Vague language in Hong Kong English, ‘Something like that’

English Today ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Patrice Quammie–Wallen
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Computational Analysis ◽  
Language Variety ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
N Gram ◽  
Lexical Bundle ◽  
Vague Language ◽  
Hong Kong English

The computational analysis of corpora, a body of ‘naturally occurring language texts chosen to characterize a state of variety of a language’ (Sinclair, 1991: 171) provided the opportunity to reveal otherwise unobservable features and patterns across varieties, registers and languages. One such language feature is a ‘lexical bundle’ otherwise known as an n-gram. Vague terms in any language variety can often present themselves in the form of not just individual words (e.g. things, plenty, scores, stuff) but as a group of words that tend to co-occur: a lexical bundle (e.g. loads of, stuff like that, and so on, or what have you). In this paper, the function in Hong Kong English (HKE) of the vague n-gram ‘something like that’ will be explored via corpus methodology to account for its observed hyper-usage in Hong Kong society.

scholarly journals Intonation in Hong Kong English and Guangzhou Cantonese-accented English: A Phonetic Comparison

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 724
Author(s):  
Yunyun Ran ◽  
Jeroen Van De Weijer ◽  
Marjoleine Sloos
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Language Variety ◽  
Accented English ◽  
Hong Kong English

Hong Kong English is to a certain extent a standardized English variety spoken in a bilingual (English-Cantonese) context. In this article we compare this (native) variety with English as a foreign language spoken by other Cantonese speakers, viz. learners of English in Guangzhou (mainland China). We examine whether the notion of standardization is relevant for intonation in this case and thus whether Hong Kong English is different from Cantonese English in a wider perspective, or whether it is justified to treat Hong Kong English and Cantonese English as the same variety (as far as intonation is concerned). We present a comparison between intonational contours of different sentence types in the two varieties, and show that they are very similar. This shows that, in this respect, a learned foreign-language variety can resemble a native variety to a great extent.

Cleft constructions in Hong Kong English

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyue Yao
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Regional Variation ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Language Variety ◽  
Information Packaging ◽  
Advanced Stages ◽  
Hong Kong English

Existing second language acquisition research converges on a picture where learners of English exhibit marked divergence from native speakers in their use of information-packaging constructions, even at advanced stages of acquisition. This study extends the investigation of these constructions to an emerging institutionalised second language variety, Hong Kong English. Based on the Hong Kong and British components of the International Corpus of English, the study examines the formal and functional properties of it-clefts and wh-clefts, revealing regional variation in a number of areas, particularly in the use of that’s why constructions. Importantly, the grammar of the contact variety is found to be shaped by the transfer of gradient grammatical rules from the substrate language, and by stratification along stylistic parameters.

The use of vague language in intercultural conversations in Hong Kong

2001 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winnie Cheng ◽  
Martin Warren
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Communication Problems ◽  
Successful Communication ◽  
Naturally Occurring ◽  
Similar Range ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Vague Language ◽  
Specific Concern

This paper presents the findings of a study of vague language use based on a corpus of naturally-occurring conversations between native and non-native speakers of English in Hong Kong. The specific concern of the paper is to describe the use of vague language by the two sets of speakers. The forms of vague language present in our data are defined and exemplified. Both the native English and the non-native speakers use vague language extensively in our data for a similar range of purposes, for example to achieve informal communication, classify objects, fill a lexical or knowledge gap, and accommodate one another. We also investigated whether communication problems are experienced in these intercultural conversations by speakers using vague language differently. We conclude that in our data at least there is no evidence to suggest that such communication problems arise from differences in vague language use. On the contrary, the use of vague language by both native and non-native speakers facilitates rather than hinders successful communication in intercultural conversations.

Researching Hong Kong English: bibliographical resources

2000 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kingsley Bolton
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Hong Kong English

Factors affecting the acceptability of grammatical features of Hong Kong English

English Today ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawnea Sum Pok Ting ◽  
Janice Wing Sze Wong
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Local Features ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Local Variety ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Independent Varieties ◽  
Hong Kong English ◽  
The City

Although a large number of varieties of English in Asia have gained recognition as independent varieties, this has not been the case for Hong Kong English (HKE) (Jenkins, 2015: 162). The city has a low level of affiliation towards HKE (Jenkins, 2015: 167) and often laments its ever-falling standard of English (Leung, 2015). There exists a phenomenon of ‘linguistic schizophrenia’ – the community may recognise that a local variety of English exists and conform to its features in practice, but it still looks to native varieties as the norm and views local features as evidence of deteriorating language standards (Kachru, 1983: 118).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document