Teacher Sociolinguistics Background
Teacher Sociolinguistics Background
To cite this article: Daphnee Hui Lin Lee (2020): Teacher sociolinguistic backgrounds: a
multilinguistic domain approach to understand teacher agency and language planning outcomes,
Current Issues in Language Planning, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2020.1785753
Article views: 49
Introduction
Scholars of language policy and planning (LPP) now recognize that teachers actively influence
outcomes as state policy unfolds in the multiple domains nested within a sociolinguistic
context (e.g. Baldauf, 2012; Evans, 2013; Feng & Adamson, 2018). This paper examines the
interplay among state, education, and family domains, and the unintended consequences
that arise from states promoting subtractive approaches to discourage the use of pre-existing
languages in Hong Kong and Singapore. It examines how subtractive LPP creates resistance to
policy fine-tuning with the interplay among state approaches, teacher agency, and teacher
sociolinguistic backgrounds. In the face of new education policies, such as in the medium of
instruction or in language instruction, the study of teacher sociolinguistic backgrounds (child-
hood home language—CHL) and sociolinguistic choice (home language as adult—HL) can
offer an understanding of how teachers may respond to influence state-intended outcomes.
CONTACT Daphnee Hui Lin Lee dhllee@eduhk.hk Education Policy and Leadership, The Education University of
Hong Kong, Ting Kok, Hong Kong
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. H. L. LEE
‘Local’ languages?
The term ‘local’ language broadly refers to communication medium(s) that are prevalently
used by a significant segment of the population at a locale (Pennycook, 2010; Phillipson,
2008). It refers to languages whose linguistic vitality is under question with the introduc-
tion of dominant languages to a population. A variety of terminology has been used to
conceptualize local languages, such as indigenous or heritage languages (Fishman, 2014;
Valdés, 2014), minority languages (Feng & Adamson, 2018; Yevudey & Agbozo, 2019),
regional languages (Spolsky, 2018a; Van der Jeught, 2017), and dialects (Han & Wu,
2020; McDermott, 2019; Ng, 2017; Poon & Lau, 2016).
In the absence of a more appropriate term, the most prevalent term employed by scho-
lars of sociolinguistics in the Chinese context will be used in this study. ‘Chinese dialects’
will refer to the diverse range of southern Chinese languages (e.g. Cantonese, Hakka, and
Hokkien) in this comparative analysis of LPP in Hong Kong and Singapore. The term
‘regional language’ is inappropriate. Mandarin, supported by the political sponsorship
of China and its Confucian Institutes (Gil, 2017), is rapidly replacing Chinese languages
that used to command influence as regional languages prevalently used in Chinese
societies. Chinese dialects can be heritage or indigenous languages only to the extent
that these language mediums are regarded an inextricable part of cultural identity, and
under the (plausible) threat of being displaced by dominant languages in Hong Kong
(Bauer, 2000; Pierson, 1998) and Singapore (Lee, 2017; Ng, 2017). However, as the use
of these terms prevails in the study of Native American minority languages, it is proble-
matic to apply them in contexts where ethnic Chinese are the demographical majority.
English, French, and German MOIs (Van der Jeught, 2017). Local political resistance in
Navarre against Spanish domination drew on economic justifications to opt for an
English MOI, thus creating the space for the eventual use of native Basque as the MOI,
instead of Spanish (Erdocia, 2019). The education domain is highly instrumental in the
preservation of heritage languages. For example, the status of Ulster-Scots as an indepen-
dent language was previously contested, yet its status as a ‘dialect’ was eventually over-
turned by negotiations between state and education domains (McDermott, 2019).
Likewise, in Wales, education plays an instrumental role in the preservation of the
Welsh language (Baker, 1995).
Mandarin (Goh et al., 2005; Li et al., 2012; Ng, 2017). In Hong Kong, LPP and fine-tuning
initiatives are more recent than in Singapore. Subtractive LPP has been highly successful in
displacing the English language dominance in Hong Kong society with Cantonese—the
local Chinese language of Hong Kong (Ho & Ho, 2004). In a survey conducted by the Edu-
cation Bureau (SCHOLAR, 2015) and in a qualitative scholarly study (Chan, 2014), tea-
chers expressed reservations toward policy fine-tuning to introduce Putonghua
(Mandarin) as Medium of Instruction in Chinese in Hong Kong (survey only), and to
prevent the further decline of English proficiency levels brought about by Mother
Tongue Education policies. Further, research shows that, although students express a pre-
ference for English MOI learning, teachers remain resolute in their preference for the pre-
vious LPP to promote Chinese as the MOI (Poon & Lau, 2016).
Evans (2013, p. 302) noted that Chinese societies struggle with ‘balancing the claims (of
power over a territory) of the world’s two leading languages (i.e. English and Mandarin)’.
This power is symbolized by the establishment of a language as the lingua franca, or a
‘language deliberately acquired outside of the home environment … consciously learned
for social or pragmatic reasons—essentially so as to cope in a wider society outside the
community one was born to’ (Ostler, 2010). However, unlike contexts where society is
more open to the accommodation of new languages (e.g. Belgium) (Van der Jeught,
2017), societies that have undergone subtractive LPP appear less amendable to policy
fine-tuning to transform the lingua franca in subsequent power struggles.
