After reviewing researches and analyzing the examples of Kongish, we found that the creative and ever-changing nature of Kongish makes it hard for us to give a clear definition of Kongish. Through the theory of translanguaging, we were only able to loosely define it as a "creative and dynamic linguistic process" (Li, 2017, p.9), thereby acknowledging the fluidity in it's usage. The definition of Kongish is also found to be inconsistent among linguists. Usually some linguists would use the term "Kongish" to refer to written form of a hybrid between English and Cantonese, but there are also other interpretations of the term to mean the same as "Hong Kong English", "Chinglish" or use it to include the spoken form of English-Cantonese code-mixing or speaking English with local accent. Also, we also found that cultural knowledge plays a huge role in the creation of Kongish, where users have fun in using Kongish to provoke humorous expressions and content with the language play between English and the rich and ever-changing slang of Cantonese (Sewell & Chan, 2016, p. 604). This again reflects the ever-changing nature of Kongish, as cultural slangs or idioms are constantly evolving.
Also, from the examples in various different online platforms, we found that Kongish is still often confused with Chinglish. Even though the online platforms are referring to Kongish, they label it as Chinglish. It reflects the vague distinction between Kongish and other varieties of English, where the main difference is actually the cultural and creative dimensions in mixing English and Cantonese. However, most people would not be aware of this distinction and thus identify any mixture of English and Cantonese as Chinglish.
The fluidity in usage is also a factor that makes Kongish vague and complex, especially to those non-users. We found that even though Kongish can be categorised into different forms, namely transliteration, literal translation, adding Chinese particles and using incorrect grammar or pronunciation for humorous effects, there are no definite rules for each form as the terms vary among different users. It reflects how there is tacit agreement between Kongish users, where they communicate in Kongish only with those who are familiar with the forms and thus would be able to interpret and understand each other.
In this complex and multifaceted world, it is necessary and inevitable for social categorisation to exist (Stangor, 2000), based on how it effectively facilitates us to organise and simplify the social world around us. Through identifying the social category or social groups that other members of the society are in, individuals can formulate inferences about others even when they have incomplete or insufficient information about them. While social category may help individuals make sense of the complicated world around them, it comes at a cost of potentially making inaccurate judgments. Generally, we are quite familiar with some kinds of social categories, such as gender, race, sexual orientation, and the like. Nevertheless, it is argued and assumed that language is actually a social category which we used to identify which group we belong (Jones, 2012). Thus, proving that Kongish, as a variety of language, can be regarded as a social category which people use to label themselves.
As indicated in the previous sections, Kongish can be regarded as a social category, which can be further understand as a marker of identity. According to Sewell and Chan (2016), Kongish users are able to demonstrate relatively high levels of understandings of Cantonese, English and local culture. This allows the users to communicate among themselves by using Kongish because it involves unique cultural background which may only be understood by local people themselves. The Chinese-English bilingual context in Hong Kong suggested by Bolton provides the basis for the development of Kongish because local youngsters, especially those who have received tertiary education, are generally proficient in both Cantonese and English under bilingualism as a result of historical development, education reform and government policies. Therefore, this part is very important for us to understand the conditions and reasons for the rise of Kongish and how this affects the identity recognition of the language users.
According to the findings, it is believed that the acceptance of Kongish has not become so obvious even in recent years. The use of Kongish as a medium of communication is only popular among the younger generations but other generations are rather ignorant. Even though among the younger generations, some of them still express their reservations and reluctance to recognize it as an “autonomous” variety. In some examples, there were even criticisms against Kongish which was labeled as “Martian Language”. However, the context has been developing and we are able to identify many key factors which may contribute to the noteworthy developing trend towards acceptance of Kongish as a marker of identity.
Negative views against Kongish
We also notify the possible reasons behind the facts that even though Kongish has been widely used by the younger generations for communication especially in online platforms and instant messaging, negative views and even criticisms still persist against the use of Kongish as shown in surveys and many examples. From our personal experiences and examples in discussion forums in Hong Kong, many people actually regard this type of language as “incorrect” and therefore should not be used anymore especially in homework or exams. This phenomenon can be understood by standard language ideology reflected in the “falling English standard” myth of which citizens are taught at school and in society that they should only learn from those “correct” or “native” varieties but not to learn from those varieties with local accent or resulting from translanguaging because they are “incorrect”.
The development of Kongish as an identity marker
However, we also find out two major factors which promote the use of Kongish in recent years. First, the expansion of the flourishing online social-networking sites and programs such all kinds of online forums, blogs, Facebook, WhatsApp and Snapchat help provide a favorable context for the process of translanguaging. Youngsters spend a lot of time using these programs for communication and gradually involve code-mixing and a hybrid of linguistic structure and expressions from languages they are familiar with in order to better express themselves in creative ways. The platforms and social-networking groups become a pool of creativity for the rise of Kongish because it is more convenient, faster and easier for youngsters proficient in Cantonese and English to communicate with one another using both languages or a hybrid of them particularly about the topics concerning with different cultures. This is also possibly related to some technical reasons such as easier typing of English alphabets rather than Chinese characters.
