Hong Kong’s Handover from British to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 could have brought about rapid and momentous changes to Hong Kong’s language regime. Change, however, has for the most part been incremental, and much of the British-era’s language regime remains largely intact today, including the salience of English in many domains. At the same time, language policy changes did occur, mainly through the educational policy of biliteracy and trilingualism, which added Mandarin to the de facto English-Cantonese bilingual regime. However, nearly half-way through the transition period, Mandarin use has made few notable inroads in Hong Kong society, though there are signs that this may be about to change - perhaps drastically so. This paper analyzes the evolution of Hong Kong’s language regime from its unique perspective as a city connected to the global community like few others, and located between two state traditions - one marked by pluralist, laissez-faire capitalism, and the other by Communism and totalitarian state nationalism. Overall, this case study of Hong Kong contributes to our understanding of colonial legacies, competing mobilizations, incremental change, and multilevel governance as it helps to expand the STLR framework.

It has been widely recognized that how languages behave, particularly under conditions of contact with other languages, depends on their context. Using the Ethnolinguistic Vitality framework, this chapter describes the demographics, linguistic attitudes and institutional supports for heritage languages, defining the concepts and illustrating them with examples from Toronto, the context in which the HLVC project is conducted. Demographic information includes population sizes, language shift rates, and history of settlement in Toronto. Status information includes both reflections on the status of heritage languages, as a whole, in Canada and labels attributed to the specific varieties. The institutional support section reports on the number of language classes available for each language. The chapter also includes discussion of language policy, particularly for education, and the demographics of the university where the research is centered, enabling other researchers to best consider what aspects of the project might need adjusting for adaptation in other contexts.

This chapter reports on trends of continuity and divergence within the heritage generations examined and between heritage and homeland varieties. It discusses the degrees of similarities between the varieties in terms of (a) rates of use of innovative forms and (b) conditioning factors in the constraint hierarchy. The three variables examined are voice onset time (VOT, n=8,909), case-marking on nouns and pronouns (CASE, n=9,661), and variable presence of subject pronouns (PRODROP, n=9,190), each in three or more languages. The similarity in rates and conditioning effects across generations for (PRODROP), examined in seven languages, particularly contrasts with findings for this variable in experimental paradigms. Similarly, findings of little simplification or overgeneralization of the case system in three languages stands in contrast to the outcomes of several previous studies. (VOT) shows a drift toward (but not arriving at) English-like values for only some of the languages examined. For each variable, models are presented and interpreted; a table then details which aspects of the analysis contribute to the interpretation of stability and of each type of variation.

We have analyzed many variables in Cantonese but not in other languages: classifier specialization, tone mergers, vowel splits and mergers, motion event expression, and (L > R), as well as (VOT) and (PRODROP). As little sociolinguistic work on any variety of this globally large language exists, these studies serve as useful models to expand variationist studies to languages that vary in many ways from the North American, Indo-European languages of focus to date. We show that classifiers are developing a specific semantic contrast (for number-marking) in Heritage Cantonese, amplifying a homeland trend; that three tone mergers that were reported to be completed are only partial, in both homeland and heritage varieties; that some vowel mergers and splits may be attributed to influence from English, but that changes in the constraints governing motion event expression cannot be attributed to simplification or English-contact effects. We report on covariation among the variables, showing that it is not the case that the same speakers lead change in each. Thus, it is not easy to claim that language proficiency or patterns of use are responsible for the variation. Rather, internal change and identity-marking motivations for change must be considered.

The variables examined in Chapters 5 and 6 show little evidence of being used for identity work. That is, they do not show (consistent) effects of ethnic orientation measures or speaker sex. This chapter explicitly contrasts variables that reflect indexicality (correlation to social factors) in homeland varieties to non-indexical variables. We begin by considering three indexical variables in Italian: (VOT) in unstressed-syllable contexts, (APOCOPE), and (R), illustrating the extent to which indexicality is maintained in the heritage variety. We find increasing use of the more standard variant only in (VOT). Furthermore, we find that younger speakers (both in homeland and heritage) favour the non-standard variant. We then compare the variable (R), the contrast between trill (or tap) and approximant variants, in Italian and Tagalog, where it has indexical value in the homeland varieties, to Russian and Ukrainian, where it does not. Finally, we consider two additional indexical variables: Cantonese denasalization and Korean VOT. We conclude by contrasting the behavior of homeland-indexicals in heritage varieties. The presence of indexical value in homeland varieties does not consistently influence outcomes in the heritage varieties.

