In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

8฀ Language฀Choice฀and฀Identity:฀The฀World฀of฀the฀ Hong฀Kong฀Indian฀Adolescent฀ Jasbir Pannu ABSTRACT฀ A language profile is constructed for a group of Hong Kong Indian adolescents, based on language diaries supplemented by interview data and tape recordings of speech. The most common language of these subjects' interaction s is Cantonese, followed b y Punjabi, an d then by English. More than a third of the interactions are reported to involve language mixing, most often of Cantonese and Punjabi. While Punjabi i s th e languag e o f choic e i n th e home , Cantones e i s th e language of choice outside the home. This complex language profile reflects the subjects' complex identity as Indians and Hongkongers. INTRODUCTION฀ The use of more than one language to communicate is an area of study tha t has attracte d considerabl e attention , an d man y researcher s hav e trie d t o explain thi s linguisti c phenomenon . Som e hav e approache d i t fro m a linguistic perspective , lookin g int o th e linguisti c constraint s impose d o n switching and/o r mixin g languag e (see , for example , Chan, thi s volume , and Li, this volume), while others have found th e social and psychologica l functions o f dua l languag e o r multi-languag e us e o f interes t (see , fo r example, Fishman, 1972a , 1972b ; Luke, this volume; Scotton, 1983 , 1988). Most of these studies have been carried out on bilingual communities, an d researchers have identified man y factors that can affect the language choic e of an individual . 220฀Jasbi r฀Pannu฀ The study reported here investigates the linguistic behaviour of a group of Punjabi, English, and Cantonese trilinguals living in Hong Kong, who are o f India n origin , usin g a languag e diar y metho d supplemente d b y interview dat a an d tap e recordings of speech. The investigation is based on two similar studies, one by Gibbons (1987) and the other by Pennington, Balla, Detaramani, Poon, and Tam (1992), carried out in Hong Kong among local tertiary students of Chinese origin. BACKGROUND Language฀as฀Social/Psychological฀Phenomenon฀ Language can be used to perform many functions related to thought, selfexpression , an d communicatio n wit h others . Languag e als o act s a s a socializing and unifying force, in that socialization is achieved through the use of common languages or varieties of languages in a given community. The ability to speak th e same language o r variety of language identifie s one as a member of a particular group and others who cannot speak it — or cannot speak it well — as outsiders. The linguistic variation that exists between differen t group s withi n on e communit y als o expresse s socia l meanings and is structured through norms of use of the language or varieties of the language in the community. Members of such communities "acquire sociolinguistic competence [italic s in original ] with respec t t o appropriat e language usage" (Fishman, 1972a, p. 49). In addition to (a) providing a means to express referential content and (b) acting as a socializing and unifyin g force , language is (c) a powerfu l tool for the expression of many kinds of symbolic meaning. It is 'a referent for loyaltie s an d animosities , a n indicato r o f socia l statu s an d persona l relationships, a marker o f situations and topic s as well as of the societa l goals and the large-scale value-laden arenas of the interaction that typif y every speech community' (Fishman, 1972b, p. 4). Individuals express these community-specific meanings by selecting the appropriate and predictable language/language variety in their linguistic repertoire. The variety chosen may represen t socia l class , special interest s an d relationship s betwee n interlocutors, or occupational specialization. Thus, the choice of language variety represent s a constellation o f symboli c values tha t attac h t o eac h variety within and between speech communities. The ability to use different language s or varieties to convey more than just th e litera l meanin g o f a n utteranc e ca n b e foun d amon g bot h monolinguals an d bilingual s o r multilinguals . Th e former hav e a t thei r [3...

Share