Secondly, it is a factor closely linked with the “identity function” of Kongish (Sewell & Chan, 2016, p.603). In recent years, Hong Kong has experienced rapid changes of political and social landscape. Different political and social campaigns recently such as the Umbrella Movement and conflicts with the mainlanders led by Hong Kong youngsters significantly contribute to the rise of localism. The youngsters are therefore eager to establish their own identity by owning a unique language. Kongish is thus used as a marker of a unique and independent local identity which echoes with the opposition against the Chinese manipulation and intrusion of mainlanders among some youngsters these days. The use of Kongish as an identity marker further stresses on in-group favoritism among those “local Hongkongers” and distancing against “others” such as the increasing number of mainland migrants (known as “new migrants”) who live in Hong Kong but do not understand many culturally-bound characteristics of Kongish (Sewell & Chan, 2016, p.603). Common examples are Cantonese idioms expressed in Kongish. That is why Kongish is described as a "language of protest" (Yau, 2016). The two reasons are also closely linked to the development of youth culture to use Kongish as a “digital language” or “anti-language” which will be discussed in the following section more comprehensively. Therefore, this explains the rise of Kongish which becomes a marker of identity of some local youngsters in Hong Kong as reflected in current survey conducted by Edwards (2016).
Potential discrimination issues
As reflected above, we can notify certain potential discrimination issues already. Mutual prejudice and discrimination have been found between users of Kongish and non-users of Kongish because users will regard Kongish as a symbol of local identity and "ownership" of Kongish and discriminate against those who do not use Kongish as "others" and not belong to the local in-group, while the non-users of Kongish may also claim that it is "incorrect" and should be discouraged in formal occasions or even daily conversations. These arguments are presented and supported by examples in online forums and videos, such as those claiming Kongish as "language" used by Kong girls in a negative sense and Kongish should never be used in examinations as it shows academic incompetence.
In the previous literature reviews, the digitality of Kongish has been explored, evidently shown by its form of digital orality and its function in facilitating online communication through its convenience of keyboard characteristics. Therefore, in order to understand or use Kongish, media and digital literacy is a preliminary requirement, and it is observed that adolescents are the most proficient in digital technology, due to widespread and premature exposure through education institutions and private contexts, while older generations lack such accessibility. As a result, Kongish as a product of the Internet media is exclusively limited within the adolescents' in-group territory, excluding people who does not belong to this age group, and more particularly the elderly. However, with the rapid development in internet technology and the general improvement in digital literacy that expands beyond the generation boundaries, we believe that Kongish will continue to rise as a popular online vernacular whose usage will not only be restricted to youth.
Furthermore, we have also chosen to apply the concept of anti-language in identifying Kongish as a marker of youth identity. From the previous research, we found that Kongish is largely a non-mainstream in-group language that excludes those without sufficient cultural or digital knowledge. Users of Kongish creatively incorporate Cantonese slangs and swear words, thus performing their identity as a member of youth that rebels against the societal standards of proper languages, and as creative and playful innovators that invents and continuously reinvent Kongish. It is important to acknowledge that Kongish is a chief means of communication and expression for this group of youth, and thus non-users should recognise and respect Kongish as a language.
Being avid users of Kongish, this research relates deeply to us, and through the research and examples, we have gained a deeper understanding towards Kongish. In our society, Kongish is not a mainstream language, and is often viewed negatively as "incorrect" or judged for being hard to understand. Through our research, we would like to show how Kongish is actually a new mode of communication among the local youth that displays digitality and anti-cultural references and intensifies the sense of local identity. It deserves recognition and understanding as a new variety of language, and thus we hope that through this website, more people can learn about and acknowledge Kongish instead of discriminating it.
Before judging Kongish as "incorrect," one should be aware that language is constantly evolving, and thus Kongish is an example of a developing linguistic process that mixes Cantonese and English. As long as users distinguish between Kongish, proper English and proper Cantonese, parents, teachers or even the media should not discourage against the usage of Kongish for fear that it would affect their language standards because this may diminish local creativity, cultural uniqueness and diversity of Hong Kong. Instead of claiming that Kongish is an "incorrect" language, teachers at school and the government should lead the students and the public to understand this new means of communication among the youngsters. For example, in liberal studies or language lessons, the teachers can raise it as a topic for reflecting local identity recognition and local culture, and examine critically from linguistic and social perspectives. The teachers should include discussion of both pros and cons of the rise of Kongish but not to simply label them as "incorrect".
As for users of Kongish, as Kongish is generally a new mode of digital language for the youth, they should be mindful of whom they communicate in Kongish with. For example, they should refrain from communicating in Kongish with the older generation that is digitally illiterate, or with non-Cantonese speakers who lack the linguistic and cultural knowledge to understand Kongish. They should also be more understandable when someone, especially the older generations and those who lack sufficient knowledge about local culture, express their negative views against Kongish. They should try to explain the reasons for them to use the language and share with them features of Kongish and some interesting expressions in order to arouse their interest and understand the current language used among the younger generations in Hong Kong. This is also a positive attempt to promote Kongish and eliminate misunderstandings but not to incite exclusion and prejudice between users and non-users of Kongish.
Similarly, as for non-users of Kongish, they may also try to explore the reasons for youngsters to use Kongish and communicate with them to prevent misunderstandings. Besides, they should also understand their limitations of understanding Hong Kong local culture and try to treat it as an example of local diversity of culture rather than an "incorrect" language by comparing it with "standard Chinese" or "standard English".
We have attempted to conduct an in-depth investigation on the issue of Kongish, yet we understand that as Kongish is a newly emerged term, previous research on this issue is limited. A clearer distinction between different varieties of English should be made in order to provide a more accurate definition for Kongish. More research could also be done on the evolution of language practises in Hong Kong, where factors like local identity or rise of digitality serve to create a new fluid and dynamic language variety.