Current Issues in Language Planning

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rclp20

Teacher sociolinguistic backgrounds: a

multilinguistic domain approach to understand
teacher agency and language planning outcomes

Daphnee Hui Lin Lee

To cite this article: Daphnee Hui Lin Lee (2020): Teacher sociolinguistic backgrounds: a
multilinguistic domain approach to understand teacher agency and language planning outcomes,
Current Issues in Language Planning, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2020.1785753

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1785753

Published online: 25 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 49

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rclp20
CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1785753

Teacher sociolinguistic backgrounds: a multilinguistic domain

approach to understand teacher agency and language
planning outcomes
Daphnee Hui Lin Lee
Education Policy and Leadership, The Education University of Hong Kong, Ting Kok, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper examines the unintended consequences of state Received 17 February 2020
language policy and planning (LPP) that adopt subtractive Accepted 16 June 2020
approaches on teachers’ subsequent receptivity to policy fine-
KEYWORDS
tuning. A comparative approach is adopted in this statistical study Childhood home language;
of two strategic contexts, where the influence of the world’s two Chinese languages; English
leading languages—English and Mandarin—manifests in the language; language policy
home language conversion patterns of ethnic Chinese teachers of and planning (LPP); teacher
Hong Kong and Singapore. The interplay among state, education, agency
and family linguistic domains provides the framework to
understand how teachers exercise agency underpinned by their
sociolinguistic background (childhood home language—CHL) and
home language conversion preference (home language as adult—
HL). The results show that teacher CHL–HL conversion preferences
underlie their response to state LPP initiatives and influence LPP
outcomes in the education domain. The results are theorized in
terms of the prevailing values in Hong Kong and Singapore that
shape teacher agency, the unintended outcomes of subtractive
LPP in education, and the probable outcomes on the linguistic
vitality of local and dominant languages in Hong Kong, with the
interplay between future subtractive LPP and teacher agency.

Introduction
Scholars of language policy and planning (LPP) now recognize that teachers actively influence
outcomes as state policy unfolds in the multiple domains nested within a sociolinguistic
context (e.g. Baldauf, 2012; Evans, 2013; Feng & Adamson, 2018). This paper examines the
interplay among state, education, and family domains, and the unintended consequences
that arise from states promoting subtractive approaches to discourage the use of pre-existing
languages in Hong Kong and Singapore. It examines how subtractive LPP creates resistance to
policy fine-tuning with the interplay among state approaches, teacher agency, and teacher
sociolinguistic backgrounds. In the face of new education policies, such as in the medium of
instruction or in language instruction, the study of teacher sociolinguistic backgrounds (child-
hood home language—CHL) and sociolinguistic choice (home language as adult—HL) can
offer an understanding of how teachers may respond to influence state-intended outcomes.

CONTACT Daphnee Hui Lin Lee dhllee@eduhk.hk Education Policy and Leadership, The Education University of
Hong Kong, Ting Kok, Hong Kong
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. H. L. LEE

‘Local’ languages?
The term ‘local’ language broadly refers to communication medium(s) that are prevalently
used by a significant segment of the population at a locale (Pennycook, 2010; Phillipson,
2008). It refers to languages whose linguistic vitality is under question with the introduc-
tion of dominant languages to a population. A variety of terminology has been used to
conceptualize local languages, such as indigenous or heritage languages (Fishman, 2014;
Valdés, 2014), minority languages (Feng & Adamson, 2018; Yevudey & Agbozo, 2019),
regional languages (Spolsky, 2018a; Van der Jeught, 2017), and dialects (Han & Wu,
2020; McDermott, 2019; Ng, 2017; Poon & Lau, 2016).
In the absence of a more appropriate term, the most prevalent term employed by scho-
lars of sociolinguistics in the Chinese context will be used in this study. ‘Chinese dialects’
will refer to the diverse range of southern Chinese languages (e.g. Cantonese, Hakka, and
Hokkien) in this comparative analysis of LPP in Hong Kong and Singapore. The term
‘regional language’ is inappropriate. Mandarin, supported by the political sponsorship
of China and its Confucian Institutes (Gil, 2017), is rapidly replacing Chinese languages
that used to command influence as regional languages prevalently used in Chinese
societies. Chinese dialects can be heritage or indigenous languages only to the extent
that these language mediums are regarded an inextricable part of cultural identity, and
under the (plausible) threat of being displaced by dominant languages in Hong Kong
(Bauer, 2000; Pierson, 1998) and Singapore (Lee, 2017; Ng, 2017). However, as the use
of these terms prevails in the study of Native American minority languages, it is proble-
matic to apply them in contexts where ethnic Chinese are the demographical majority.

Dominant world languages

Where world powers seek to establish their influence, they implement LPP at a global scale
to mark their symbolic power with language conversion (Ostler, 2010). Multiple examples
throughout history demonstrate the role of colonizers and successor states in introducing
dominant world languages that resulted in the loss of local languages. From the study of
Anglophone locales that proliferated with the establishment of the British colonial empire,
Phillipson (2008) referred to this maneuver as ‘linguistic imperialism’, or the unequal
treatment of language communities in a sociolinguistic context. Nevertheless, broadened
investigation of French (Spolsky, 2018a) and Portuguese (Spolsky, 2018b) colonies and
successor states demonstrates that language campaigns are highly diverse in their out-
comes. In Mali, native heritage languages are close to complete annihilation. In Canada,
Mauritania, and Senegal, newly imposed dominant languages (e.g. English) have displaced
French dominance. In Cote D’Ivoire, multiple heritage languages coexist (Spolsky, 2018a).
In Brazil, native heritage languages indigenized the dominant languages, such as Portu-
guese and Spanish (Spolsky, 2018b).
The literature shows that language planning history tells more than just an account of
cultural imperialism being imposed on passive recipients. Likewise, studies in the edu-
cation domain also point to diverse and dynamic language policy directions and planning
outcomes. For example, the interplay between politics and education domains trans-
formed Ghana’s English-only medium of instruction (MOI) to a nine-MOI school
system (Yevudey & Agbozo, 2019). Likewise, Belgium finds a balance between territoriality
and individual language freedom by giving provinces the autonomy to choose among
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 3

English, French, and German MOIs (Van der Jeught, 2017). Local political resistance in
Navarre against Spanish domination drew on economic justifications to opt for an
English MOI, thus creating the space for the eventual use of native Basque as the MOI,
instead of Spanish (Erdocia, 2019). The education domain is highly instrumental in the
preservation of heritage languages. For example, the status of Ulster-Scots as an indepen-
dent language was previously contested, yet its status as a ‘dialect’ was eventually over-
turned by negotiations between state and education domains (McDermott, 2019).
Likewise, in Wales, education plays an instrumental role in the preservation of the
Welsh language (Baker, 1995).

Subtractive LPP and the need for LPP fine-tuning

A review of the literature on the role of LPP in world colonization history provides insight
to the diverse possibilities in the interplay between LPP agenda and sociolinguistic context.
However, the potential for preserving heritage languages with the implementation of
dominant world language(s) seems narrower in regions where economic justifications pre-
dominate. Underlying the decisions regarding MOI among economically pragmatic Asian
states is a ‘subtractive’ approach to multilingualism (Feng & Adamson, 2018, p. 173). Sub-
tractive LPP approaches promote dominant world languages by discouraging the use of
pre-existing languages, which may progress with subsequent policy that seeks to fine-
tune these policies with similar subtractive approaches.
In Asia, the implementation of an English MOI in higher education in Vietnam man-
dates that teachers who speak Chinese, French, and Russian as first languages are not
allowed to use code-switching in class (Tran, 2019). English language teaching in South
Korea likewise applies the same mandate (Choi, 2015). Closer to the site of this investi-
gation, subtractive LPP intensifies. Alongside English, the importance of ensuring that
the populations in Chinese societies acquire Mandarin proficiency has become highly sen-
sitive, as China seeks to establish its world presence through language conversion. China
has attracted global attention during the last decade with the worldwide establishment of
Confucian Institutes in a bid to establish Mandarin as a dominant world language and
regional language in Asia (Gil, 2017).
In mainland China, students are expected to acquire competence in L2 (e.g. Mandarin)
and some competence in L3 (e.g. English), yet at the expense of their L1 (i.e. Chinese dia-
lects) (Han & Wu, 2020) and other non-Chinese languages (e.g. Mongolian, Tibetan, and
Korean) (Feng & Adamson, 2018). The ramifications of subtractive LPP are often endur-
ing, complex, and elusive. While LPP is still in its nascent stages in mainland China, LPP is
well established in two Chinese societies—Hong Kong and Singapore. Policymakers in
these two contexts are currently engaged in LPP fine-tuning to address the unintended
ramifications that have arisen from the subtractive approaches adopted in past LPP initiat-
ives—ironically with further subtractive LPP.
In Singapore, LPP and fine-tuning are well established. Subtractive LPP in Singapore
has been highly successful in displacing Chinese languages with the English language,
raising the alarm of critics, who refer to the Singapore example to explore the future impli-
cations of subtractive LPP in China (Hu, 2008). Despite efforts to fine-tune English LPP
with further subtractive approaches to promote Mandarin proficiency among ethnic
Chinese Singaporeans, the preference for English persists over the preference for
4 D. H. L. LEE

