Learning more, perceiving more? A comparison of L1 Cantonese–L2 English–L3 French speakers and L1 Cantonese–L2 English speakers in Hong Kong

Abstract

This paper reports on a study examining the relationship between language learning and perceived language differences. Two groups of native Cantonese speakers in Hong Kong, L1 Cantonese–L2 English (CE) and L1 Cantonese–L2 English–L3 French (CEF), were asked to complete two tasks: a placement test in English (as well as in French for the CEF group) and a questionnaire on linguistic perception. While their performance in the placement test indicated that their English levels were comparable, their ratings and responses in the questionnaire indicated distinctive degrees of awareness and perception in the distance between their L1 Cantonese and L2 English. The advanced French participants in the CEF group were also found to be in the seemingly best position to express the similarities/differences among the languages. The differences observed are suggested to be related to enhanced cross-linguistic experience and the different L3 French proficiency levels the CEF group possessed.

Keywords:

• language perception
• multilingual proficiency
• backwards cross-linguistic influence
• L1 Cantonese–L2 English–L3 French

Acknowledgement

Sincere thanks go to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions. All errors or oversights remain solely my responsibility.

Notes

1. Japanese had the highest number of candidates in the 2013 public exam.

2. While the term ‘foreign language’ has been used to label languages other than English and Chinese (including Cantonese and other dialects), for various historical and political reasons, English seems to have its status changed from a second language (So, 1996) to a foreign language (Li, 1999). As remarked in Li (2009, p. 20), English is ‘an untypical second or foreign language’ in Hong Kong. [For example, see Lai (e.g. 2001, 2005) and Evans (e.g. 2001 with Green, 2010) for a series of discussions about the change in the learners’ attitude towards the status of English in Hong Kong.)

3. One CEF participant filled in ‘high immediate level’ as the answer, and that response was therefore discarded.

4. Recall that the CEF-H group gave the lowest rating for similarity between Cantonese and English (Figure 3). However, a much higher proportion of them indicated that there were similarities between the two languages (7 out of 10). This might lead to an impression that the two findings were contradictory because there should have been more ‘No’ responses should the rating be low. However, the two seemingly contradictory findings could be interpreted in another way. With higher sensitivity to languages, the CEF-H group could be aware of the differences between the two languages but still be able to notice the few similarities that ‘remain’ in their understanding of the two languages. A point to be discussed in the next section.

5. This paper follows the Cantonese Romanisation Scheme – Jyutping – as put forward by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong.

6. The notion of ‘multilingual proficiency’ highlights the possibility of interaction among all the languages a multilingual knows, and such an interaction is synergetic to the acquisitional process. Therefore, though Cantonese and French are quite distinct from each other, it might be possible that Cantonese and French interact with each other in some way in the CEF participants’ mind. Such a possible interaction between French and Cantonese, for example, may be in the form of contrastive analysis between the two languages, where the learners may try to compare French with their L1 for any structural differences to help them acquire French.

7. While the teaching of French as a foreign language largely hinges on the teaching approach of the teacher, the teaching of English as a language subject has undergone a series of reforms stipulated by the Education Bureau, HKSAR. The approach has changed from a grammar-translation one in the 1950s to a task-based one since 1999 [see Poon (2009) for a review of the development of English language teaching in Hong Kong].

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by the Research Grants Council of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [RCC-GRF-Grant HKU 755111].