The rise of English use globally has spurred unprecedented scholarly interest in its varieties in particular societal or regional settings, which, as a result, produced voluminous literature regarding the history, features, and sociolinguistics of English from theoretical and methodological perspectives (de Swaan Reference de Swaan2001; Ostler Reference Oster2010). Hong Kong is an especially intriguing context for studying the evolution of English because, for more than 170 years, it has been entangled in the successive process of colonialism and globalization that have been the principal drivers of the spread of English (8). The book under review is to date the most detailed account of the English language in Hong Kong from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives. It traces the evolution of English in Hong Kong and depicts the uses and functions of English from the main branches of social services. It also investigates the shifting status and functions of English in relation to Cantonese, written Chinese and Mandarin Chinese, or Putonghua (the official prescribed language in China), and accordingly aims to paint a fuller picture of language profiles in Hong Kong.
The book is composed of seven chapters. Chapter 1 skims over the background, motivation, and the objectives of this sociolinguistic study of English in Hong Kong. The body chapters address specific topics such as language trends in government (chapter 2), language policy in education (chapter 3), English in business circles (chapter 4), the English-using community (chapter 5), and the evolutionary dynamics of Hong Kong English (chapter 6). Chapter 7, the concluding chapter, summarizes and assesses both diachronic and synchronic evidence reported in the previous chapters and discusses the future of English in the city.
In chapter 1, Evans commences by surveying recent literature on globalization of English and the research into the features and functions of the language in particular linguistic or geographical backgrounds. Then, he proposes that Schneider's (Reference Schneider2007) model would be a more appropriate one to investigate the development of English in that its phases and associated parameters seem to be more compatible with the language situation in Hong Kong (8). One of the most illuminating points in chapter 1 is that it identifies several conspicuous limitations of previous literature on English language development in colonial and postcolonial ESL contexts. Not content with synthesis of information from secondary sources (11), Evans aims to construct an empirically grounded sociolinguistic history of Hong Kong English from both diachronic and synchronic perspectives, which may constitute his main contribution to the study of English in particular geographic contexts.
Chapter 2 traces the changing status and functions of English in key government sectors, because they are sensitive barometers of language status in society (23). It is interesting to note that, after tracing the status shift of languages in government (i.e. English, Cantonese, and Putonghua), the author predicts the collapse of Cantonese in the face of Putonghua prior to the expiry of the Joint Declaration in 2047 and of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy (26). However, given the fact that Cantonese has been the native language in Hong Kong historically, the author should provide some explanations to justify his prediction. Chapter 3 introduces the use of English as a teaching medium in Hong Kong's education system diachronically and synchronically with a focus on its use at secondary and tertiary levels. One of the most distinctive features of chapter 3 is that it follows a strictly chronological order: language policies in the colonial era and since the handover. The reader may appreciate the clear division of time scales and can quickly follow the change of language policies of education in contrasting times. However, it may seem a little strange to the reader that the chapter devotes a section entitled “Language Policies and Practices in Higher Education” to both higher education and secondary schooling. It may be better if an umbrella term is used for the section.
Chapter 4 deals with the role of English in Hong Kong's business and professional worlds from an empirically grounded perspective. The most defining feature in this chapter is that it tries to investigate the mutual impact between the development and transformation of economy on one hand and the acquisition and use of English relative to Cantonese, written Chinese, and Putonghua on the other. In fact, emphasis on the interaction between different languages is a very noticeable characteristic in all of the topics discussed throughout the book.
Chapter 5 successfully paints a vivid picture of the evolution of English-using communities in Hong Kong, with the aid of a wide range of diachronic data from previously unpublished primary sources such as government censuses, the authorship of letters to the English-language press, and the membership of juries. The three complementary sets of data make it possible to delimit phases in the ascent of the city's community of English users.
In chapter 6, the author challenges such claims as ‘there was no such thing as Hong Kong English’ (92) and justifies the existence of Hong Kong English as a nativized variety by placing it within Schneider's (Reference Schneider2007) dynamic model. This chapter, however, may lack a discussion of how and why Hong Kong English and Schneider's (Reference Schneider2007) dynamic model match. Further justification may make his claims more plausible.
Chapter 7 summarises the main findings of previous chapters, discusses the innovations of the present study, and points out its major contributions to the literature on English study in certain contexts. Evans ends the book with a bold prediction that written English or Cantonese may disappear from their previously dominated domains and even Hong Kong's history as a city sui generis in China is coming to a close (116).
The English language in Hong Kong has at least three merits. First, it traces the sociolinguistic history of English in Hong Kong both diachronically and synchronically while most previous studies in this regard seem unexceptionally synchronically oriented. In fact, it may be the first book on English in Hong Kong that draws on data from the historical landscape. As is clear from its subtitle Diachronic and synchronic perspectives, a combination of two perspectives enables a more comprehensive and clearer picture of English development in Hong Kong. Second, an array of qualitative and quantitative datasets—including large-scale surveys, questionnaires, corpora of written and spoken English, and textual evidence from a range of archival sources—were employed to construct the sociolinguistic history of Hong Kong. Third, as a book dedicated to the study of English in Hong Kong, it also offers a glimpse of other languages used in Hong Kong such as Cantonese, Putonghua, and standard written Chinese. The readers might gain an overall impression of the ups and downs of different languages in various social domains and under the shifting political and administrative forces.
On the other hand, two suggestions should be offered. First, as a book on the sociolinguistic history of Hong Kong, it lays much emphasis on the presentation, analysis, and evaluation of linguistic data in various social spheres and different time scales. A theory or framework, however, which could accommodate the dazzling sociolinguistic history of Hong Kong is much needed. Even though the author tries to place the study within the framework of Schneider's (Reference Schneider2007) dynamic model, he does not give sufficient explanation for their compatibility. In many cases, they seem to go in two parallel lines. The readers may easily get lost in the sea of abundant datasets without a guiding theory. Of course, considering the fact that Hong Kong is such a unique city with many languages intermingling, it seems difficult to develop such an all-encompassing theory or framework, which may be one important issue to be addressed in the future. Second, an investigation into English use from people of different social statuses will make his claims more convincing. Although the author discusses the issue of the English-using community in chapter 6, he treats the English-using population as a whole and ignores their differences in social status. It might be of more interest if language preferences from people of different social statuses were examined.
In sum, the book under review is an invaluable addition to the study of English varieties in particular contexts. It is likely to prove a very useful resource to those who are interested in sociolinguistics, world Englishes, and sociology, particularly for students and researchers of sociolinguistic studies in Hong Kong.