Mandarin (Goh et al., 2005; Li et al., 2012; Ng, 2017). In Hong Kong, LPP and fine-tuning
initiatives are more recent than in Singapore. Subtractive LPP has been highly successful in
displacing the English language dominance in Hong Kong society with Cantonese—the
local Chinese language of Hong Kong (Ho & Ho, 2004). In a survey conducted by the Edu-
cation Bureau (SCHOLAR, 2015) and in a qualitative scholarly study (Chan, 2014), tea-
chers expressed reservations toward policy fine-tuning to introduce Putonghua
(Mandarin) as Medium of Instruction in Chinese in Hong Kong (survey only), and to
prevent the further decline of English proficiency levels brought about by Mother
Tongue Education policies. Further, research shows that, although students express a pre-
ference for English MOI learning, teachers remain resolute in their preference for the pre-
vious LPP to promote Chinese as the MOI (Poon & Lau, 2016).
Evans (2013, p. 302) noted that Chinese societies struggle with ‘balancing the claims (of
power over a territory) of the world’s two leading languages (i.e. English and Mandarin)’.
This power is symbolized by the establishment of a language as the lingua franca, or a
‘language deliberately acquired outside of the home environment … consciously learned
for social or pragmatic reasons—essentially so as to cope in a wider society outside the
community one was born to’ (Ostler, 2010). However, unlike contexts where society is
more open to the accommodation of new languages (e.g. Belgium) (Van der Jeught,
2017), societies that have undergone subtractive LPP appear less amendable to policy
fine-tuning to transform the lingua franca in subsequent power struggles.
Hong Kong and Singapore hold distinctive positions to other Chinese-majority
societies with regard to their treatment of English and Mandarin languages. As ‘former
(British) colonies such as Hong Kong and Singapore’, the two contexts are strategic
sites reflecting the symbolic power of the two dominant world languages (Gil, 2017,
pp. 18–19). As such, the conceptualization of a lingua franca as a language acquired
from outside the family domain (Ostler, 2010) is problematic, and this conceptual gap
may likewise arise in societies where subtractive LPP prevails. As this study will show,
the ethnic Chinese populations in both locales have chosen to convert the home language
to dominant world languages to varied degrees. This implies that children of the two
societies will acquire or have already acquired the lingua franca—including dominant
world languages and local languages—within the family domain, whether or not the
household originally comprised native speakers of the language. In particular, the impli-
cations of subtractive LPP and fine-tuning are highly important to Hong Kong. Compared
with Singapore, where local Chinese languages have been almost devitalized by English
and Mandarin, Cantonese (a Chinese dialect) remains the lingua franca of Hong Kong
society. Hong Kong and Singapore make excellent case studies to examine the unintended
consequences of subtractive LPP and fine-tuning, which is an important topic of study
given the rising numbers of state agencies that have adopted this approach to LPP.

Purpose of this study

This paper examines the effects of subtractive LPP in two strategic sites—Hong Kong and
Singapore—where the influence of the world’s two leading languages manifests in the
home language conversion patterns of ethnic Chinese teachers. This paper employs the
concept of ‘multilinguistic domains’ (Feng & Adamson, 2018) to frame this comparative
statistical study. The interplay among state, education, and family linguistic domains
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 5

provides the backdrop to understand how teachers exercise agency underpinned by their
sociolinguistic backgrounds (CHL) and sociolinguistic choice (HL) in both contexts. This
investigation will provide insight to how subtractive LPP produces unintended conse-
quences that influence teachers’ subsequent receptivity to policy fine-tuning.

Conceptual framework
A sociolinguistic context comprises linguistic domains or social spaces in which people’s
values shape their language choice (Fishman, 1972). Context refers to the setting that
defines the values of social spaces embedded within it, which sets how people will exercise
agency, or choice as they transit between social spaces (e.g. state, education, and family)
(Feng & Adamson, 2018). People pay selective attention to the choices available to
them based on the values that prevail in a context. For conceptual clarity, this paper
restricts the focus to two prevailing values that underpin how people make personal
language choices. For ease of reference, this paper refers to the first set of values as rational,
and the second set of values as emotional. These values are regarded as conceptual con-
structs of the dominant traits that may prevail in each case, which does not preclude
people’s adoption of both values or other values in reality. They provide a comparison
of how underpinning values shape contrasting outcomes as individuals try to implement
subtractive LPP.
People who pay more attention to values that following rules will channel collective
action to achieve a productivity-related goal are more likely to perform rational actions
(e.g. maximize competitive advantage at minimum cost) (DiMaggio & Powell, 2000; Har-
alambos & Holborn, 2013; Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2001). People who pay more attention
to persuasions that collective action is ethical and meaningful for achieving emotion-
related wellbeing are more likely to use feelings to motivate actions (e.g. transform feelings
that inspire collective unity into social movements) (Collins, 2001; Haralambos &
Holborn, 2013; O’Connor, 2008). People’s values manifest in nuanced actions because
agency results from the interaction of the context with multilinguistic domains. That is,
people may act according to the underpinning values that prevail in the context as they
exercise agency to interpret the distinctive demands of each linguistic domain. Spolsky
(2012) identified key linguistic domains that affect LPP, which Feng and Adamson
(2018) narrowed down to domains most relevant to the Chinese context: state, education,
and family.

State domain
Singapore gained independence from British colonial rule in 1965. Ethnic Chinese Singa-
poreans are predominantly of southern Chinese descent who spoke little English and less
Mandarin (Kuhn, 1997). State LPP first used rational values to encourage English conver-
sion, but for Mandarin, emotional values prevailed over rational ones. Chinese Singapor-
eans were convinced by rational state persuasions of the pragmatic value that English-
proficiency can offer them in the world economy (Rodan, 1985). By contrast, state LPP
introduced Mandarin as ‘mother tongue’ a decade later in the Speak Mandarin Campaign
(1979) to tighten Chinese Singaporean’s cultural connections with China (Chung, 2019).
Subtractive approaches were communicated in both LPP initiatives. In the first, choosing
6 D. H. L. LEE

an English education is likened to expressing a preference for a Singaporean identity over

