This section will provide a definition of Kongish for our research, which is based on two research papers: Sewell and Chan's "Hong Kong English, but not as we know it: Kongish and language in late modernity" and Eave's "English, Chinglish or China English?: Analysing Chinglish, Chinese English and China English." It will also review Li's research paper "A practical theory of language" in understanding Kongish through the theory of translanguaging.
By reviewing these research papers, it will 1) provide a clear definition of Kongish that differentiates it from Chinglish or Hong Kong English, laying the foundation for our study and 2) go beyond the boundaries of named languages and language varieties to fully understand the creative and cultural dimensions of Kongish.
Sewell and Chan (2016) define Kongish as a “blend of English and Cantonese that is characterised by the use of Cantonese words and expressions in romanised form,” where English usually predominates and the Cantonese-ness is asserted through transliteration (e.g. hai, used to express ‘is’), “literal translation” (e.g. add oil, which is an idiom used to for encouragement) and “unconventional spellings” (e.g. actcholly as in ‘actually’) (p. 598).
Kongish VS Hong Kong English
As Kongish is easily confused with the internationally intelligible Hong Kong English, Sewell and Chan (2016) further note that the prerequisite for using Kongish is having "a high level of both Cantonese and English, as well as cultural knowledge, access to social media, and an appreciation of Kongish conventions and style." (p. 598)
Kongish VS Chinglish
Kongish is also sometimes confused with Chinglish, and according to Wei and Fei’s study (as cited in Eaves, 2011), Chinglish is an interlanguage, which “manifested as Chinese-style syntax with English words, Chinese phenological elements in pronunciation or grammatical variations that attempt to follow Standard English rules but miss the mark” (p. 65). The most significant difference between Kongish and Chinglish is that, the former one is produced with conscious intention, while the occurrence of the latter one is due to unintentional “mistakes of expression or translation” (Eaves, 2011, p. 65).
Since the definition of Kongish varies across different studies, we have chosen to Sewell and Chan's definition as the foundation of defining Kongish in our research as it clearly distinguishes Kongish from other varieties like "Hong Kong English" and Chinglish, and recognises the importance of cultural knowledge in understanding and using Kongish.
Still, it is important to note the creative and critical dimensions of Kongish, where the usage of it is fluid as it is an every-changing process. An excerpt from Kongish Daily 2016 as shown in Sewell and Chan's (2016) research demonstrates the fluidity:
"Many boss Day‐day say, E+ di 90‐after gei University graduates, keoi dei gei English ho rubbish. Wrong grammar, un‐proper style, poor pronunciation. Cannot write or speak English goodest‐ly. But, Hong Kong di university‐s ming ming hai teach in English. After study for 4 years, should be gooder than secondary school ga wor." (p. 598)
The term "E+" is an example of transliteration, where it expresses the meaning "nowadays" with the pronunciation of the Cantonese term and mixes it with a keyboard character. Yet, there are multiple other ways of tranlisteration of "nowadays" in Kongish, such as "yi ga" or "yee gah." There is no "correct" way of the Kongish terms, where the most important part is being able to convey the message to other users. Thus, even though there are many different variations, Kongish users would still be able to distinguish between the different types (e.g. transliteration or unconventional spellings).
Translanguaging
Li (2017) defines Translanguaging as a "practical theory of language" that "involves dynamic and functionally integrated use of different languages and language varieties" and "goes beyond the boundaries of named languages and language varieties." (p. 9) In her research, she outlines the need for Translanguaging in applied linguistics to better investigate dynamic and creative linguistic practices, where she gives two examples of such practises, New Chinglish and Singaporean Chinese in showing how the existing approaches to multilingualism are over-simplistic and unable to fully capture their creative and critical dimensions. As the characteristics of Kongish are similar to the two examples, where Konigsh also involves "flexible use of named languages and language varieties as well as other semiotic resources" (p. 14), it helps us in our definition and understanding of Kongish as a dynamic and creative linguistic practise. Through the examples, Li also shows how any practice that is slightly non-conventional could be described in terms of Translanguaging, thus inspiring us to investigate Kongish through Translanguaging for our study.
Li also discusses the key theoretical arguments that underpin the notion of Translanguaging and reviews the key contributions to previous research on the term. In particular, Williams (1994) and Baker's (2001) work on Translanguaging as a pedagogical practice stresses how it is not a linguistic structural phenomenon to describe and analyse but rather "a process of knowledge construction that goes beyond language(s)" (p.15) offers us a fresh perspective to go beyond the "linguistics of systems and speakers" to a "linguistics of participation" in understanding Kongish. (p. 15)
Becker's (1991) work on the notion of languaging shows how language should be regarded as "in the process of being made" (p. 16), and Swain's (2006) work further connects languaging to thinking, cognizing and consciousness where she finds that language "serves as a vehicle through which thinking is articulated and transformed into an artifactual form" (p. 16). Their findings invite us to rethink language as a dynamic and changing process, thereby giving us further insight on understanding and defining Kongish as a creative linguisitc process for our study.
From the above research, we have decided that for our research, we will define Kongish as a "dynamic and creative linguistic process" (Li, 2017, p. 9) that uniquely mixes English and Cantonese while incorporating cultural elements and other semiotic resources.