Hong Kong and Singapore hold distinctive positions to other Chinese-majority
societies with regard to their treatment of English and Mandarin languages. As ‘former
(British) colonies such as Hong Kong and Singapore’, the two contexts are strategic
sites reflecting the symbolic power of the two dominant world languages (Gil, 2017,
pp. 18–19). As such, the conceptualization of a lingua franca as a language acquired
from outside the family domain (Ostler, 2010) is problematic, and this conceptual gap
may likewise arise in societies where subtractive LPP prevails. As this study will show,
the ethnic Chinese populations in both locales have chosen to convert the home language
to dominant world languages to varied degrees. This implies that children of the two
societies will acquire or have already acquired the lingua franca—including dominant
world languages and local languages—within the family domain, whether or not the
household originally comprised native speakers of the language. In particular, the impli-
cations of subtractive LPP and fine-tuning are highly important to Hong Kong. Compared
with Singapore, where local Chinese languages have been almost devitalized by English
and Mandarin, Cantonese (a Chinese dialect) remains the lingua franca of Hong Kong
society. Hong Kong and Singapore make excellent case studies to examine the unintended
consequences of subtractive LPP and fine-tuning, which is an important topic of study
given the rising numbers of state agencies that have adopted this approach to LPP.
provides the backdrop to understand how teachers exercise agency underpinned by their
sociolinguistic backgrounds (CHL) and sociolinguistic choice (HL) in both contexts. This
investigation will provide insight to how subtractive LPP produces unintended conse-
quences that influence teachers’ subsequent receptivity to policy fine-tuning.
Conceptual framework
A sociolinguistic context comprises linguistic domains or social spaces in which people’s
values shape their language choice (Fishman, 1972). Context refers to the setting that
defines the values of social spaces embedded within it, which sets how people will exercise
agency, or choice as they transit between social spaces (e.g. state, education, and family)
(Feng & Adamson, 2018). People pay selective attention to the choices available to
them based on the values that prevail in a context. For conceptual clarity, this paper
restricts the focus to two prevailing values that underpin how people make personal
language choices. For ease of reference, this paper refers to the first set of values as rational,
and the second set of values as emotional. These values are regarded as conceptual con-
structs of the dominant traits that may prevail in each case, which does not preclude
people’s adoption of both values or other values in reality. They provide a comparison
of how underpinning values shape contrasting outcomes as individuals try to implement
subtractive LPP.
People who pay more attention to values that following rules will channel collective
action to achieve a productivity-related goal are more likely to perform rational actions
(e.g. maximize competitive advantage at minimum cost) (DiMaggio & Powell, 2000; Har-
alambos & Holborn, 2013; Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2001). People who pay more attention
to persuasions that collective action is ethical and meaningful for achieving emotion-
related wellbeing are more likely to use feelings to motivate actions (e.g. transform feelings
that inspire collective unity into social movements) (Collins, 2001; Haralambos &
Holborn, 2013; O’Connor, 2008). People’s values manifest in nuanced actions because
agency results from the interaction of the context with multilinguistic domains. That is,
people may act according to the underpinning values that prevail in the context as they
exercise agency to interpret the distinctive demands of each linguistic domain. Spolsky
(2012) identified key linguistic domains that affect LPP, which Feng and Adamson
(2018) narrowed down to domains most relevant to the Chinese context: state, education,
and family.
State domain
Singapore gained independence from British colonial rule in 1965. Ethnic Chinese Singa-
poreans are predominantly of southern Chinese descent who spoke little English and less
Mandarin (Kuhn, 1997). State LPP first used rational values to encourage English conver-
sion, but for Mandarin, emotional values prevailed over rational ones. Chinese Singapor-
eans were convinced by rational state persuasions of the pragmatic value that English-
proficiency can offer them in the world economy (Rodan, 1985). By contrast, state LPP
introduced Mandarin as ‘mother tongue’ a decade later in the Speak Mandarin Campaign
(1979) to tighten Chinese Singaporean’s cultural connections with China (Chung, 2019).
Subtractive approaches were communicated in both LPP initiatives. In the first, choosing
6 D. H. L. LEE
rational values to embrace the English language, fine-tuning policies that employ
emotional values that Mandarin is the mother tongue of the Chinese has limited persua-
siveness to Chinese Singaporeans on adopting it as a master language. Hong Kong state
agencies employed emotional persuasions to delink Hong Kong citizens from the
English language, a symbol of British colonization. Convinced by emotional values to
embrace mother tongue education (Cantonese), fine-tuning policies that employ rational
values that English and Mandarin proficiencies are essential to the pragmatic survival of
Hong Kong has limited persuasiveness to Chinese Hong Kong citizens. To understand the
resistance developed against LPP fine-tuning, it is important to examine the interplay
between the state and education domains to gain an appreciation of the impact of ‘subtrac-
tive’ LPP.
Mandarin fine-tuning policies in 2008, student attitudes toward the English language
declined at the expense of their increased positive attitudes toward Mandarin (Lai,
2013). The situation seems to improve with a greater emphasis on the importance of
English language proficiency with the introduction of LPP fine-tuning, with students
expressing that they enjoy and prefer to learn in English (Poon & Lau, 2016). Nevertheless,
teacher agency remains instrumental to successful LPP implementation, as research evi-
dence indicates. Subtractive LPP created unintended consequences in the form of
teacher reservations toward policy fine-tuning. For example, Poon and Lau (2016)
found that subsequent policy calls for a mixed-code MOI to combat the loss of English
proficiency in Hong Kong met with teacher resistance - teachers maintain their preference
to teach in Chinese (Cantonese). Therefore, a complex situation confronts Hong Kong
students, where they achieve a better understanding of the curriculum with Cantonese
MOI than with English or Mandarin MOI (Chan, 2014; Ng et al., 2017), yet the reality
remains that they will be disadvantaged in university qualification examinations adminis-
tered in English (Evans & Morrison, 2017; Ng et al., 2017). Similar patterns have emerged
in the implementation of Mandarin language instruction in Hong Kong. Students lack the
language environment for Mandarin usage because Mandarin speakers must align with
the Cantonese-speaking school context (Gu, 2011).