cultural connections with China (Llamzon, 1977), while choosing a Chinese education is
an expression of Chinese bigotry (Wong, 2005). In the second, subtractive LPP initiatives
emphasize Mandarin usage is symbolic of the revival of Confucian cultural values that will
neutralize Chinese Singaporeans of negative influences they acquired from Western cul-
tures (Wee, 2007). However, although the second series of fine-tuning policies demon-
strated success in winning converts from among Chinese dialect speakers, Mandarin
has had limited success in gaining an advantage over English as a lingua franca among
Chinese Singaporeans (Ng, 2017).
Trilingualism and biliteracy has been promoted after Hong Kong’s return to China as
Special Administrative Region in 1997 (Education Department, 1997). In reality, subtrac-
tive approaches sought to displace English MOI (Evans & Morrison, 2017) with the
implementation of compulsory Chinese MOI in Mother Tongue Education (1998) (Edu-
cation Bureau, 2002). Referring to Chinese language as ‘mother tongue’, the use of
emotional persuasions is symbolic of the policy resolve to dissociate Hong Kong from
its British colonial past and reinstate the Chinese identity. Pierson (1998) predicted that
Mandarin would dominate the political domain, while English would remain the language
of power in the business domain, and Cantonese would recede into the family domain.
Bauer (2000) went so far as to predict that Mandarin would displace Cantonese as the
lingua franca of Hong Kong when the territory becomes fully integrated with China by
2050. Mother Tongue Education did buttress the rapid decline in the significance of the
English language in Hong Kong. In contrast to the use of English MOI among 90% of
the total secondary schools before the implementation of the Chinese MOI curriculum,
only 114 secondary schools (about 20%) were approved to offer English MOI curriculum
by the Education Bureau (Chan, 2014). However, references to ‘mother tongue’ also awa-
kened the emotional connection of Hong Kong citizens to Cantonese. Contrary to HKSAR
government expectations, schools promoted Cantonese as Chinese language subject when
teachers and students resisted the implementation of Mandarin (Wang & Kirkpatrick,
2019). Alarmed by the loss of proficiency in dominant world languages, policy ensued
to prevent the loss of English proficiency and to tighten the implementation of Mandarin
as Chinese language instruction. This time, rational persuasions were used in the com-
munication of MOI fine-tuning policies (e.g. importance of biliteracy and trilingualism
for the Hong Kong economy) (Education Bureau, 2009). Despite the introduction of
measures such as limited forms of mixed-code teaching at lower secondary levels (Edu-
cation Bureau, 2010), English MOI classes persist on the decline (Evans & Morrison,
2017), and Mandarin likewise failed to gain a significant presence in the education
domain (Legislative Council, 2016). Chan (2019) highlights Hong Kong research partici-
pants’ negative attitude towards trilingual code-switching, especially towards the use of
Mandarin and associations of the language with Hong Kong culture (Chan, 2019). The
resistance against Putonghua as Medium of Instruction for Teaching Chinese Language
(PMIC) reflects deep-seated cultural conflict over Hong Kong’s Chinese identity (Polley
et al., 2018).
Although Hong Kong and Singapore state agencies both adopted ‘subtractive’ LPP, the
sequence in the types of values employed in policy communications differed. Singapore
state agencies employed rational persuasions to delink Chinese Singaporeans from their
emotional connections with southern Chinese mother tongue languages. Persuaded by
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 7

rational values to embrace the English language, fine-tuning policies that employ
emotional values that Mandarin is the mother tongue of the Chinese has limited persua-
siveness to Chinese Singaporeans on adopting it as a master language. Hong Kong state
agencies employed emotional persuasions to delink Hong Kong citizens from the
English language, a symbol of British colonization. Convinced by emotional values to
embrace mother tongue education (Cantonese), fine-tuning policies that employ rational
values that English and Mandarin proficiencies are essential to the pragmatic survival of
Hong Kong has limited persuasiveness to Chinese Hong Kong citizens. To understand the
resistance developed against LPP fine-tuning, it is important to examine the interplay
between the state and education domains to gain an appreciation of the impact of ‘subtrac-
tive’ LPP.

Education domain and teacher agency

The literature suggests that the outcomes of LPP do not arise among passive populations,
but are produced by an active sociocultural construction of the language context by actors
of multilinguistic domains (Feng & Adamson, 2018). Teachers have come to be identified
as one of the segments in the population that plays an instrumental role in shaping how
LPP will manifest in the diverse linguistic domains nested in a context. A lack of teacher
buy-in to the implementation of language policies can indeed bring language planning to a
halt (Baldauf, 2012; Tran, 2019). Teacher agency is highly influential in supporting student
language learning, and teachers leverage the interplay between context and multilinguistic
domains to increase agency. However, there is insufficient consideration given to how
context sets teachers’ selective attention to specific values, which limits the range of per-
ceived choices available for them to assert agency.
In Singapore, research shows that teachers endorse the use of an English MOI and are
highly committed to students’ English language learning (Farrell & Kun, 2007; Goh et al.,
2005). Further, teachers report that the use of ‘mother tongue’ is actively discouraged in
the classroom (Vaish, 2012). Clear boundaries are also enacted in the school curriculum,
where English MOI is used in classes for student development in skills and expertise, while
Mandarin MOI is used in classes for moral and character development (Curdt-Christian-
sen, 2014). We can infer from these practices that rational and ‘subtractive’ values prevail
in the exercise of teacher agency in Singapore. Teachers recognize the symbolic value of
the English language as a dominant world language. This endorsement is coupled with
‘subtractive’ values that the rational endorsement of the English language cannot co-
exist with an emotional attachment to the ‘mother tongue’. As a result, subsequent fine-
tuning policies to promote Mandarin as ‘mother tongue’ at school have not achieved
the desired effects because of the subtractive approaches to the way the English MOI
was implemented. Research shows that there is much improvement needed in Chinese
(Mandarin) language instruction, so students will be more interested in learning the
language (Li et al., 2012).
In Hong Kong, LPP reforms won the endorsement of the education domain and aug-
mented students’ positive attitudes toward Cantonese. However, as subtractive LPP
approaches were adopted to reduce the number of and access to English MOI classes,
an unintended consequence was the development of ambivalent attitudes toward
English and Mandarin among Hong Kong students (Lai, 2007). Further, with the
8 D. H. L. LEE

Mandarin fine-tuning policies in 2008, student attitudes toward the English language
declined at the expense of their increased positive attitudes toward Mandarin (Lai,
2013). The situation seems to improve with a greater emphasis on the importance of
English language proficiency with the introduction of LPP fine-tuning, with students
expressing that they enjoy and prefer to learn in English (Poon & Lau, 2016). Nevertheless,
teacher agency remains instrumental to successful LPP implementation, as research evi-
dence indicates. Subtractive LPP created unintended consequences in the form of
teacher reservations toward policy fine-tuning. For example, Poon and Lau (2016)
found that subsequent policy calls for a mixed-code MOI to combat the loss of English
proficiency in Hong Kong met with teacher resistance - teachers maintain their preference
to teach in Chinese (Cantonese). Therefore, a complex situation confronts Hong Kong
students, where they achieve a better understanding of the curriculum with Cantonese
MOI than with English or Mandarin MOI (Chan, 2014; Ng et al., 2017), yet the reality
remains that they will be disadvantaged in university qualification examinations adminis-
tered in English (Evans & Morrison, 2017; Ng et al., 2017). Similar patterns have emerged
in the implementation of Mandarin language instruction in Hong Kong. Students lack the
language environment for Mandarin usage because Mandarin speakers must align with
the Cantonese-speaking school context (Gu, 2011).
According to a survey conducted by the Education Bureau (SCHOLAR, 2015), Hong
Kong has yet to equip the population with an acceptable level of Mandarin proficiency
despite the fine-tuning policies implemented in 2008. In response, a proposition has
been presented to teach Mandarin from Kindergarten 1 onwards (about age four) and
to defer Cantonese language instruction to Primary 4 onwards (about age nine) (Li,
2017). However, given the resistance to fine-tuning policies in 2008 and 2010, it
remains to be seen if teachers will support this proposition that adopts a stringent subtrac-
tive approach. We sought answers from the family domain by examining Hong Kong tea-
chers’ sociolinguistic backgrounds.

