102 replies to this topic

[ckyeah]

Mostly Cantonese in the lower grades.  The higher grade one goes, the more English is involved.  In some high schools only English is used except for Chinese and Chinese history classes.  In universities, English is predominantly used.

is there a writing system of cantonese in hk?

[MengTzu]

Sorry to tackle off-issue.
Well for native english users it would be fine to have diversity. However. ESL people cannot understand the divergent accents, and it is almost torturing us if you ask us to master them. We simply cannot understand. So I strongly recommend to use received pronunciation when you talk with internationals.
Either standard American or British (usually you can hear from CNN and BBC news) will do, though I personally prefer BBC.

I don't follow. Singaporean English is just as legitimate as British English and American English. It is narrowminded to assume some kind of linguistic orthodoxy. If a person doesn't talk like Chaucer, he doesn't even have a chance to assert such authority. Btw, I speak American English.

[MengTzu]

is there a writing system of cantonese in hk?

Simple answer: All Chinese dialects use the same writing system. Now, the same system has two variants: simplified and traditional. They are the exact same thing except that certain words in the simplified version are simpler in structure so it's easier to learn and takes less time to write them. Mainland China and Singapore tend to use simplified version, Taiwan and Hong Kong use traditional.

[tongyan]

Simple answer: All Chinese dialects use the same writing system.  Now, the same system has two variants: simplified and traditional.  They are the exact same thing except that certain words in the simplified version are simpler in structure so it's easier to learn and takes less time to write them.  Mainland China and Singapore tend to use simplified version, Taiwan and Hong Kong use traditional.

Maybe he was referring to the heavy use of cantonese-specific characters in magazines like mingbao or "yi" zhoukan?

[urofpersia]

I don't follow.  Singaporean English is just as legitimate as British English and American English.  It is narrowminded to assume some kind of linguistic orthodoxy.  If a person doesn't talk like Chaucer, he doesn't even have a chance to assert such authority.  Btw, I speak American English.

Well, if you are referring specifically to Singlish as we call it, it diverges enough from 'standard' English to be a problem in communicating with foreigners. As a rule, most educated Singaporean of the current generation are able to use 'proper' English in both writing and speech when necessary. I am referring to usage here, not necessarily pronunciation.

On Pronunciation I think there is a good case for following a standard, so that we can understand each other internationally. Even Americans do it. The current American President moderates his accent depending on whether he is speaking to his native Texans or others.

Standards are necessary to know that you are deviating. So that it can be corrected. In Singpapore, currently phonetics classes for both English and Mandarin are very popular for pre-school and primary school. Regardless of your feelings on the matter. many Singaporeans realise the importance of how one's speech (in terms of usage or accent) can lead one to be perceived as of a certain socio-economic bracket. Even in America this is true so I am sure you know what I mean.

[MengTzu]

Well, if you are referring specifically to Singlish as we call it, it diverges enough from 'standard' English to be a problem in communicating with foreigners. As a rule, most educated Singaporean of the current generation are able to use 'proper' English in both writing and speech when necessary. I am referring to usage here, not necessarily pronunciation.

On Pronunciation I think there is a good case for following a standard, so that we can understand each other internationally. Even Americans do it. The current American President moderates his accent depending on whether he is speaking to his native Texans or others.

Standards are necessary to know that you are deviating. So that it can be corrected. In Singpapore, currently phonetics classes for both English and Mandarin are very popular for pre-school and primary school. Regardless of your feelings on the matter. many Singaporeans realise the importance of how one's speech (in terms of usage or accent) can lead one to be perceived as of a certain socio-economic bracket. Even in America this is true so I am sure you know what I mean.

I don't buy this view. It's not that I don't understand this view, I don't buy it. It's a conservative view. It's not that I'm against everything conservative, but from a higher perspective this is bound to be defeat itself in a long run. French started out as street Latin, but now it's recognized as a true, standard language. Perhaps it will be a matter of time for Singlish to be a language by its own right, but we academics should have the insight to not confine ourselves to self-imposed standard. I'm of the opinion that Ebonics is a proper dialect and rap songs are poetry (that is not to say that all rap songs are tasteful; but then not all poems are tasteful either.) Asians tend to have this shortsighted desire to achieve what is conventionally recognized as "upper class" as though it is a sign of culture and status, but it is often time failed attempts at imitation. This is apparent in the approach that Asian Americans take when they raise their kids: they push their kids to join orchestra and the like, but it turns out to be a distinctively "Asian" thing to put such emphasis on things like orchestra.