According to a survey conducted by the Education Bureau (SCHOLAR, 2015), Hong
Kong has yet to equip the population with an acceptable level of Mandarin proficiency
despite the fine-tuning policies implemented in 2008. In response, a proposition has
been presented to teach Mandarin from Kindergarten 1 onwards (about age four) and
to defer Cantonese language instruction to Primary 4 onwards (about age nine) (Li,
2017). However, given the resistance to fine-tuning policies in 2008 and 2010, it
remains to be seen if teachers will support this proposition that adopts a stringent subtrac-
tive approach. We sought answers from the family domain by examining Hong Kong tea-
chers’ sociolinguistic backgrounds.
LPP (e.g. McDermott, 2019). The set of values that prevails likewise varies across contexts,
with emotional values prevailing in some (Yevudey & Agbozo, 2019), rational values in
others (Erdocia, 2019), or a balance between the both (Van der Jeught, 2017). Further,
given that teachers are members of multilinguistic domains, they may interpret state pol-
icies and implement practices in the classrooms underpinned by values that they acquired
in the family domain. In the family domain, a teacher’s personal values are shaped by past
language choices that were made on their behalf (e.g. childhood home language—CHL)
and present language choices at home (e.g. home language in adulthood—HL). Teachers
make personal choices whether to retain the CHL as their HL when they start their own
household, or to convert to another language (Lee, 2017).
Language is a rational instrument when treated as a symbol for gaining a competitive
advantage in power struggles (e.g. political dominance, economic benefit, or cultural iden-
tity) (Pieterse, 2004). Research in Singapore shows that people see personal language
choice as rational decision to gain a competitive advantage in their everyday work and
social lives (De Costa et al., 2016). They take the rational view that language choices in
a household (e.g. home language) reflect personal beliefs regarding which source of
influence should be endorsed in a power struggle (Phillipson, 2008). Consequently,
those who align with the victorious language in a power struggle will possess greater
opportunities to relate more effectively as members of a language community, access
opportunities, make decisions, and create possibilities (Gaibrois & Steyaert, 2017).
An alternative view asserts that language functions not only as a medium of communi-
cation, but also as a medium for individual expression of emotional belonging to a
language community (Pennycook, 2010). Indeed, studies have shown that, despite the
prevalent use of English language in other social settings in China, middle-class parents
emphasize the importance of using Chinese as the home language to ensure that their chil-
dren remain connected to Chinese culture (Yao, 1983). Parents in China select language
programs for their children based on which of these programs best cultivates the children
to become effective adults, rather than purely for rational purposes of economic competi-
tiveness (Yu, 2016).
Given that teachers are also language users in the family domain, this literature review
implies that teachers may respond rationally or emotionally in their language choices. In
the education domain, it has previously been asserted that teachers are the subjects and the
implementers of LPP (Bourdieu, 1989). However, current research shows that teachers are
far from mere passive recipients to state LPP directives (Baldauf, 2012; Lee, 2020; Tran,
2019; Varghese et al., 2005). Therefore, teacher prioritization of rational or emotional
values in their language choice in the family domain will have significant effects on LPP
outcomes in the education domain.
The results from the literature review on teacher agency in LPP implementation infer
that teachers may adopt either rational or emotional values to interpret and implement
LPP. This paper first examined the literature on the emotional influence of teachers’ socio-
linguistic backgrounds. The literature prevails with findings on how personal language
identity in the family domain functions as an emotional influence that shapes teachers’
LPP implementation in the classroom. In Ghana, teachers of bilingual sociolinguistic
backgrounds are found to be more supportive of code-switching and translanguaging
(Yevudey & Agbozo, 2019), thereby illustrating how emotional identification with a
language in the family domain influences the education domain. In Asia, where
10 D. H. L. LEE
subtractive LPP tends to prevail, Vietnamese teachers whose first language is not English
(e.g. Chinese, French, or Russian) find it challenging to adapt to a strict English-only MOI
education (Tran, 2019). Likewise, Korean teachers respond emotionally to English-only
school policies (Choi, 2015). In Hong Kong, teachers question the effectiveness of
English MOI for student learning, mirroring concerns with their own proficiency in teach-
ing in the language (Chan, 2014). Nevertheless, research findings have also emerged on
teachers employing rational approaches. To cite an example from the literature review
highlighted in the previous section, in Singapore, teachers made a rational decision to dis-
courage the use of non-English languages in the classroom, seeing the importance of pro-
moting English proficiency in an education system that adopts subtractive approaches to
language choice (e.g. Vaish, 2012).
Research questions
To understand the interplay among the multilinguistic domains of state, education, and
family in Hong Kong and Singapore, the following research questions guided this
investigation:
RQ1: How do Hong Kong and Singapore teachers compare in their language preferences
based on their CHL-HL conversion patterns?