Family domain and teacher sociolinguistic backgrounds

Previous research in global contexts extended the study of teacher agency into the family
domain to examine the influence of sociolinguistic background on teachers’ receptivity to
language policies in education (e.g. Varghese et al., 2005). Teachers are individuals who
use language in the family domain as a means of communication, which shapes their per-
sonal values as individuals and teacher agency in the education domain. Thus, this paper
examined the nuances in the ways that teacher identity develops in the family domain to
influence teacher agency (e.g. Pennycook, 2010).
LPP represents decisions made regarding language choices, and these choices are made
in multilinguistic domains (Feng & Adamson, 2018). As aforementioned in the literature
review, policy decisions in the state domain are the results of political struggles, where
rational or emotional values may take precedence between a decision to convert a popu-
lation’s local language through introducing a dominant world language (e.g. Spolsky,
2018a), or to retain heritage languages to empower the local population (e.g. Spolsky,
2018b). In the education domain, teachers implement practices in the classroom that
will promote or inhibit state policies (e.g. Baldauf, 2012; Tran, 2019), and negotiations
between state and education domains have at times resulted in the overturn of ‘subtractive’
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 9

LPP (e.g. McDermott, 2019). The set of values that prevails likewise varies across contexts,
with emotional values prevailing in some (Yevudey & Agbozo, 2019), rational values in
others (Erdocia, 2019), or a balance between the both (Van der Jeught, 2017). Further,
given that teachers are members of multilinguistic domains, they may interpret state pol-
icies and implement practices in the classrooms underpinned by values that they acquired
in the family domain. In the family domain, a teacher’s personal values are shaped by past
language choices that were made on their behalf (e.g. childhood home language—CHL)
and present language choices at home (e.g. home language in adulthood—HL). Teachers
make personal choices whether to retain the CHL as their HL when they start their own
household, or to convert to another language (Lee, 2017).
Language is a rational instrument when treated as a symbol for gaining a competitive
advantage in power struggles (e.g. political dominance, economic benefit, or cultural iden-
tity) (Pieterse, 2004). Research in Singapore shows that people see personal language
choice as rational decision to gain a competitive advantage in their everyday work and
social lives (De Costa et al., 2016). They take the rational view that language choices in
a household (e.g. home language) reflect personal beliefs regarding which source of
influence should be endorsed in a power struggle (Phillipson, 2008). Consequently,
those who align with the victorious language in a power struggle will possess greater
opportunities to relate more effectively as members of a language community, access
opportunities, make decisions, and create possibilities (Gaibrois & Steyaert, 2017).
An alternative view asserts that language functions not only as a medium of communi-
cation, but also as a medium for individual expression of emotional belonging to a
language community (Pennycook, 2010). Indeed, studies have shown that, despite the
prevalent use of English language in other social settings in China, middle-class parents
emphasize the importance of using Chinese as the home language to ensure that their chil-
dren remain connected to Chinese culture (Yao, 1983). Parents in China select language
programs for their children based on which of these programs best cultivates the children
to become effective adults, rather than purely for rational purposes of economic competi-
tiveness (Yu, 2016).
Given that teachers are also language users in the family domain, this literature review
implies that teachers may respond rationally or emotionally in their language choices. In
the education domain, it has previously been asserted that teachers are the subjects and the
implementers of LPP (Bourdieu, 1989). However, current research shows that teachers are
far from mere passive recipients to state LPP directives (Baldauf, 2012; Lee, 2020; Tran,
2019; Varghese et al., 2005). Therefore, teacher prioritization of rational or emotional
values in their language choice in the family domain will have significant effects on LPP
outcomes in the education domain.
The results from the literature review on teacher agency in LPP implementation infer
that teachers may adopt either rational or emotional values to interpret and implement
LPP. This paper first examined the literature on the emotional influence of teachers’ socio-
linguistic backgrounds. The literature prevails with findings on how personal language
identity in the family domain functions as an emotional influence that shapes teachers’
LPP implementation in the classroom. In Ghana, teachers of bilingual sociolinguistic
backgrounds are found to be more supportive of code-switching and translanguaging
(Yevudey & Agbozo, 2019), thereby illustrating how emotional identification with a
language in the family domain influences the education domain. In Asia, where
10 D. H. L. LEE

subtractive LPP tends to prevail, Vietnamese teachers whose first language is not English
(e.g. Chinese, French, or Russian) find it challenging to adapt to a strict English-only MOI
education (Tran, 2019). Likewise, Korean teachers respond emotionally to English-only
school policies (Choi, 2015). In Hong Kong, teachers question the effectiveness of
English MOI for student learning, mirroring concerns with their own proficiency in teach-
ing in the language (Chan, 2014). Nevertheless, research findings have also emerged on
teachers employing rational approaches. To cite an example from the literature review
highlighted in the previous section, in Singapore, teachers made a rational decision to dis-
courage the use of non-English languages in the classroom, seeing the importance of pro-
moting English proficiency in an education system that adopts subtractive approaches to
language choice (e.g. Vaish, 2012).

Research questions
To understand the interplay among the multilinguistic domains of state, education, and
family in Hong Kong and Singapore, the following research questions guided this
investigation:
RQ1: How do Hong Kong and Singapore teachers compare in their language preferences
based on their CHL-HL conversion patterns?

RQ2: How do these preferences reflect the different attitudes in the two contexts resulting
from LPP toward:

(i) dominant world languages (English and Mandarin)

(ii) local Chinese languages (dialects)

(iii) subsequent LPP fine-tuning?

This comparison will help identify commonalities in the unintended consequences

arising from subtractive LPP in the different language outcomes of the two contexts,
and generated insights regarding how the interplay among subtractive LPP, teacher
agency, and teacher sociolinguistic background offers future implications for LPP.

Method
Data collection and sampling
All teachers were invited to participate in this study via schools registered under the Direct
Subsidy Scheme of the Education Bureau in Hong Kong, and schools publicly funded by
the Ministry of Education in Singapore. The measures employed in this study were part of
the demographic items of a survey questionnaire implemented in a larger study. The study
examines whether teachers are empowered by school-based professional development
initiatives to lead in educational change and improvement in Hong Kong and Singapore
(Lee, 2017; 2018; 2020), which closely relates to teacher agency. Information collected rel-
evant to this study included CHL, HL, gender, age, ethnicity, and years of teaching experi-
ence. With relevance to the study, only ethnic Chinese teachers in both contexts were
included. The response to the study invitations in Hong Kong yielded a modest sample
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 11

(n = 638), while a much larger sample of teachers participated in the Singapore study (n =
3,388). Nevertheless, a countercheck with the statistical data on teacher demographics in
the two locales indicated that both samples were comparable in terms of gender, age, and
years of teaching experience to the teaching population (see Table 1) (Hong Kong: Edu-
cation Bureau, 2016; Singapore: Ministry of Education, 2013).
The percentages of female and male teachers in the Hong Kong sample were 59.3%
and 40.7%, respectively, and the percentages of female and male teachers in the
teacher population were 68.8% and 31.2%, respectively. The statistics indicated that
the Hong Kong sample was slightly over-represented by male teachers in comparison
with the teacher population. In Singapore, the percentages of female and male tea-
chers in the Hong Kong sample were 70.0% and 30.0%, respectively, and the percen-
tages of female and male teachers in the teaching population were 68.8% and 31.2%,
respectively.
The age of the teachers in the Hong Kong sample (30–39 years: 32.6%; 40–49 years:
33.6%) aligned closely with the teaching population’s median age of 39 years, with most
teachers in the sample being aged between 30 and 49 years. The age distribution of the
Singapore sample (29 years or below: 28.8%; 30–39 years: 40.2%; 40–49 years: 19.9%)
closely aligned with the teaching population (29 years or below: 23.7%, 30–39 years:
41.8%; 40–49 years: 21.5%).
Although no official statistics are available for years of teaching experience for the
teaching population in Hong Kong, it could be deduced from the literature that the
teaching population comprises highly experienced teachers who have at least 10
years or more of teaching exposure. Those with less than 10 years of teaching experi-
ence are referred to as ‘novice teachers’ in Hong Kong (Choi, 2010; Tam, 2009). For
the sample of Hong Kong teachers in this study, 69.8% had 10 years or more of teach-
ing experience. The years of teaching experience in the Singapore sample (0–9 years:
65.5%; 10 years or more: 34.6%) closely matched the teaching population (0–9 years:
60.0%; 10 years or more: 40%). Table 1 presents the results for gender, age, and
years of teaching experience.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics-Gender, Age and Years of Teaching Experience (in percent).
Hong Kong Singapore
(n=599) (n=3388)
Total English Mandarin Chinese Total English Mandarin Chinese
(%) (%) (%) Dialect (%) (%) (%) (%) Dialect (%)
Gender
Female 59.5 60.0 80.0 59.3 70.0 67.8 71.8 68.2
Male 40.5 40.0 20.0 40.7 30.0 32.2 28.2 31.8
Age
29 below 17.2 30.0 20.0 16.7 28.8 32.7 32.5 5.7
30–39 32.6 30.0 40.0 32.6 40.2 36.3 45.9 27.1
40–49 33.5 35.0 20.0 33.6 19.9 20.4 15.4 36.2
50–59 15.9 0.0 20.0 16.5 9.6 9.4 5.2 27.3
Above 60 0.7 5.0 0.0 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 3.6
Teaching Experience
Less than 3 years 9.7 18.8 20.0 9.3 29.0 31.5 31.7 12.5
3 or less than 10 years 21.1 31.3 20.0 20.9 36.5 35.0 40.9 22.5
10 years or above 69.2 50.0 60.0 69.8 34.6 33.5 27.4 65.0
12 D. H. L. LEE