It is precisely by the fact that standard indicates deviation that we know standard and deviation are relative terms. There's no deviation if there's no standard.

[urofpersia]

Again just to emphasis, My suggestion of a standard is so that we can understand each other internationally.

I have nothing against Singlish as a language by itself, I am proud of it and it is probably the closest we come to something that is distinctively Singaporean. Being able to speak English with generally accepted pronunciation will only help us when we deal with others. This is not the same as putting on an American or British Accent. Lee Kuan Yew has an accent which is noticeably distinct from an American or a Brit and yet importantly internationally people have no problems understanding his English. The same cannot be said if you randomly pick someone off the streets of Singapore of his generation.

The point of language is first and foremost communication. It would be sad day indeed if Singapore one day needs translators to speak to foreigners in English.

[MengTzu]

hey urofpersia,

I have no contention regarding communication. My contention is regarding this:

Standards are necessary to know that you are deviating. So that it can be corrected. In Singpapore, currently phonetics classes for both English and Mandarin are very popular for pre-school and primary school. Regardless of your feelings on the matter. many Singaporeans realise the importance of how one's speech (in terms of usage or accent) can lead one to be perceived as of a certain socio-economic bracket. Even in America this is true so I am sure you know what I mean.

You can't make two points initially (communication and deviation) and then conveniently omit the point that I was contending about in your reply. The idea of a self-imposed standard as authoritative to the extent of making some variants "illicit" is a backward way of thinking. As noted above, French started out as street Latin. Think of partial examples, like Japanese usage of Chinese script, Chinese appropriation of Sanskrit words. The need for status is a "reality" that we cannot avoid, as muc as we hate it, but at least from an academic perspective, we must not pretentiously impose such standards as though we have, somewhere along the line, obtained the privilege of "copyright" of a language. Oxford English isn't the original English -- is it simply for its present status that we ascribe to it the role of standard? If so, standards are bound to be relative, and as farsighted academics we should treat the tendency to standardize evenhandedly.

[MengTzu]

I forgot to ask if they were taught in Cantonese because that is likely the cause.

I don't follow your logic. You really should've asked for the reason. If there's a reason, it most likely is that many students are not hardworking in certain subjects, and a lot of HKese students hate the Chinese subjects. A lot of Americans are bad at English, like spelling, do you think it's because they were taught in non-English? No, they were taught in English alright. You're ascribing the effect to a erroneous cause -- it makes no sense whatsoever. Cantonese is a Chinese dialect, it is a sinitic language, it came out of Middle Chinese, Tang poetry is read smoothly with it, so why would it be a reason that HKese kids can't write Chinese well? Your argument makes no sense at all.

Just think about it. Mandarin evolved relatively recently -- someone posted an article suggesting that modern Mandarin is really an attempt of Manchurians trying to speak Beijingian dialect. Cantonese (or at least its earlier form) has been around at least since Tang. I'm pretty sure you're aware of the fact that all Chinese dialects use Han script. The present traditional Han script has been around since late Han or Wei, so for centuries Cantonese have been using this very same script, even earlier than Mandarin speakers. So why on earth would the Cantonese language be the reason that some HKese kids you met don't write Chinese well? Again, think of the Americans -- so many American kids can't spell. But these kids all speak English from birth, so you certainly can't blame the spoken language for the weakness of their written language.

[urofpersia]

hey urofpersia,

    I have no contention regarding communication.  My contention is regarding this:
    You can't make two points initially (communication and deviation) and then conveniently omit the point that I was contending about in your reply.  The idea of a self-imposed standard as authoritative to the extent of making some variants "illicit" is a backward way of thinking. 

I think it is you who is mistaken, where did I contend your supposed view? I pointed out an incident of what is happening in Singapore, please show where I am proposing it as my view on how I think it should be. Subsequently you chose to focus on it as your point of why languages should be allowed to 'deviate' (not sure what term you prefer, feel free to substitute)

An out-of-topic example: Say I posted a topic on religion and I happen to say there are a growing number of Christians while Taoism is being abandoned, does this automatically mean I am in favour? I think not.

My second post deliberately emphasized the only point I am making is that there is a good case for a standard so that we can communicate without problems. Please read our posts again in sequence and show me exactly where I am trying to counter your points. Hope to see your reply on this.

If I intend to dispute any point you are making, you can be sure I will certainly quote the paragraph in question.