RQ2: How do these preferences reflect the different attitudes in the two contexts resulting
from LPP toward:
Method
Data collection and sampling
All teachers were invited to participate in this study via schools registered under the Direct
Subsidy Scheme of the Education Bureau in Hong Kong, and schools publicly funded by
the Ministry of Education in Singapore. The measures employed in this study were part of
the demographic items of a survey questionnaire implemented in a larger study. The study
examines whether teachers are empowered by school-based professional development
initiatives to lead in educational change and improvement in Hong Kong and Singapore
(Lee, 2017; 2018; 2020), which closely relates to teacher agency. Information collected rel-
evant to this study included CHL, HL, gender, age, ethnicity, and years of teaching experi-
ence. With relevance to the study, only ethnic Chinese teachers in both contexts were
included. The response to the study invitations in Hong Kong yielded a modest sample
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 11
(n = 638), while a much larger sample of teachers participated in the Singapore study (n =
3,388). Nevertheless, a countercheck with the statistical data on teacher demographics in
the two locales indicated that both samples were comparable in terms of gender, age, and
years of teaching experience to the teaching population (see Table 1) (Hong Kong: Edu-
cation Bureau, 2016; Singapore: Ministry of Education, 2013).
The percentages of female and male teachers in the Hong Kong sample were 59.3%
and 40.7%, respectively, and the percentages of female and male teachers in the
teacher population were 68.8% and 31.2%, respectively. The statistics indicated that
the Hong Kong sample was slightly over-represented by male teachers in comparison
with the teacher population. In Singapore, the percentages of female and male tea-
chers in the Hong Kong sample were 70.0% and 30.0%, respectively, and the percen-
tages of female and male teachers in the teaching population were 68.8% and 31.2%,
respectively.
The age of the teachers in the Hong Kong sample (30–39 years: 32.6%; 40–49 years:
33.6%) aligned closely with the teaching population’s median age of 39 years, with most
teachers in the sample being aged between 30 and 49 years. The age distribution of the
Singapore sample (29 years or below: 28.8%; 30–39 years: 40.2%; 40–49 years: 19.9%)
closely aligned with the teaching population (29 years or below: 23.7%, 30–39 years:
41.8%; 40–49 years: 21.5%).
Although no official statistics are available for years of teaching experience for the
teaching population in Hong Kong, it could be deduced from the literature that the
teaching population comprises highly experienced teachers who have at least 10
years or more of teaching exposure. Those with less than 10 years of teaching experi-
ence are referred to as ‘novice teachers’ in Hong Kong (Choi, 2010; Tam, 2009). For
the sample of Hong Kong teachers in this study, 69.8% had 10 years or more of teach-
ing experience. The years of teaching experience in the Singapore sample (0–9 years:
65.5%; 10 years or more: 34.6%) closely matched the teaching population (0–9 years:
60.0%; 10 years or more: 40%). Table 1 presents the results for gender, age, and
years of teaching experience.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics-Gender, Age and Years of Teaching Experience (in percent).
Hong Kong Singapore
(n=599) (n=3388)
Total English Mandarin Chinese Total English Mandarin Chinese
(%) (%) (%) Dialect (%) (%) (%) (%) Dialect (%)
Gender
Female 59.5 60.0 80.0 59.3 70.0 67.8 71.8 68.2
Male 40.5 40.0 20.0 40.7 30.0 32.2 28.2 31.8
Age
29 below 17.2 30.0 20.0 16.7 28.8 32.7 32.5 5.7
30–39 32.6 30.0 40.0 32.6 40.2 36.3 45.9 27.1
40–49 33.5 35.0 20.0 33.6 19.9 20.4 15.4 36.2
50–59 15.9 0.0 20.0 16.5 9.6 9.4 5.2 27.3
Above 60 0.7 5.0 0.0 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 3.6
Teaching Experience
Less than 3 years 9.7 18.8 20.0 9.3 29.0 31.5 31.7 12.5
3 or less than 10 years 21.1 31.3 20.0 20.9 36.5 35.0 40.9 22.5
10 years or above 69.2 50.0 60.0 69.8 34.6 33.5 27.4 65.0
12 D. H. L. LEE
Home language
The home language profiles of both the Hong Kong and Singapore samples were Chinese
dialects, English, and Mandarin. Items on home language gave respondents the option to
add comments to their responses in the questionnaire. The Hong Kong sample distin-
guished between Fukien (CHL: n = 1) and Cantonese language communities in their
responses to home language items. This is likely because Cantonese is the lingua franca
in Hong Kong. In contrast, the Singapore sample did not express the same distinction,
merely selecting their answer as ‘Chinese dialects’, without further comment. The teachers
in Hong Kong assigned to the ‘English’ segment emphasized in the comments that both
Cantonese and English were spoken at home. Therefore, CHL–HL conversion from
English to Chinese languages was only considered for those who indicated that they
used to speak English/Cantonese as the CHL, but only spoke either Cantonese or Man-
darin as the HL. In contrast, the Singapore sample chose monolingual options without
further comment.