Home language
The home language profiles of both the Hong Kong and Singapore samples were Chinese
dialects, English, and Mandarin. Items on home language gave respondents the option to
add comments to their responses in the questionnaire. The Hong Kong sample distin-
guished between Fukien (CHL: n = 1) and Cantonese language communities in their
responses to home language items. This is likely because Cantonese is the lingua franca
in Hong Kong. In contrast, the Singapore sample did not express the same distinction,
merely selecting their answer as ‘Chinese dialects’, without further comment. The teachers
in Hong Kong assigned to the ‘English’ segment emphasized in the comments that both
Cantonese and English were spoken at home. Therefore, CHL–HL conversion from
English to Chinese languages was only considered for those who indicated that they
used to speak English/Cantonese as the CHL, but only spoke either Cantonese or Man-
darin as the HL. In contrast, the Singapore sample chose monolingual options without
further comment.
The Singapore sample in this study was compared with the earliest and latest available
population statistics on home language in Singapore (Department of Statistics, 2015; Lau,
1993). The percentage distribution of teachers in the Hong Kong sample by CHL was
Chinese dialect (95.8%), English (3.3%), and Mandarin (0.8%). By HL, the distribution
was Chinese dialect (93.0%), English (6.0%), and Mandarin (1.0%). The percentage distri-
bution of teachers in the Singapore sample by CHL was Chinese dialect (13.9%), English
(32.1%), and Mandarin (53.9%). By HL, the distribution was Chinese dialect (7.3%),
English (36.5%), and Mandarin (56.2%). Given that the Singapore sample had a signifi-
cantly larger proportion of Mandarin HL speakers, weighting was performed on CHL
and HL to make the sample comparable with the general population in the data analysis.
Given that population statistics on HL for only ethnic Chinese are unavailable in Hong
Kong, similar counterchecks were not performed on the Hong Kong sample. Table 2 pre-
sents the results for the HL and CHL.

Data analysis
To examine the teachers’ attitudes toward the languages affected by LPP (i.e. Chinese dia-
lects, English, and Mandarin), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to ident-
ify the teachers’ language preferences based on their CHL-HL conversion. The control
variables were age, gender, and years of teaching experience. Differences were considered
significant if the mean value (p) was smaller than .01. Post-hoc tests were conducted using
the Bonferroni approach. An effect size smaller than .2 indicated an insignificant differ-
ence, near .5 indicated a moderate difference, and larger than .8 indicated a large difference
(Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1987).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics- Home Language (HL) and Childhood Home Language (CHL) (in percent).
Hong Kong Singapore
English Mandarin Chinese Dialect English Mandarin Chinese Dialect
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Home Language (HL) 6.0 1.0 93.0 36.5 56.2 7.3
Childhood Home 3.3 0.8 95.8 32.1 53.9 13.9
Language (CHL)
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 13

Findings
CHL- HL conversion
Overall, the results indicated higher conversion rates in the Singapore teacher sample than
in the Hong Kong teacher sample (see Table 3). CHL-HL conversion preferences reflected
divergent attitudes between Hong Kong and Singapore teachers toward the dominant
world languages (English and Mandarin) and toward local Chinese languages (dialects)
(see Figure 1).
The Singaporean teachers demonstrated a strong preference for English, moderate pre-
ference for Mandarin, and loss of linguistic vitality in Chinese dialects. The weighted
ANCOVA results of the Singaporean teacher sample showed moderate to highly statisti-
cally significant HL conversion effects among all CHL–HL categories. The English CHL
teachers were the least likely to convert to Chinese languages as the HL, as indicated by
the large negative effect size for both English CHL conversion to Chinese dialects HL
(−1.34, p = .00) and to Mandarin HL (−.97, p = .00). Both the English and Mandarin
language communities in Singapore had the majority of converts from CHL Chinese dia-
lects. The modest effect size for Chinese dialects to Mandarin CHL–HL conversion (.37, p
= .00) showed that the preference for the English language was much stronger, as indicated
by the large effect size of Chinese dialects to English CHL–HL conversion (1.34, p = .00).
CHL Chinese dialect teachers were the most likely to engage in HL conversion, and unli-
kely to win HL converts. CHL Mandarin teachers were unlikely to convert to HL Chinese
dialects (−.37, p = .00), yet very likely to convert to HL English (.97, p = .00).
Given that teachers in the Hong Kong sample almost entirely selected ‘Cantonese’
under the ‘Chinese dialects’ option, ‘Cantonese’ will be used from this point onward to
refer to the CHL/HL identities of this segment of the sample. Hong Kong teachers demon-
strated a strong preference for Cantonese, moderate preference for English, and strong dis-
inclination toward Mandarin. The ANCOVA results of the Hong Kong teacher sample
showed moderate to highly statistically significant HL conversion effects among all
CHL–HL categories (see Table 3). Cantonese CHL teachers were the most unlikely to
engage in HL conversion, as indicated by the large negative effect size for Cantonese
CHL conversion to Mandarin HL (−1.56, p = .00) and to English HL (−.84, p = .00).
Both the Cantonese and English language communities in Hong Kong had the majority
of converts from Mandarin CHL. The modest effect size for Mandarin to English CHL–
HL conversion (.71, p = .00) demonstrated that the preference for Cantonese was much
stronger, as indicated by the large effect size of Mandarin to Cantonese CHL–HL

Table 3. ANCOVA analysis – Hong Kong and Singapore – CHL and HL.
Hong Kong Singapore
CHL * HL CHL * HL
P value Effect Size P value Effect Size
English Mandarin .00 −.71* .00 −.97*
Chinese Dialect .00 .84* .00 −1.34*
Mandarin English .00 .71* .00 .97*
Chinese Dialect .00 1.56* .00 −.37*
Chinese Dialect English .00 −.84* .00 1.34*
Mandarin .00 −1.56* .00 .37*
*p < .01
14 D. H. L. LEE

Figure 1. Preferred language for CHL–HL conversion (in descending order).

conversion (1.56, p = .00). In comparison with Mandarin CHL conversion to Cantonese,

although also highly significant, the effect size was smaller for CHL–HL conversion from
English CHL to Chinese dialects HL (.84, p = .00), and English CHL teachers were mod-
erately unlikely to convert to Mandarin HL (−.71, p = .00).
The results indicated that, for the Chinese Singaporean teachers in this sample, domi-
nant world languages were the preferred choices for CHL–HL conversion. In contrast, for
the Chinese Hong Kong teachers in this sample, Cantonese (a local language) was the pre-
ferred choice for CHL–HL conversion. Between the two dominant world languages, the
strong preference for English indicated that it held a significant competitive advantage
over the moderate preference for Mandarin in Singapore as the preferred medium for
HL conversion. This implies that, as the first language to be implemented with subtractive
LPP, its competitive advantage poses barriers to fine-tuning LPP attempts to introduce a
second dominant world language—in this case, Mandarin. This challenge surfaced in the
findings as the much more moderate reception of Mandarin, in contrast to the strong
embracement of English in the family domain.
The case in Hong Kong provides further reinforcement of the issues arising from subtrac-
tive LPP with regard to fine-tuning, although the language preferences differ. Cantonese and
Mandarin were introduced as Chinese languages to displace English as the MOI. As the first
language to gain competitive advantage with subtractive LPP, the results indicate that, for
the Hong Kong teachers in the sample, a local Chinese language of southern origin (Canto-
nese) was chosen over the two dominant world languages. The findings further reinforce the
proposition that language conversion resulted from resistance to fine-tuning because of sub-
tractive LPP, rather than efforts to access the symbolic power of dominant world languages.
Among the two dominant world languages, English commanded a modest competitive
advantage in winning some converts from the Mandarin CHL group, and Mandarin had
poor standing in Hong Kong. There was a strong disinclination toward converting to Man-
darin as the HL among both English CHL and Cantonese CHL teachers, and this disinclina-
tion was moderate (English CHL) to strong (Cantonese CHL).

