This paper reports on an experimental study. Twelve university students were asked (a) not to speak any English for one day (b) to record examples of English words that they wanted to use but could not; (c) to write up a two-page reflective diary; and (d) to share and discuss their thoughts, feelings and “rich” points of their experiences in a focus group interview. Before the day of the experiment, they were given training on how to record their own language date. A proforma was used to help them capture the key contextual information of a communicative event: who speaks what to whom when and where. The data are constituted by 12 reflective diaries in English and a transcription of the focus group interview conducted in Cantonese-English "mixed code." The results show that all student participants experienced communication problems and felt inconvenienced by not being able to express their ideas using English words that they were familiar with. Linguistic motivations are empirically supported: the putative Cantonese/Chinese equivalents were either nonexistent, unknown or unfamiliar to them, or perceived as semantically/stylistically infelicitous. English was used, sometimes unconsciously, despite the artificial “Cantonese-only” rule of speaking. These findings suggest that a theoretical model of code-alternation which lays claim to universal validity and explanatory adequacy would be inadequate without taking into account the bilingual's concern for referential meaning. Sociolinguistic and educational implications for the Hong Kong Speech community are briefly discussed in light of the findings.
Auer, P. (1 9 8 4 ). Bilingual conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2.
Auer, P. (1988). A conversation analysis approach to codeswitching and transfer. In M. Heller (Ed), Codeswitching: anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp.187-213). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
3.
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz' approachto contextualization . In P. Auer & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp.1-37). Amsterdam , John Benjamins.
4.
Auer, P. (1995). The pragmatics of codeswitching: A sequential approach. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages (pp.115-135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Auer, P. (Ed.). (1998). Codeswitching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London and New York: Routledge .
6.
Chan, B.H.S. (1998). How does Cantonese-English codemixing work? In M.C. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong Kong at centuary's end (pp.191-216). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
7.
Clyne, M. (1991). Community languages: The Australian experience . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Collins, R., & Makowsky, M. (1998). The discovery of society. 6th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
9.
Fan, G., Lee, T., Lun, C., Luke, K.K., Tung, P., & Cheung, K.H. (1997). Yueyu pinyin zibiao, `Cantonese romanization and character list'.)Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
10.
Gal, S. ( 1979). Language shift: Social determinants of linguistic change in bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.
11.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12.
Gibbons, J. (1987). Codemixing and code choice: A Hong Kong case study . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters .
13.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Heller, M. (Ed.). (1988). Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin : Moutonde Gruyter.
15.
Lee, M. ( 2000). Code-switching in media texts: Its implications on society and culture in post-colonial Hong Kong. In D. Li, A. Lin & W.K. Tsang (Eds.), Language in education in postcolonial Hong Kong (pp.95-127). Hong Kong: Linguistic society of Hong Kong.
16.
Lee, S. ( 2000). The tones they ai-yaah a-changing. South China Morning Post, October 24, 2000.
17.
Li, D.C.S. (1996). Issues in bilingualism and biculturalism: A Hong Kong case study. New York: Lang .
18.
Li, D.C.S. (1997). Borrowed identity: Signaling involvement with a Western name. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 489-513.
19.
Li, D.C.S. (1998). The plight of the purist. In M.C. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong Kong at century's end (pp.161-190). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
20.
Li, D.C.S. (1999a). Linguistic onvergence: Impact of English on Hong Kong Cantonese. Asian Englishes, 2 (1), 5-36.
21.
Li, D.C.S. (1999b). The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: A post-1997 update. English World-Wide, 20 (1), 67-110.
22.
Li, D.C.S. (2000a). Cantonese-English codeswitching research in Hong Kong: A Y2K review. World Englishes, 19 (3), 305-322.
23.
Li, D.C.S. (2000b). "Hong Kong English" : New variety of English or Interlanguage?English Australia EA Journal, 18 (1), 50-59.
24.
Li, D.C.S. (2000c). Phonetic borrowing: Key to the vitality of written Cantonese in Hong Kong. Written Language and Literacy, 3 (2), 199-233.
25.
Li, D.C.S. (2001). L2 lexis in L1: Reluctance to translate out of concern for referential meaning. Multilingua, 20 (1), 1-26.
26.
Li, D.C.S., Lin, A.M.Y., & Tsang, W.K. (Eds.) (2000). Language and education in postcolonial Hong Kong. Hong KongLinguistic Society of Hong Kong.
27.
Li, W. (1994). Three generations, two languages, one family: Language choice and language shift in a Chinese community in Britain. Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
28.
Li, W. (1998). The "why" and "how" question in the analysis of conversational codeswitching . In P. Auer (Ed.), Codeswitching in conversation: language interaction and identity (pp.156-176). London: Routledge .
29.
Li, W., & Milroy, L. (1995). Conversational codeswitching in a Chinese community in Britain: A sequential analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 23,281-299.
30.
Lin, A.M.Y. (1997). Hong Kong children's rights to a culturally compatible English education. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics , 2 (2), 23-48.
31.
Lin, A.M.Y. (1999a). Doing-English-lessons in the reproduction or transformation of social worlds ? TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3), 393-412.
32.
Lin, A.M.Y. (1999b). Resistance andcreativity in English reading lessons in Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12 (3), 285-296.
33.
Lin, A.M.Y. (2000). Deconstructing `mixed code'. In D. Li, A. Lin, & W.K. Tsang (Eds.), Language and education in post-colonial Hong Kong (pp.179-194). Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
34.
Luke, K.K. (1998). Why two languages might be better than one: Motivations of language mixing in Hong Kong. In M.C. Pennington (Ed.), (pp.145-159). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
35.
Lunt, P.,& Livingstone, S. (1996). Rethinking the focus group in media and communications research. Journal of Communication, 46 (2), 79-98.
36.
Meeuwis, M., & Blommaert, J. (1994). The "markedness model" and the absence of society . Multilingua, 13, 387-423.
37.
Meeuwis, M., & Blommaert, J. (1998). A monolectal view of code-switching: Layered codeswitching among Zairians in Belgium. In P.Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in Conversation: Language interaction and identity (pp.76-98). London and New York: Routledge .
38.
Milroy, L., & Li, W. (1995). A social network approach to codeswitching: The example of a bilingual community in Britain. In L. Milroy & P. Muysken (Eds.), One speaker, two languages (pp.136-157). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L.( 1992).Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21, 1-26.
40.
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (Eds.). (1995). One speaker, two languages: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on codeswitching. Cambridge , U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Morgan, D. (1988). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Mühlhäusler, P. (1996). Linguistic ecology: Language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific Region. London and New York: Routledge.
43.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1988). Codeswitching as indexical of social negotiations . In M. Heller (Ed.), Codeswitching: anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp.151-186). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
44.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press .
45.
Myers-Scotton, C. (Ed.). (1998). Codes and consequences. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46.
Pennington, M.C. (Ed.). (1998). Language in Hong Kong at century's end. Hong KongHong Kong University Press.
47.
Shin, S.J., & Milroy, L. (2000). Conversational codeswitching among Korean-English Bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingualism , 4 (3), 351-383.
48.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
49.
So, D.( 2000). Achieving biliteracy and trilingualism without MOI-based bifurcation of the schools: A plea for third-alternatives. In D. Li, A. Lin, & W.K. Tsang (Eds.), Language and education in post-colonial Hong Kong (pp.9-33). Hong Kong: Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.
50.
Stewart, D.W., & Shamdasani, P.N. (1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice.Newbury Park: Sage.
51.
Stroud, C. (1992). The problem of intention and meaning in codeswitching . Text, 12, 127-155.
52.
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. The Hague : Mouton.