The Singapore sample in this study was compared with the earliest and latest available
population statistics on home language in Singapore (Department of Statistics, 2015; Lau,
1993). The percentage distribution of teachers in the Hong Kong sample by CHL was
Chinese dialect (95.8%), English (3.3%), and Mandarin (0.8%). By HL, the distribution
was Chinese dialect (93.0%), English (6.0%), and Mandarin (1.0%). The percentage distri-
bution of teachers in the Singapore sample by CHL was Chinese dialect (13.9%), English
(32.1%), and Mandarin (53.9%). By HL, the distribution was Chinese dialect (7.3%),
English (36.5%), and Mandarin (56.2%). Given that the Singapore sample had a signifi-
cantly larger proportion of Mandarin HL speakers, weighting was performed on CHL
and HL to make the sample comparable with the general population in the data analysis.
Given that population statistics on HL for only ethnic Chinese are unavailable in Hong
Kong, similar counterchecks were not performed on the Hong Kong sample. Table 2 pre-
sents the results for the HL and CHL.
Data analysis
To examine the teachers’ attitudes toward the languages affected by LPP (i.e. Chinese dia-
lects, English, and Mandarin), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to ident-
ify the teachers’ language preferences based on their CHL-HL conversion. The control
variables were age, gender, and years of teaching experience. Differences were considered
significant if the mean value (p) was smaller than .01. Post-hoc tests were conducted using
the Bonferroni approach. An effect size smaller than .2 indicated an insignificant differ-
ence, near .5 indicated a moderate difference, and larger than .8 indicated a large difference
(Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1987).
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics- Home Language (HL) and Childhood Home Language (CHL) (in percent).
Hong Kong Singapore
English Mandarin Chinese Dialect English Mandarin Chinese Dialect
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Home Language (HL) 6.0 1.0 93.0 36.5 56.2 7.3
Childhood Home 3.3 0.8 95.8 32.1 53.9 13.9
Language (CHL)
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 13
Findings
CHL- HL conversion
Overall, the results indicated higher conversion rates in the Singapore teacher sample than
in the Hong Kong teacher sample (see Table 3). CHL-HL conversion preferences reflected
divergent attitudes between Hong Kong and Singapore teachers toward the dominant
world languages (English and Mandarin) and toward local Chinese languages (dialects)
(see Figure 1).
The Singaporean teachers demonstrated a strong preference for English, moderate pre-
ference for Mandarin, and loss of linguistic vitality in Chinese dialects. The weighted
ANCOVA results of the Singaporean teacher sample showed moderate to highly statisti-
cally significant HL conversion effects among all CHL–HL categories. The English CHL
teachers were the least likely to convert to Chinese languages as the HL, as indicated by
the large negative effect size for both English CHL conversion to Chinese dialects HL
(−1.34, p = .00) and to Mandarin HL (−.97, p = .00). Both the English and Mandarin
language communities in Singapore had the majority of converts from CHL Chinese dia-
lects. The modest effect size for Chinese dialects to Mandarin CHL–HL conversion (.37, p
= .00) showed that the preference for the English language was much stronger, as indicated
by the large effect size of Chinese dialects to English CHL–HL conversion (1.34, p = .00).
CHL Chinese dialect teachers were the most likely to engage in HL conversion, and unli-
kely to win HL converts. CHL Mandarin teachers were unlikely to convert to HL Chinese
dialects (−.37, p = .00), yet very likely to convert to HL English (.97, p = .00).
Given that teachers in the Hong Kong sample almost entirely selected ‘Cantonese’
under the ‘Chinese dialects’ option, ‘Cantonese’ will be used from this point onward to
refer to the CHL/HL identities of this segment of the sample. Hong Kong teachers demon-
strated a strong preference for Cantonese, moderate preference for English, and strong dis-
inclination toward Mandarin. The ANCOVA results of the Hong Kong teacher sample
showed moderate to highly statistically significant HL conversion effects among all
CHL–HL categories (see Table 3). Cantonese CHL teachers were the most unlikely to
engage in HL conversion, as indicated by the large negative effect size for Cantonese
CHL conversion to Mandarin HL (−1.56, p = .00) and to English HL (−.84, p = .00).
Both the Cantonese and English language communities in Hong Kong had the majority
of converts from Mandarin CHL. The modest effect size for Mandarin to English CHL–
HL conversion (.71, p = .00) demonstrated that the preference for Cantonese was much
stronger, as indicated by the large effect size of Mandarin to Cantonese CHL–HL
Table 3. ANCOVA analysis – Hong Kong and Singapore – CHL and HL.
Hong Kong Singapore
CHL * HL CHL * HL
P value Effect Size P value Effect Size
English Mandarin .00 −.71* .00 −.97*
Chinese Dialect .00 .84* .00 −1.34*
Mandarin English .00 .71* .00 .97*
Chinese Dialect .00 1.56* .00 −.37*
Chinese Dialect English .00 −.84* .00 1.34*
Mandarin .00 −1.56* .00 .37*
*p < .01
14 D. H. L. LEE
Discussion
Reflections on teacher agency in multilinguistic domains from CHL–HL preferences
While Singaporean teachers showed the strongest preference for dominant languages (i.e.
English and Mandarin) for HL conversion, Hong Kong teachers showed the strongest
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 15
preference for Cantonese—a local Chinese dialect. The results provide insight to the dis-
tinctions between the two contexts in how language policy is communicated in LPP, how
language is perceived by teachers, how these underlying perceptions result in the selective
endorsement of LPP implemented with a subtractive approach, and whether Hong Kong
teachers are likely to endorse fine-tuning efforts to introduce dominant languages with a
subtractive approach.