Discussion
Reflections on teacher agency in multilinguistic domains from CHL–HL preferences
While Singaporean teachers showed the strongest preference for dominant languages (i.e.
English and Mandarin) for HL conversion, Hong Kong teachers showed the strongest
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 15

preference for Cantonese—a local Chinese dialect. The results provide insight to the dis-
tinctions between the two contexts in how language policy is communicated in LPP, how
language is perceived by teachers, how these underlying perceptions result in the selective
endorsement of LPP implemented with a subtractive approach, and whether Hong Kong
teachers are likely to endorse fine-tuning efforts to introduce dominant languages with a
subtractive approach.
The findings in this paper complement the literature positing that LPP outcomes
are the result of the interplay between state power and the agency of individual tea-
chers that endorse, resist, and/or reinterpret state LPP (Baldauf, 2012; Lee, 2020;
Spolsky & Lambert, 2006; Tran, 2019; Varghese et al., 2005). As with teachers in
the Hong Kong sample, the teachers in Singapore exercised their agency in ways
that did not exactly replicate the state LPP visions in the family domain. This is
because of the values employed in the interplay among the multilinguistic domains
of each context, such as in the communication of LPP in the state domain, teacher
language identity in the family domain, and the exercise of teacher agency in the edu-
cation domain.
In Singapore, the rational values that permeate its multilinguistic domains resulted in
the embracement of dominant world languages to varied degrees. The easy displacement
of Chinese dialects with Mandarin as the ‘mother tongue’ and both Chinese languages
with English HL reflected the teachers’ rational attitudes toward language as a symbol
of cultural identity. Although this study comprised entirely ethnic Chinese Singaporeans,
teachers in the Singapore sample nevertheless showed a preference toward converting to
English HL when the situation allowed for it. Underlying this preference was the view of
language as a form of capital that can augment the social position of those who can pri-
vatize the resource in the family domain (De Costa et al., 2016; Zhao & Liu, 2008). Local
languages, or any Chinese language for that matter, hold low value as heritage language in
the case of Singapore.
The results of the Hong Kong teachers in this paper indicated a very different situ-
ation from Singapore. Resistance to the implementation of dominant world languages
is underpinned by emotional values that permeate the Hong Kong context. Mother
Tongue Education (1998) was originally intended to decolonize Hong Kong from
British influence with the elimination of English MOI, and its emotional
persuasion was ambiguous on which Chinese language refers to the ‘mother
tongue’. Unwittingly, the use of emotional persuasions to justify subtractive LPP awa-
kened Hong Kong citizens’ emotional attachment to Cantonese, and the zero-sum
approaches adopted in the expression of the love towards their mother tongue
resulted in teacher resistance to both dominant world languages. Therefore, teachers
not only resist fine-tuning policies to improve the declining levels of English profi-
ciency, but also the insemination of Mandarin into Hong Kong society (Chan,
2014; Ng et al., 2017; Poon & Lau, 2016). In Hong Kong, the strong emotional
attachment to Cantonese resonates more strongly with the concept of heritage
language, although dominant world languages have yet to displace Cantonese with
subtractive LPP. Instead, subtractive approaches to the introduction of dominant
world languages resulted in an emotional backlash to defend the linguistic vitality
of Hong Kong’s current lingua franca.
16 D. H. L. LEE

Unintended consequences of subtractive LPP

The results for both Hong Kong and Singapore provide insights to the unintended con-
sequences of subtractive LPP that pervades multilinguistic domains (Feng & Adamson,
2018). In Hong Kong, subtractive LPP augments teacher attachment to Cantonese—a
Chinese dialect. The findings suggest that Hong Kong teachers’ resistance to initiatives
to fine-tune past Chinese MOI LPP (Ng et al., 2017; Poon & Lau, 2016) may be related
to an emotional response to the deep penetration of subtractive LPP into the family
domain. In Singapore, subtractive LPP accelerates teachers’ rational detachment to
Chinese languages. There seemed little concern among teachers in this study about
whether the local Chinese dialects would be displaced by an imported dominant
Chinese language or a non-Chinese language (English). Converging with observations
on the rising monolingualism in Chinese societies (Hu, 2008), the ethnic Chinese popu-
lations in both contexts show tendencies toward becoming increasingly monolingual as
an unintended outcome of subtractive LPP. In Hong Kong, emotional attachment
toward a local language (Cantonese) is augmented with the introduction of dominant
world languages. In Singapore, the rational detachment toward Chinese languages, includ-
ing Mandarin, is an unintended consequence of the partiality toward one dominant world
language—English.
To prepare Hong Kong for its integration with China, state policy sought to devitalize
English proficiency, but Mandarin unwittingly became the strongest target of teacher
resistance. The findings in this study in the family domain resonate with the consistent
insights from previous studies on the negative attitudes toward Mandarin and strong posi-
tive attitudes toward Cantonese in the Hong Kong education domain (Lai, 2007; Poon &
Lau, 2016). Although the promtion of Putonghua (Mandarin) as Medium of
Instruction was not intended to devitalize Cantonese, subtractive LPP unintentionally
penetrated the mindsets of teachers who sought to defend the vitality of Cantonese in
ways that discouraged the acquisition of the expected level of language proficiency in
English and Mandarin (Poon & Lau, 2016). Rousing the emotions of Hong Kong’s attach-
ment to the Cantonese language, the born-again expression of this attachment produced
unintended barriers to the acquisition of both of the world’s dominant languages. The
findings in this study reflected the strong preference among teachers to retain Cantonese
as the HL, and the strong disinclination toward conversion to Mandarin HL across both
the Cantonese and English CHL teachers. Research in the last two decades has indicated
that the predictions about the Hong Kong sociolinguistic context at the onset of the hand-
over (e.g. Bauer, 2000; Pieterse, 2004) did not eventuate—Cantonese became neither a
medium spoken only in the family domain nor a devitalized language in Hong Kong.
To create an English-proficient multicultural Singapore, the state sought to devitalize
Chinese languages. Subtractive LPP unintentionally penetrated the mindsets of teachers
who sought to enhance English and Mandarin proficiencies in ways that limited Mandarin
usage in schools (Li et al., 2012). The devitalization of proficiency in Chinese dialects pro-
duced unintended barriers to the acquisition of the expected level of proficiency in Man-
darin among Chinese Singaporeans when the future need arose to accommodate another
dominant world language (Stroud & Wee, 2010). Further, future generations of Chinese
Singaporeans with a lack of prior knowledge in Chinese dialects at home will add to
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 17

the challenge of Mandarin proficiency acquisition, as proximate languages that could help
learn this dominant world language are unavailable.
These findings provide insight to the resistance to policy fine-tuning once subtractive
LPP has been implemented, and the reduced feasibility of further fine-tuning persisting
with subtractive principles. The proposed deferment of Cantonese language instruction
to age 9, or until children are socialized to English and Mandarin in the earliest phases
of schooling (Li, 2017), represents yet another attempt to fine-tune Mother Tongue Edu-
cation with subtractive strategies. While the intention is to increase Hong Kong students’
proficiency in dominant world languages, the unintended consequence is likely the further
intensification of teacher resistance to LPP fine-tuning, especially for the purpose of
enhancing Mandarin proficiency. The rejection of Mandarin is symbolic of Hong Kong
resistance against assimilation by mainland China (Polley et al., 2018), and this resistance
is expressed in more explicit terms in 2019 with the outbreak of civil agitation led by Hong
Kong youths. If youths represent the future of Hong Kong society, then teachers represent
the crafters of this future. A plausible alternative to subtractive fine-tuning is to empower
teachers with the agency to exercise professional judgment in adopting multilingual teach-
ing practices to achieve state LPP in education. Research in Hong Kong is indicating posi-
tive results emerging from fine-tuning efforts that seek to revive English language
proficiency in the classroom via multilingual approaches (Poon, 2019), which marks a
departure from the subtractive LPP that has dominated in the region.
Dsepite the promising changes occurring in Hong Kong’s education domain, it is
important to recognize that teacher agency forms in multilinguistic domains. The
current state of affairs is worrying as Hong Kong loses its agency for self-determination.
While teachers may resist subtractive LPP, their agency is ineffectual against coercive
power. Analogies of violence are employed by Chinese central government media mouth-
piece, China Central Television (CCTV), which holds teachers responsible for the 2019
civil agitation. CCTV asserts that measures should be taken to ‘strike when necessary’
at ‘lawless schools’, to ‘scrape poisoned parts of the bone to cure [an ailed education
system]’ (Sing Tao Daily, 2019). Coercive measures command teacher cooperation,
which reduces the potential for teachers to be persuaded either by emotional or rational
means to exercise their agency in ways that will craft a different future for Hong Kong
society via education. They overshadow the reality that teachers were previously students
who were crafted via education with subtractive measures. This study on teacher sociolin-
guistic background hopes to raise a timely awareness that rather than acts of resistance and
defiance, teachers are exercising their agency informed by the subtractive values commu-
nicated by past LPP implementations. Teacher agency reflects how past state LPP pene-
trates the family domain via education, yet in ways that generate unintended
consequences for future LPP.
From this study of Hong Kong and Singapore, we have gained insight into how lingua
francas become established in these two societies. It may be interesting for future studies to
examine the implications of subtractive LPP and possible future fine-tuning for local
Chinese dialects among Chinese societies in mainland China and Taiwan, where one of
the dominant world languages (English) is regarded a foreign language and Mandarin
is a well-established lingua franca.
18 D. H. L. LEE