This chapter draws cross-linguistic comparisons among the patterns reported in Chapter 5 for three linguistic variables that occur in at least three languages in the project: (VOT), (CASE), and (PRODROP). Conditioning factors, both linguistic and social, are discussed. Collapsing across rate and constraint hierarchy for each variable, we note any indication of change in either. Half the context we examine exhibit stability. Of the eight that indicate difference, half of these can be attributed to English (including both convergence and divergence). With few differences between homeland and heritage speakers to work with, we find few generalizations about what parts of the language, or which languages, change. We do see more change in one morphosyntactic variable, (CASE), than in the phonetic variable (VOT), but less in the other morphosyntactic variable (PRODROP).

Reflecting the cultural and regional diversity in China, signs may contain dialectal elements, especially those of the major dialects such as Cantonese, Min, and Shanghai/Wu. Dialects can differ in vocabulary and grammar, and particularly in sound. The differences in sound can sometimes be seen in phonetic transliterations. Dialectal words are those that do not have counterparts in the standard language. They are often written by borrowing standard characters just for the sound without regard for their original meaning (Rebus Principle); they can also be written in specially created dialectal characters. Dialects can also resemble classical Chinese, as they tend to retain features of older Chinese.

This is the first variationist sociolinguistic study of Cantonese tone-merger using conversational recordings. These data differ from experimental data exploring tone mergers: the speech is continuous and spontaneous, the tones appear in diverse contexts, and speakers are from both Toronto and Hong Kong. We investigated the status of three reportedly ongoing mergers: T2/T5忍 / 引, T3/T6 印 / 孕, and T4/T6 仁 / 孕. We measured three cues (i.e., mean pitch, pitch at 90% duration of the syllable, and pitch slope) in 12,000+ tokens from thirty-two speakers. Using normalized duration and speaker pitch, mixed-effects models showed that unmerged tones are statistically distinguishable in spontaneous speech, but that two of the three “ongoing-merger” pairs are fully merged, and the third is nearly merged. Analyses included segmental and suprasegmental (i.e., phrasal position, word position, adjacent tones) factors affecting pitch. We found no differences between heritage and homeland speaker samples.

The functional load hypothesis predicts that phonemes with lower functional load are more likely to merge than higher functional load phonemes. Using Cantonese spontaneous speech data from the Heritage Language Variation and Change Corpus (Nagy, 2011), this chapter addresses the functional load hypothesis in a heritage language context by comparing F1/F2 production patterns of two vowel pairs (i.e., /y/~/u/ and /a/~/ɔ/) across thirty-two speakers based on generational group (i.e., Gen0, Gen1, and Gen2) and dominant language (i.e., Cantonese versus English). An analysis of Pillai score values (Nycz & Hall-Lew, 2015) shows a significant decrease in the phonetic distinctiveness of /y/~/u/ for English-dominant speakers (i.e., all Gen2). The /y/~/u/ pair also has a lower functional load. Dominant language, however, was not a significant Pillai score predictor for /a/~/ɔ/. Overall, the results support the functional load hypothesis in a heritage language context and show how it can complement accounts of heritage languages based on dominant language transfer.

Lam’s chapter analyses the phenomenon of reduplication, primarily in Cantonese, a language in which reduplication can occur in the nominal domain, usually on the classifier, to express plurality, in the verbal domain to express an iteration of eventualities or a prolongation of an eventuality, and in the adjectival domain to express property attenuation. Lam argues for a uniform treatment of reduplication in terms of summation and a sensitivity to whether the replicated elements are (strictly) quantized or cumulative. For example, entity-denoting nominal classifiers, and verbal predicates denoting quantized sets of eventualities (such as tiu3 ‘jump’) denote pluralities or iterations, respectively, based on the summing of entities/eventualities. For verbal expressions that denote cumulative predicates (such as fan3 ‘sleep’), summation adds up ‘portions’ of unbounded, overlapping eventualities forming one temporally extended eventuality. Lam proposes that Cantonese bare adjectives denote dimensions, e.g. tallness, but not degree or magnitude. This nullifies any semantic effect of summation, and the attenuation effect is derived via competition with other forms using hou2 (‘very’).

Chapter 3 surveys the vast expansion, both in the numbers of migrants and in the range of destinations, of Chinese migration during the age of mass migration, processes driven in part by industrialization and imperialism. The chapter both traces the expansion of existing diasporic trajectories, such as migration from Shandong to Manchuria and the Hokkien diaspora in Southeast Asia, and introduces new diasporic trajectories, such as the Teochiu migrants to Thailand, Cantonese migrants to Australasia and the Americas, and Zhejiang migrants to Europe. The chapter also draws attention to diasporic trajectories made up of female migrants, to Shanghai and Singapore, representing the beginnings of the feminization of migration. The chapter then introduces institutions unique to the age of mass migration: treaty ports, indentured servitude and the “coolie” trade. The chapter argues that while the age of migration was the heyday of such Chinese institutions as native-place associations and brotherhoods, it also witnessed the emergence of new types of migration services. The chapter concludes with a third example of a Chinese diasporic community, this one made up of Teochiu farmers in a village on the Malay Peninsula.