The findings in this paper complement the literature positing that LPP outcomes
are the result of the interplay between state power and the agency of individual tea-
chers that endorse, resist, and/or reinterpret state LPP (Baldauf, 2012; Lee, 2020;
Spolsky & Lambert, 2006; Tran, 2019; Varghese et al., 2005). As with teachers in
the Hong Kong sample, the teachers in Singapore exercised their agency in ways
that did not exactly replicate the state LPP visions in the family domain. This is
because of the values employed in the interplay among the multilinguistic domains
of each context, such as in the communication of LPP in the state domain, teacher
language identity in the family domain, and the exercise of teacher agency in the edu-
cation domain.
In Singapore, the rational values that permeate its multilinguistic domains resulted in
the embracement of dominant world languages to varied degrees. The easy displacement
of Chinese dialects with Mandarin as the ‘mother tongue’ and both Chinese languages
with English HL reflected the teachers’ rational attitudes toward language as a symbol
of cultural identity. Although this study comprised entirely ethnic Chinese Singaporeans,
teachers in the Singapore sample nevertheless showed a preference toward converting to
English HL when the situation allowed for it. Underlying this preference was the view of
language as a form of capital that can augment the social position of those who can pri-
vatize the resource in the family domain (De Costa et al., 2016; Zhao & Liu, 2008). Local
languages, or any Chinese language for that matter, hold low value as heritage language in
the case of Singapore.
The results of the Hong Kong teachers in this paper indicated a very different situ-
ation from Singapore. Resistance to the implementation of dominant world languages
is underpinned by emotional values that permeate the Hong Kong context. Mother
Tongue Education (1998) was originally intended to decolonize Hong Kong from
British influence with the elimination of English MOI, and its emotional
persuasion was ambiguous on which Chinese language refers to the ‘mother
tongue’. Unwittingly, the use of emotional persuasions to justify subtractive LPP awa-
kened Hong Kong citizens’ emotional attachment to Cantonese, and the zero-sum
approaches adopted in the expression of the love towards their mother tongue
resulted in teacher resistance to both dominant world languages. Therefore, teachers
not only resist fine-tuning policies to improve the declining levels of English profi-
ciency, but also the insemination of Mandarin into Hong Kong society (Chan,
2014; Ng et al., 2017; Poon & Lau, 2016). In Hong Kong, the strong emotional
attachment to Cantonese resonates more strongly with the concept of heritage
language, although dominant world languages have yet to displace Cantonese with
subtractive LPP. Instead, subtractive approaches to the introduction of dominant
world languages resulted in an emotional backlash to defend the linguistic vitality
of Hong Kong’s current lingua franca.
16 D. H. L. LEE
the challenge of Mandarin proficiency acquisition, as proximate languages that could help
learn this dominant world language are unavailable.
These findings provide insight to the resistance to policy fine-tuning once subtractive
LPP has been implemented, and the reduced feasibility of further fine-tuning persisting
with subtractive principles. The proposed deferment of Cantonese language instruction
to age 9, or until children are socialized to English and Mandarin in the earliest phases
of schooling (Li, 2017), represents yet another attempt to fine-tune Mother Tongue Edu-
cation with subtractive strategies. While the intention is to increase Hong Kong students’
proficiency in dominant world languages, the unintended consequence is likely the further
intensification of teacher resistance to LPP fine-tuning, especially for the purpose of
enhancing Mandarin proficiency. The rejection of Mandarin is symbolic of Hong Kong
resistance against assimilation by mainland China (Polley et al., 2018), and this resistance
is expressed in more explicit terms in 2019 with the outbreak of civil agitation led by Hong
Kong youths. If youths represent the future of Hong Kong society, then teachers represent
the crafters of this future. A plausible alternative to subtractive fine-tuning is to empower
teachers with the agency to exercise professional judgment in adopting multilingual teach-
ing practices to achieve state LPP in education. Research in Hong Kong is indicating posi-
tive results emerging from fine-tuning efforts that seek to revive English language
proficiency in the classroom via multilingual approaches (Poon, 2019), which marks a
departure from the subtractive LPP that has dominated in the region.
Dsepite the promising changes occurring in Hong Kong’s education domain, it is
important to recognize that teacher agency forms in multilinguistic domains. The
current state of affairs is worrying as Hong Kong loses its agency for self-determination.
While teachers may resist subtractive LPP, their agency is ineffectual against coercive
power. Analogies of violence are employed by Chinese central government media mouth-
piece, China Central Television (CCTV), which holds teachers responsible for the 2019
civil agitation. CCTV asserts that measures should be taken to ‘strike when necessary’
at ‘lawless schools’, to ‘scrape poisoned parts of the bone to cure [an ailed education
system]’ (Sing Tao Daily, 2019). Coercive measures command teacher cooperation,
which reduces the potential for teachers to be persuaded either by emotional or rational
means to exercise their agency in ways that will craft a different future for Hong Kong
society via education. They overshadow the reality that teachers were previously students
who were crafted via education with subtractive measures. This study on teacher sociolin-
guistic background hopes to raise a timely awareness that rather than acts of resistance and
defiance, teachers are exercising their agency informed by the subtractive values commu-
nicated by past LPP implementations. Teacher agency reflects how past state LPP pene-
trates the family domain via education, yet in ways that generate unintended
consequences for future LPP.
From this study of Hong Kong and Singapore, we have gained insight into how lingua
francas become established in these two societies. It may be interesting for future studies to
examine the implications of subtractive LPP and possible future fine-tuning for local
Chinese dialects among Chinese societies in mainland China and Taiwan, where one of
the dominant world languages (English) is regarded a foreign language and Mandarin
is a well-established lingua franca.