Limitations
The significance of this study notwithstanding, there are limitations that need to be
acknowledged. Some of the issues relate to sampling. First, the participation rates of
Hong Kong teachers were significantly lower than those of Singapore. Second, the use
of statistical weighting was necessary, yet weighting was performed in some cases but
not others because of the availability of relevant census data (e.g. weighting of CHL and
HL was performed on the Singaporean sample, but not the Hong Kong sample). Never-
theless, the demographical compositions of both the Hong Kong and Singaporean
samples were similar to the teaching populations of the two contexts. Further, although
effect sizes were adjusted with weighting in some cases (e.g. from large to moderate),
the significance and direction of the effects were maintained.
Other issues relate to the scope of this exploratory study. Given that the insights in this
paper emerged from extended analyses of data that were not collected for this research
purpose, there were limitations to the level of sophistication in the types of statistical ana-
lyses that could be performed on the data (e.g. structural equation modeling). Finally,
future qualitative studies could be implemented to more deeply examine the data to
compare teachers’ intended responses to future LPP fine-tuning with the actual practices
that may eventually be implemented.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the reviewers and the editorial team for their support, and acknowl-
edge the following funding sources: Research Grants Council Hong Kong (Grant Code: 28605318);
and Ministry Academies Fund, Ministry of Education Singapore (Grant Code: AFR05/14LHL). The
author would also like to thank all research collaborators who contributed to the research efforts
that made this publication possible, especially Bob Adamson and Noelle Ip Kwok Kwan.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by Ministry of Education (Singapore): [Grant Number AFR05/14LHL];
Research Grants Council University Grants Committee (Hong Kong): [Grant Number 28605318].

ORCID
Daphnee Hui Lin Lee http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1925-1937

Notes on contributor
Daphnee Hui Lin Lee is on a research journey to understand how professional identities are shaped
by change, and how professionals develop strategies to empower themselves in the face of change.
She examines the underpinning influence of culture – focusing on language and socioeconomic
influences – on professional identities, values, and practices. Daphnee is the author of Managing
Chineseness, and her theory of identity grafting reflects her research interest in the influence of
cultural identity on people’s values, beliefs, and practices.
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 19

References
Baker, C. (1995). Bilingual education in Wales. In O. García, & C. Baker (Eds.), Policy and practice
in bilingual education: A reader extending the foundations (Vol. 2) (pp. 152–165). Multilingual
matters.
Baldauf, R. B. (2012). Introduction – language planning: Where have we been? Where might we be
going? Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 12(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-
63982012000200002
Bauer, R. (2000). Hong Kong Cantonese and the road ahead. In D. C. S. Li, A. M. Y. Lin, & W. K.
Tsang (Eds.), Language and education in postcolonial Hong Kong (pp. 35–58). Linguistic Society
of Hong Kong.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power (L. C. Clough, Trans.).
Stanford University Press.
Chan, J. Y. H. (2014). Fine-tuning language policy in Hong Kong education: Stakeholders’ percep-
tions, practices and challenges. Language and Education, 28(5), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09500782.2014.904872
Chan, K. L. R. (2019). Trilingual code-switching in Hong Kong. Applied Linguistics Research
Journal, 3(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.14744/alrj.2019.22932
Choi, A. F. T. (2010). Understanding the leadership qualities of a head of department coping with
curriculum changes in a Hong Kong secondary school. School Leadership and Management, 30
(4), 367–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.497480
Choi, T. (2015). The impact of the “teaching English through English” policy on teachers and teach-
ing in South Korea. Current Issues in Language Planning, 16(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14664208.2015.970727
Chung, M. (2019). Managing Chineseness: Identity and ethnic management in Singapore (book
review). Asian Education and Development Studies, 8(4), 536–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/
AEDS-10-2019-187
Collins, R. (2001). Social movements and the focus of emotional attention. In J. Goodwin, J. M.
Jasper, & F. Polletta (Eds.), Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (pp. 27–44).
University of Chicago Press.
Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2014). Planning for development or decline? Education policy for
Chinese language in Singapore. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 11(1), 1–26. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15427587.2014.871621
De Costa, P. I., Park, J., & Wee, L. (2016). Language learning as linguistic entrepreneurship:
Implications for language education. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5-6), 695–702.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0302-5
Department of Statistics. (2015). General household survey 2015 – Key findings. https://www.
singstat.gov.sg/-/media/files/publications/ghs/ghs2015/findings.pdf
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2000). The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and col-
lective rationality in organizational fields. Economics Meets Sociology in Strategic Management,
17, 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17011-1
Education Bureau. (2002). Mother tongue education. https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/about-edb/press/
legco/replies-written/2012/20040205118811.html
Education Bureau. (2009). Fine-tuning the medium of instruction for secondary schools. Hong Kong
Education Bureau. https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-
secondary/moi/support-and-resources-for-moi-policy/lsplmfs-sch/d-sch/ow/sp/index-2.html
Education Bureau. (2010). Enriching our language environment, realising our vision. https://www.
edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/primary-secondary/applicable-to-secondary/moi/moi_
booklet-eng-17apr2010.pdf
Education Bureau. (2016). Statistics on students and teachers in primary and secondary schools in
Hong Kong during the school years from 2006/07 to 2015/16. In Hong Kong monthly digest of
statistics. School Education Statistics Section. https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp370.
jsp?productCode=FA100275
20 D. H. L. LEE

