. (1987). Code-mixing and code choice: A Hong Kong case study. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Graddol, D. (1997). The future of English. London: British Council.
Hayashi, T., & Hayashi, R. (1995). A cognitive study of English loan words in Japanese
discourse. World Englishes, 14(1), 55-66.
Hong Kng Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA). (2005). 2007 HKCE
English Language examination: Introduction to the school-based assessment
component. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.
Honna, N. (1995). English in Japanese society: Language within language. Journal of
Multlingual and Multicultural Development, 16(1-2), 45-62.
Hung, T. T. N. (2000). Towards a Phonology of Hong Kong English. World Englishes,
19(3), 337.
Hung, T. T. N. (2002). English as a global language and the issue of international
intelligibiltiy. Asian Englishes, 5(1), 4-17.
International Phonetic Association. (1999). Handbook of the International Phonetic
Association. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language: New
models, new norms, new goals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2006). Current perspectives on teaching World Englishes and English as a
Lingua Franca. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 157-181.
Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.).
Kilgour, H., & Hendrickson, G. (1992). Bantoanon phonology. Studies in Philippine
Linguistics, 9(1), 111-136.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2006). Asian Englishes: Implications for English lanugaage teaching.
16
Asian Englishes, 9(2), 4-19.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for international communication
and English language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirkpatrick, A., Deterding, D., & Wong, J. (2008). The international intelligibility of
Hong Kong English. World Englishes, 27(3-4), 359-377.
Li, D. C. S. (1996). Issues in bilingualism and biculturalism: A Hong Kong case study.
New York P. Lang.
Li, D. C. S. (1999). Linguistic convergence: Impact of English on Hong Kong Cantonese.
Asian Englishes, 2(1), 5-36.
Li, D. C. S. (2000a). Cantonese-English Code-Switching Research in Hong Kong: A Y2K
Review. World Englishes, 19(3), 305.
Li, D. C. S. (2000b). Phonetic borrowing: Key to the vitality of written Cantonese in
Hong Kong. Written Language and Literacy, 3(2), 199-233.
Li, D. C. S. (2007). Researching and teaching China and Hong Kong English. English
Today, 23(3-4), 11-17.
Luke, K. K. (1998). Why two languages might be better than one: Motivations of
language mixing in Hong Kong. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong
Kong at century's end (pp. 145-159). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Major, R. C., Fitzmaurice, S. F., Bunta, F., & Balasubramanian, C. (2002). The Effects of
Nonnative Accents on Listening Comprehension: Implications for ESL
Assessment. TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 173-190.
McArthur, T. (1998). The English languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCreary, D. R. (1990). Loan words in Japanese. Journal of Asian Pacific
Communication, 1, 61-69.
Nakagawa, A. (1996). English loanwords in the 1990's in Japan: ERIC.
Peng, L., & Setter, J. (2000). The emergence of systematicity in the English
pronunciations of two Cantonese-speaking adults in Hong Kong. English
World-wide, 21(1), 81-108.
Reedy, S. (1999, 1999). Towards the katakanization of English in Japan: Implications
for language learning. Paper presented at the the AILA International Applied
Linguistics Convention, Tokyo, Japan.
Setter, J. (2006). Speech Rhythm in World Englishes: The Case of Hong Kong. TESOL
Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages
and of Standard English as a Second Dialect, 40(4), 763.
Smith, D. L. (2006). English in disguise: Japanese renditions of words lifted from
English. Asian Englishes, 9(2), 68-79.
Stibbard, R. (2004). The Spoken English of Hong Kong: A Study of Co-Occurring
Segmental Errors. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(2), 127.
17
Suleiman, S. M. (1983, April, 1983). The phonological assimilation of borrowing.
Paper presented at the the 2nd Annual Linguistics Conference, Irbid, Jordan.
***
Appendix
Task 1: Listen to the following sentences. If you think you hear a pronunciation error,
underline it. (Some sentences may not contain an error.)
1. When I saw him, he was playing a computer game.
2. Yesterday I met a girl whose name is Fiona.
3. He told me he lived in Block E.
4. Last night, she watched a fashion show on TV.
5. My friend gave me a coupon for a free hamburger.
6. In that school, they have a subject called Social Studies.
7. I’m concerned that I may fail the test.
8. Can you tell me where the toilet is?
9. We went to a restaurant to have a buffet lunch.
10. When you are in Japan, don’t forget to buy a souvenir for me.
11. I bought him a tiramisu cake for his birthday.
12. Harry likes physics, but his brother likes chemistry.
Task 2: Listen to 10 words. Each word will be read aloud twice. Circle the correct
pronunciation. Do not change your answers to Task 1. (Each word was read twice to
the students, once in RP, and once in Cantonised pronunciation. The sequence was
varied for the 10 words.)
1. social
2. souvenir
3. concern
4. physics
5. E
6. game
7. tiramisu
8. coupon
9. show
10. buffet
***
18