18 D. H. L. LEE
Limitations
The significance of this study notwithstanding, there are limitations that need to be
acknowledged. Some of the issues relate to sampling. First, the participation rates of
Hong Kong teachers were significantly lower than those of Singapore. Second, the use
of statistical weighting was necessary, yet weighting was performed in some cases but
not others because of the availability of relevant census data (e.g. weighting of CHL and
HL was performed on the Singaporean sample, but not the Hong Kong sample). Never-
theless, the demographical compositions of both the Hong Kong and Singaporean
samples were similar to the teaching populations of the two contexts. Further, although
effect sizes were adjusted with weighting in some cases (e.g. from large to moderate),
the significance and direction of the effects were maintained.
Other issues relate to the scope of this exploratory study. Given that the insights in this
paper emerged from extended analyses of data that were not collected for this research
purpose, there were limitations to the level of sophistication in the types of statistical ana-
lyses that could be performed on the data (e.g. structural equation modeling). Finally,
future qualitative studies could be implemented to more deeply examine the data to
compare teachers’ intended responses to future LPP fine-tuning with the actual practices
that may eventually be implemented.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the reviewers and the editorial team for their support, and acknowl-
edge the following funding sources: Research Grants Council Hong Kong (Grant Code: 28605318);
and Ministry Academies Fund, Ministry of Education Singapore (Grant Code: AFR05/14LHL). The
author would also like to thank all research collaborators who contributed to the research efforts
that made this publication possible, especially Bob Adamson and Noelle Ip Kwok Kwan.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Education (Singapore): [Grant Number AFR05/14LHL];
Research Grants Council University Grants Committee (Hong Kong): [Grant Number 28605318].
ORCID
Daphnee Hui Lin Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1925-1937
Notes on contributor
Daphnee Hui Lin Lee is on a research journey to understand how professional identities are shaped
by change, and how professionals develop strategies to empower themselves in the face of change.
She examines the underpinning influence of culture – focusing on language and socioeconomic
influences – on professional identities, values, and practices. Daphnee is the author of Managing
Chineseness, and her theory of identity grafting reflects her research interest in the influence of
cultural identity on people’s values, beliefs, and practices.
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 19
References
Baker, C. (1995). Bilingual education in Wales. In O. García, & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice
in bilingual education: A reader extending the foundations (Vol. 2) (pp. 152–165). Multilingual
matters.
Baldauf, R. B. (2012). Introduction – language planning: Where have we been? Where might we be
going? Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 12(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-
63982012000200002
Bauer, R. (2000). Hong Kong Cantonese and the road ahead. In D. C. S. Li, A. M. Y. Lin, & W. K.
Tsang (Eds.), Language and education in postcolonial Hong Kong (pp. 35–58). Linguistic Society
of Hong Kong.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power (L. C. Clough, Trans.).
Stanford University Press.
Chan, J. Y. H. (2014). Fine-tuning language policy in Hong Kong education: Stakeholders’ percep-
tions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(5), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09500782.2014.904872
Chan, K. L. R. (2019). Trilingual code-switching in Hong Kong. Applied Linguistics Research
Journal, 3(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2019.22932
Choi, A. F. T. (2010). Understanding the leadership qualities of a head of department coping with
curriculum changes in a Hong Kong secondary school. School Leadership and Management, 30
(4), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.497480
Choi, T. (2015). The impact of the “teaching English through English” policy on teachers and teach-
ing in South Korea. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14664208.2015.970727
Chung, M. (2019). Managing Chineseness: Identity and ethnic management in Singapore (book
review). Asian Education and Development Studies, 8(4), 536–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/
AEDS-10-2019-187
Collins, R. (2001). Social movements and the focus of emotional attention. In J. Goodwin, J. M.
Jasper, & F. Polletta (Eds.), Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (pp. 27–44).
University of Chicago Press.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2014). Planning for development or decline? Education policy for
Chinese language in Singapore. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(1), 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15427587.2014.871621
De Costa, P. I., Park, J., & Wee, L. (2016). Language learning as linguistic entrepreneurship:
Implications for language education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5-6), 695–702.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0302-5
Department of Statistics. (2015). General household survey 2015 – Key findings. https://www.
singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/ghs/ghs2015/findings.pdf
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and col-
lective rationality in organizational fields. Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management,
17, 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1
Education Bureau. (2002). Mother tongue education. https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/about-edb/press/
legco/replies-written/2012/20040205118811.html
Education Bureau. (2009). Fine-tuning the medium of instruction for secondary schools. Hong Kong
Education Bureau. https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-
secondary/moi/support-and-resources-for-moi-policy/lsplmfs-sch/d-sch/ow/sp/index-2.html
Education Bureau. (2010). Enriching our language environment, realising our vision. https://www.
edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-secondary/moi/moi_
booklet-eng-17apr2010.pdf
Education Bureau. (2016). Statistics on students and teachers in primary and secondary schools in
Hong Kong during the school years from 2006/07 to 2015/16. In Hong Kong monthly digest of
statistics. School Education Statistics Section. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp370.