Education Department. (1997). Medium of instruction guidance for secondary schools [Information
paper]. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr97-98/english/panels/ed/papers/ed1508-6.htm
Erdocia, I. (2019). Medium of instruction ideologies: Accommodation of multilingualism in the
bilingual regime of Navarre. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(3), 284–308. https://doi.
org/10.1080/14664208.2018.1503457
Evans, S. (2013). The long march to biliteracy and trilingualism: Language policy in Hong Kong
education since the handover. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 302–324. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0267190513000019
Evans, S., & Morrison, B. (2017). English-medium instruction in Hong Kong: Illuminating a grey
area in school policies and classroom practices. Current Issues in Language Planning, 18(3), 303–
322. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1270106
Farrell, T. S., & Kun, S. T. K. (2007). Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and classroom
practices. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm050
Feng, A., & Adamson, B. (2018). Language policies and sociolinguistic domains in the context of
minority groups in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(2), 169–
180. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1340478
Fishman, J. A. (2014). Three hundred-plus years of heritage language education in the United
States. In T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton, D. Christian, S. C. K. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Handbook
of heritage, community, and native American languages in the United States (pp. 36–44).
Routledge.
Fishman, J. (1972). Domains and the relationship between micro- and macro- sociolinguistics. In J.
J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of communi-
cation (pp. 435–453). Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Morris, L. L. (1987). How to analyze data. Sage.
Gaibrois, C., & Steyaert, C. (2017). Beyond possession and competition: Investigating cooperative
aspects of power in multilingual organizations. International Journal of Cross Cultural
Management, 17(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595817701508
Gil, J. (2017). Soft power and the worldwide promotion of Chinese language learning: The Confucius
institute project. Multilingual Matters.
Goh, C. C. M., Zhang, L. J., Ng, C. H., & Koh, G. H. (2005). Knowledge, beliefs and syllabus
implementation: A study of English language teachers in Singapore. Graduate Programmes and
Research Office, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.
Gu, M. (2011). “I am not qualified to be a Hongkongese because of my accented Cantonese”:
Mainland immigrant students in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 32(6), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.614350
Han, Y., & Wu, X. (2020). Language policy, linguistic landscape and residents’ perception in
Guangzhou, China: Dissents and conflicts. Current Issues in Language Planning, 21(3), 229–
253. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1582943
Haralambos, M., & Holborn, M. (2013). Sociology: Themes and perspectives (8th Ed.). HarperCollins
Publishers Limited.
Ho, B., & Ho, K. K. (2004). The developmental trend of the medium of instruction in secondary
schools of Hong Kong: Prospect and retrospect. Language and Education, 18(5), 400–412.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666891
Hu, G. (2008). The misleading academic discourse on Chinese–English bilingual education in
China. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 195–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654307313406
Kuhn, P. A. (1997). The homeland: Thinking about the history of Chinese overseas. Australian
National University.
Lai, M. L. (2007). Exploring language stereotypes in post-colonial Hong Kong through the
matched-guise test. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17(2), 225–244. https://doi.org/
10.1075/japc.17.2.05lai
Lai, M. L. (2013). The linguistic landscape of Hong Kong after the change of sovereignty.
International Journal of Multilingualism, 10(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.
2012.708036
 CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE PLANNING 21

Lau, K. E. (1993). Singapore census of population 1990. Department of Statistics.

Lee, D. H. L. (2017). Managing Chineseness: Identity and ethnic management in Singapore. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lee, D. H. L. (2020). ‘Marrying Eastern and Western values’: Identity grafting as a whole-school
effort to improve student learning via mixed-ability learning. Journal of Educational Change,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09368-1
Lee, D. H. L., & Lee, W. O. (2018). Transformational change in instruction with professional learn-
ing communities? The influence of teacher cultural disposition in high power distance contexts.
Journal of Educational Change, 19(4), 463–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9328-1
Legislative council. (2016). Background brief on using Putonghua as the medium of instruction for
teaching the Chinese language subject in primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. https://
www.legco.gov.hk/yr15-16/english/panels/ed/papers/ed20160702cb4-1181-3-e.pdf
Li, D. C. S. (2017). Multilingual Hong Kong: Languages, literacies and identities. Springer.
Li, L., Zhao, S., & Yeung, A. S. (2012). Chinese language reform in Singapore: Teacher perceptions
of instructional approaches and curriculum implementation. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 15(5), 533–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.641938
Llamzon, T. A. (1977). Emerging patterns in the English language situation in Singapore today. In
W. J. Crewe (Ed.), The English language in Singapore (pp. 34–45). Eastern Universities Press.
McDermott, P. (2019). From ridicule to legitimacy? “contested languages” and devolved language
planning. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14664208.2018.1468961
Ministry of Education. (2013). Education statistics digest 2013.
Ng, P. C. L. (2017). A study of attitudes of dialect speakers towards the speak Mandarin campaign in
Singapore. Springer.
Ng, A., Yeung, Y., & Lee, G. (2017, April 9). Cantonese, Putonghua or English? The language politics
of Hong Kong’s school system. Hong Kong Free Press. https://hongkongfp.com/2017/04/09/
cantonese-putonghua-english-language-politics-hong-kongs-school-system/
O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.008
Ostler, N. (2010). The last lingua franca: English until the return of babel. Walker & Company.
Pennycook, A. (2010). Language as a local practice. Routledge.
Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language
Studies, 5(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580701696886
Pierson, H. (1998). Societal accommodation to English and Putonghua in Cantonese-speaking
Hong Kong. In M. C. Pennington (Ed.), Language in Hong Kong at century’s end (pp. 91–
112). Hong Kong University Press.
Pieterse, J. N. (2004). Globalization or empire. Routledge.
Polley, J., Poon, V., & Wee, L. H. (2018). Cultural conflict in Hong Kong: Angels on a coherent ima-
ginary. Palgrave Macmillan.
Poon, A. Y. K. (2019, November 1). Fine-tuning medium of instruction policy: A solution to falling
English standards? Seminar presented at the Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Poon, A. Y. K., & Lau, C. M. Y. (2016). Fine-tuning medium-of-instruction policy in Hong Kong:
Acquisition of language and content-based subject knowledge. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association
of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 135–155.
Rodan, G. (1985). Singapore’s second industrial revolution: State intervention and foreign investment
(Vol. 18). ASEAN-Australia Joint Research Project.
Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (2001). Economics (17th Ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Sing Tao Daily. (2019, December 12). China Central Television (CCTV): Hong Kong education
needs to ‘scrape the poisoned parts of the bone to cure it’, to ‘strike when necessary’ against teachers
who condone violence [in Chinese].
Spolsky, B. (2012). Family language policy – The critical domain. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 33(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2011.638072
Spolsky, B. (2018a). Language policy in French colonies and after independence. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 19(3), 231–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2018.1444948
22 D. H. L. LEE

Spolsky, B. (2018b). Language policy in Portuguese colonies and successor states. Current Issues in
Language Planning, 19(1), 62–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2017.1316564
Spolsky, B., & Lambert, R. D. (2006). Language planning and policy: Models. In K. Brown (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd Ed., Vol. 6) (pp. 561–575). Elsevier.
Standing Committee on Language Education and Research (SCHOLAR). (2015). Report of the
longitudinal study on the implementation of “using Putonghua as the medium of instruction
for teaching the Chinese language subject” [in Chinese]. SCHOLAR. https://scolarhk.edb.
hkedcity.net/en/scheme-support-schools-using-putonghua-teach-chinese-language-subject
Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2010). Language policy and planning in Singaporean late modernity. In L.
Lim, A. Pakir, & L. Wee (Eds.), English in Singapore: Modernity and management (Vol. 1)
(pp. 181–204). Hong Kong University Press.
Tam, C. (2009). An investigation of the implementation problems of school-based assessment in
Hong Kong from the viewpoint of teachers: An analysis of practices and beliefs. Bulletin of
Educational Research, 55(1), 25–62.
Tran, H. (2019). Teacher agency in times of educational change: The case of transitioned teachers in
Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 20(5), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14664208.2018.1553912
Vaish, V. (2012). Teacher beliefs regarding bilingualism in an English medium reading program.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13670050.2011.594496
Valdés, G. (2014). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In T. G. Wiley, J. K. Peyton,
D. Christian, S. C. K. Moore, & N. Liu (Eds.), Handbook of heritage, community, and native
American languages in the United States (pp. 27–35). Routledge.
Van der Jeught, S. (2017). Territoriality and freedom of language: The case of Belgium. Current
Issues in Language Planning, 18(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1243883
Varghese, M., Morgan, B., Johnston, B., & Johnson, K. A. (2005). Theorizing language teacher iden-
tity: Three perspectives and beyond. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4(1), 21–44.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327701jlie0401_2
Wang, L., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2019). Trilingual education in Hong Kong primary schools. Springer.
Wee, C. L. (2007). The Asian modern: Culture, capitalist development, Singapore (Vol. 1). Hong
Kong University Press.
Wong, T. H. (2005). Comparing state hegemonies: Chinese universities in post-war Singapore and
Hong Kong. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0142569042000294174
Yao, E. (1983). Family environment for children’s bilingual development: A case of middle-class
Chinese Americans [Paper presented]. The 12th Annual International Bilingual/Bicultural
Education Conference. Washington: DC.
Yevudey, E., & Agbozo, G. (2019). Teacher trainee sociolinguistic backgrounds and attitudes to
language-in-education policy in Ghana: A preliminary survey. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 20(4), 338–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2019.1585158
Yu, H. (2016). Between the national and the international: Ethnography of language ideologies in a
middle-class community in China. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5-6), 703–711.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0314-1
Zhao, S., & Liu, Y. (2008). Home language shift and its implications for language planning in
Singapore: From the perspective of prestige planning. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,
16(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v16i2.230