Cheers

[MengTzu]

Hey urofpersia,

I was picking issue with your word choice "deviate." You did use that word, did you not? That isn't just an incident you're quoting, correct? That is your own commentary on certain perceived realities. That is your argument or point, even if it's not one you insist to defend. The problem, again, is that there is no such thing as "deviation" if there is not adopted standard. You didn't simply say "society adopted certain standards," but you ascribed a value to it yourself when you said, "Standards are necessary to know that you are deviating. So that it can be corrected." Put in other words: I contest the idea that standards are needed to "know" that you're deviating. Rather, deviation is a result of imposing standards.

[urofpersia]

Hey urofpersia,

    I was picking issue with your word choice "deviate."  You did use that word, did you not?  That isn't just an incident you're quoting, correct?  That is your own commentary on certain perceived realities.  That is your argument or point, even if it's not one you insist to defend.  The problem, again, is that there is no such thing as "deviation" if there is not adopted standard.  You didn't simply say "society adopted certain standards," but you ascribed a value to it yourself when you said, "Standards are necessary to know that you are deviating. So that it can be corrected."  Put in other words: I contest the idea that standards are needed to "know" that you're deviating.  Rather, deviation is a result of imposing standards.

Cool, and just in case it wasn't clear, I have no issues with you having issues with my use of the term 'deviation'.

[adoo]

.... I've only met a limited number of Hongkongers my age. ..... But you have to accept the fact that Hongkong teens are really bad at writing Chinese,

prima facie evidence that you're grossly under-informed. you need to learn what "fact" is.

It is ignorant to make a gross generalization about HKers when you've have met a limited # of them. i wish that you'd stop embarrassing yourself w such ignorant generalizations.

you need to take heed to this fact

FYI, Certified Financial Analyst accreditation is a much sought after accreditation on Wall Street and the other global financial centers. Most financial/economic grads from the US do not take the CFA exam because it is just too difficult. Of those that take the exam, adminstered (from US headquarter) thru-out the globe, the failure rate is ~ 95+%.

Last year, 111 HKers, had passed the CFA exam; ~95 from the US---which a population base >37 times that of HK---had passsed. The exam is given in English.

Edited by adoo, 19 August 2005 - 03:56 PM.

[MengTzu]

Hey Adoo,

Talking to Ahman made me realize how much of a "nationalist" I'm for my Hong Kong identity. His suggestion that Cantonese is somewhat "less Chinese" is so ridiculous, that had I not been a HKese I would simply laugh at the stupidity of the suggestion. But I was kind of ticked off.

[Heisui]

Ignorance. Of the several Manchurian or Mongolian dialects that presently exist, none sound like Guoyi/putonhua! The Hebei language aka Guoyi/putonhua/Manadarin is the National Language of China. Hong Kong since the early 1980's experienced a economic boom(became rich) and later real estate crash which has led HKongers to become arrogant in insulting and putting down their fellow Chinese. Not my lone impression either! If ALL Chinese are to communicate with one another we have to be able to speak one common language hence Guoyi with out denigating and insulting other peoples regional dialects that are different from Cantonese. Personally I like Cantonese food but don't like the extremely crowded scorching heat and humidity that is HK, but that doesn't mean I look down upon HK and it's people. I speak Cantonese and it's very different from the Tuoba Xianbei Manchurians/Mongolian & Tujue Xiongnu that founded the Tang Dynasty! In Hong Kong there is more bias against other fellow Chinese than in China itself. Annecdotal experience from others as well.(Brit and other Chinese ) China's economy is booming now aside from HK and peoples quality of life has improved. You might want to travel to Dongbei and go have roasted/grilled/barbecue meats/salomon and go iceskatting and horseback ridding in the forrest. You might want to go Nei Mongu and see the beautiful plains on horseback and see the rodeo and wrestling/archery events. Both provinces are not congested with people. Just this ABC opinion but Singaporeans don't exactly identify with being Chinese, in fact some are pretty ashamed of it and want to be Brits.
This hatred that Cantonese have for Manchurians/Mongolians and the Qing Dynasty largely stems from the ordered execution of 11,000 Opium distributors of the Hong Tongs that collaborated with the British Opium traffickers which consequently hit their wallets.
Those HK RunRun Shaw ChopSockey movies 1960's-1970's were pretty prejudice against Manchurians and Mongolians!

Just think about it.  Mandarin evolved relatively recently -- someone posted an article suggesting that modern Mandarin is really an attempt of Manchurians trying to speak Beijingian dialect.  Cantonese (or at least its earlier form) has been around at least since Tang. 

Edited by Heisui, 19 August 2005 - 09:44 AM.