jsp?productCode=FA100275
20 D. H. L. LEE
Education Department. (1997). Medium of instruction guidance for secondary schools [Information
paper]. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr97-98/english/panels/ed/papers/ed1508-6.htm
Erdocia, I. (2019). Medium of instruction ideologies: Accommodation of multilingualism in the
bilingual regime of Navarre. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(3), 284–308. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14664208.2018.1503457
Evans, S. (2013). The long march to biliteracy and trilingualism: Language policy in Hong Kong
education since the handover. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 302–324. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0267190513000019
Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2017). English-medium instruction in Hong Kong: Illuminating a grey
area in school policies and classroom practices. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(3), 303–
322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1270106
Farrell, T. S., & Kun, S. T. K. (2007). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and classroom
practices. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm050
Feng, A., & Adamson, B. (2018). Language policies and sociolinguistic domains in the context of
minority groups in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(2), 169–
180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1340478
Fishman, J. A. (2014). Three hundred-plus years of heritage language education in the United
States. In T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D. Christian, S. C. K. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Handbook
of heritage, community, and native American languages in the United States (pp. 36–44).
Routledge.
Fishman, J. (1972). Domains and the relationship between micro- and macro- sociolinguistics. In J.
J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of communi-
cation (pp. 435–453). Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Morris, L. L. (1987). How to analyze data. Sage.
Gaibrois, C., & Steyaert, C. (2017). Beyond possession and competition: Investigating cooperative
aspects of power in multilingual organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 17(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595817701508
Gil, J. (2017). Soft power and the worldwide promotion of Chinese language learning: The Confucius
institute project. Multilingual Matters.
Goh, C. C. M., Zhang, L. J., Ng, C. H., & Koh, G. H. (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabus
implementation: A study of English language teachers in Singapore. Graduate Programmes and
Research Office, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
Gu, M. (2011). “I am not qualified to be a Hongkongese because of my accented Cantonese”:
Mainland immigrant students in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 32(6), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.614350
Han, Y., & Wu, X. (2020). Language policy, linguistic landscape and residents’ perception in
Guangzhou, China: Dissents and conflicts. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(3), 229–
253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1582943
Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. (2013). Sociology: Themes and perspectives (8th Ed.). HarperCollins
Publishers Limited.
Ho, B., & Ho, K. K. (2004). The developmental trend of the medium of instruction in secondary
schools of Hong Kong: Prospect and retrospect. Language and Education, 18(5), 400–412.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666891
Hu, G. (2008). The misleading academic discourse on Chinese–English bilingual education in
China. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 195–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654307313406
Kuhn, P. A. (1997). The homeland: Thinking about the history of Chinese overseas. Australian
National University.
Lai, M. L. (2007). Exploring language stereotypes in post-colonial Hong Kong through the
matched-guise test. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/
10.1075/japc.17.2.05lai
Lai, M. L. (2013). The linguistic landscape of Hong Kong after the change of sovereignty.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 10(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.
2012.708036
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 21
Spolsky, B. (2018b). Language policy in Portuguese colonies and successor states. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 19(1), 62–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2017.1316564
Spolsky, B., & Lambert, R. D. (2006). Language planning and policy: Models. In K. Brown (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd Ed., Vol. 6) (pp. 561–575). Elsevier.
Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCHOLAR). (2015). Report of the
longitudinal study on the implementation of “using Putonghua as the medium of instruction
for teaching the Chinese language subject” [in Chinese]. SCHOLAR. https://scolarhk.edb.
hkedcity.net/en/scheme-support-schools-using-putonghua-teach-chinese-language-subject
Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2010). Language policy and planning in Singaporean late modernity. In L.
Lim, A. Pakir, & L. Wee (Eds.), English in Singapore: Modernity and management (Vol. 1)
(pp. 181–204). Hong Kong University Press.
Tam, C. (2009). An investigation of the implementation problems of school-based assessment in
Hong Kong from the viewpoint of teachers: An analysis of practices and beliefs. Bulletin of
Educational Research, 55(1), 25–62.
Tran, H. (2019). Teacher agency in times of educational change: The case of transitioned teachers in
Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(5), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14664208.2018.1553912
Vaish, V. (2012). Teacher beliefs regarding bilingualism in an English medium reading program.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13670050.2011.594496
Valdés, G. (2014). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton,
D. Christian, S. C. K. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Handbook of heritage, community, and native
American languages in the United States (pp. 27–35). Routledge.
Van der Jeught, S. (2017). Territoriality and freedom of language: The case of Belgium. Current
Issues in Language Planning, 18(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1243883
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher iden-
tity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1), 21–44.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0401_2
Wang, L., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2019). Trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools. Springer.
Wee, C. L. (2007). The Asian modern: Culture, capitalist development, Singapore (Vol. 1). Hong
Kong University Press.
Wong, T. H. (2005). Comparing state hegemonies: Chinese universities in post-war Singapore and
Hong Kong. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0142569042000294174
Yao, E. (1983). Family environment for children’s bilingual development: A case of middle-class
Chinese Americans [Paper presented]. The 12th Annual International Bilingual/Bicultural
Education Conference. Washington: DC.
Yevudey, E., & Agbozo, G. (2019). Teacher trainee sociolinguistic backgrounds and attitudes to
language-in-education policy in Ghana: A preliminary survey. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 20(4), 338–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1585158
Yu, H. (2016). Between the national and the international: Ethnography of language ideologies in a
middle-class community in China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5-6), 703–711.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0314-1
Zhao, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). Home language shift and its implications for language planning in
Singapore: From the perspective of prestige planning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
16(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v16i2.230