Further examination of what World English really means
Updated: 2016-05-24 07:07
By Lau Nai-keung(HK Edition)
|
|||||||
My last piece here on the addition of Hong Kong English words into the latest update of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) got a number of responses. Given the complexity of the issue, this subject matter deserves another take in this column.
In a note accompanying the update, OED Senior Assistant Editor Jonathan Dent told us that the update brought an "alphabet of newly added terms from World English to explore". The question is: What exactly is World English?
According to the OED's website, World English is the "coverage of vocabulary from the major varieties of World English". However, World English usually refers to the core of the English language which is common to all varieties of English and which contains no specific features of any one variety. This amount of English is usually used by non-natives as a lingua franca when they are communicating with each other.
OED's formulation is actually more in line with the concept of World Englishes, which has gained currency in recent years and refers to international, non-native forms of English which are not bound to settler varieties or traditional dialects of English.
A widely accepted model of "English in the world" had been formulated by linguist Braj Kachru, who proposed three concentric circles: an inner circle, representing the countries in which English has its traditional base; an outer circle comprising former colonies in which English has some form of official status (such as Hong Kong); and an expanding circle, made up of countries where English is learned and used as a foreign language.
Robert Phillipson's theory of linguistic imperialism was expounded in his book of the same name. It provided the most elaborate explanation for the worldwide dominance of English grounded in colonial history and imperialistic intent. Basing his work on an analysis of what he saw as dominant and dominated cultures, he divided the world into "core English-speaking countries" (Kachru's inner circle countries), in which the dominant group are English native speakers, and "periphery-English countries" (Kachru's outer and expanding circle countries), where English was either imposed during the colonial era or is learned as a foreign language.
In this relationship, the peripheral-English countries are dependent on the core English-speaking countries for language norms, and learners tend to aspire to "native-like fluency". Phillipson defined linguistic imperialism as, "the dominance of English asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages".
World Englishes is seen as a challenge to Phillipson's theory of linguistic imperialism. For some scholars, the production of English varieties represents a form of resistance from the lived experience of those struggling with English on the periphery.
The tricky part about this "World Englishes/appropriation objection" to the theory of linguistic imperialism is that appropriation goes both ways. Locals and expats in Hong Kong appropriated the system of Romanization to produce interesting words such as char siu, but institutions such as the OED in turn appropriated our innovation into their systems of objectified knowledge.
It is worth noting that Hong Kong English, especially when endorsed by the OED such as char siu, never challenges the rules and structure of English as such. It never touches on grammar or syntax. This limited resistance is giving strength to the imperialism of English, not weakening it.
Different places naturally have different ways of roasting pork, and it is absolutely natural that locals will have different names for the dishes. As such, these Hong Kong food names represent the stylistic trend toward exoticism, nothing more, nothing less.
The OED's inclusion of Hong Kong words is representative of an advanced form of decentralized imperialism. The imperialism of English is so strong that it does not care to be more inclusive - if it were weaker it might be more insistent of "standard English". It knows that as long as the structure of English is not challenged, every inclusion of new exotic words to the peripheral will only add strength to the language.
The Romanization of Cantonese words such as char siu took place decades ago in Hong Kong. They are now in the OED not because they are new, but because the OED has undergone an epistemological shift. This new epistemology brings to life concepts such as Hong Kong English, and gives Hong Kong a new heightened subjectivity. In the past, when Britain still had colonies, empowering the colonial subjects might have meant inciting a revolt against the empire. But when the British lost her colonies, things became very different.
(HK Edition 05/24/2016 page10)