下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
The conception of identity is approached from a variety of methodological and theoretical perspectives taken from various disciplines. In this part we will briefly review the existing studies relating to identity study and try to draw some conclusions from them. This will help to achieve a better understanding of identity and also HK identity in the present research thus basing the discursive construction of HK identity in this highly institutionalized genre of PA.
Paul Ricceur’s theory（1992）distinguishes two sub-components of the equivocal term“identity”: identity as sameness and identity as selfhood.
Ricceur characterizes“sameness”as a concept of relation and as a relation of relations（1992）. He divides the conceptual structure of sameness into three semantic components:
First comes numerical identity : thus , we say of two occurrences of a thing , designated by an invariable noun in ordinary language , that they do not form two different things , but “ one and the same ” thing . Here , identity denotes oneness : the contrary is plurality.
In second place we find qualitative identity , in other words , extreme resemblance : we say that x and y are wearing the same suit — that is , clothes that are similar that they are interchangeable with no noticeable difference.
The third component is the “ uninterrupted continuity between the first and last stage in the development of that which consider to be the same individual . This criterion is predominant whenever growth and aging operate as factors of dissemblance and by implication , of numerical diversity ”（ Ricceur , 1992） .
Ricceur（1992）developed his concept of identity on the basis of the single individual，to whom he applies the concept of“selfhood”to which Martin（1995）proposed“ uniqueness”“ singularity”or“ unmistakability”as one translation. The identity of selfhood is rooted in a model of constancy which corresponds to the temporality of human existence，and the identity of sameness is based on the constancy of a farthest-reaching invariant.
Ricceur studies not only group identity but individual identity as well，and the identity of Hong Kong People is rather of group or community or national than individual. So it can be inferred that the present study should attach importance to“sameness”rather than“selfhood”as in Ricceur’s terms.
Stuart Hall describes nations not only as political formations but also as“systems of cultural representations”（1996a）. A national culture is a discourse—a way of constructing meanings which influences and organizes both our actions and our conception of ourselves...National cultures construct identities by producing meanings about“the nation”with which we can identify；these are contained in the stories which are told about it，memories which connect its present with its past，and imagines which are constructed of it（Hall，1996）.
Cultural identities can be described as“identification points”，as“seams which arise in the discourse of history and culture. Not anything constant，but rather a positioning”（Rathzel，1994）. According to Hall（1996），these constructed national cultural identities and national cultures are not uniform，but rather are to be thought of as a discursive sketch which represents differences between social classes，between ethnic groups or between the sexes as units“unified”by the exertion of cultural power. He further argues，in modern society，“the national cultures into which we are born are one of the principal sources of cultural identity”（Hall，1996）. He also notes that identities are“ points of temporary attachment to the subject positions which discursive practices construct for us”；they are constantly in the process of change and transformation. All modern nations are“ cultural hybrids”because in the course of change in the modern era，communities and organizations are integrated into new spatial and temporal relationships and brought into relation with each other.
Hall focuses more on the cultural aspect of identity and his concepts of“common stories（history）”“changeable identity”and“changing identity”shed some light on our present research.
Benedict Anderson（1983）describes nations—as well as all other communities that are larger than“face-to-face group”—as imagined communities and supports the view that communities are to be distinguished from one another“not by their authenticity but by the way in which they are imagined”（Anderson，1983）. Anderson continues:
Because the members of even the smallest nations will never know most of their fellow members , meet them , or even hear of them ; yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion ... The nation is imagined as limited because even the largest of them , ... has finite , if elastic , boundaries , beyond which lie other nations .… it is imagined as sovereign because the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained , hierarchical dynastic realm.
Anderson attaches great significance to written language in the formation of nations first for written languages make it possible for rapidly growing numbers of people to think about themselves，and to relate themselves to others and secondly because written languages lead to a fixation of language and thus of the images of the past times（Anderson，1983）. He even claims that written languages invent nationalism.
While some other sociologists employ the concept of habitus on national identities，among them are Elias（1992），Blomert，Kuzmics and Treibel（1993），Kuzmics（1993），Paier（1996），and especially Bourdieu（1994）whose concept of habitus consists of three components—mental level，level of emotions and attitudes，level of behavioural dispositions. Bourdieu further describes the contribution of the state—or more specifically its administrators and officials—to the generation of national identities as follows:
Through classificational systems （ specially according to sex and age ） inscribed in law , through bureaucratic procedures , educational structures and social rituals , the state molds mental structures and imposes common principles of vision and division ... and it thereby contributes to the construction of what is commonly designated as national identity （ Bourdieu , 1994） .
His views on identity are influential in that he claims that the state shapes those forms of perception，of categorization，of interpretation，and of memory which serve as the basis for a more or less immediate orchestration of the habitus which forms the basis for a kind of“national common sense”，or national identity.
From a sociological perspective，the conclusions can be drawn that identity is discursively constructed，and habitus，language and government play important roles in the construction of national identity.
Language should be studied in a social-semiotic perspective（Halliday，1978，1994；Halliday & Hasan，1989）because language is integrally bound up with meaning，and all linguistic choices can be linked to the meaning they convey，but the meaning that is conveyed by language is not free-standing open to each individual to construct at will. Meaning is dependent on social context in two ways，which Halliday（1994）calls“the context of situation”and“the context of culture”. Within this broad conceptualization of language as a social semiotic，Halliday proposes that language spontaneously performs three macro-functions，namely，textual，ideational and interpersonal function and he further refers in passing to the expression of“identity”as part of the interpersonal function of language.
Though Halliday describes“identity”as a sub-function of language，Roz Ivanic（1998）suggests that the three dimensions of identity correspond to the three macrofunctions of language. Identity firstly consists of a person’s set of values and beliefs about reality which affect the ideational meaning conveyed through language. Identity secondly consists of a person’s sense of their relative status in relation to others with whom they are communicating which affects the interpersonal meaning conveyed through language. The third component of identity is a person’s orientation to language use which affects their way of constructing their message.
Thus，on the one hand，identity is a sub-function of language，and on the other hand，the three macro-functions of language contribute towards the construction of identity. The way in which language constructs identity should be the focus of our present study.
Fairclough（1989，1992，and 1995）provides a framework for integrating a description of language with a description of its context of production in which he shows the way in which language is both shaped by and shaping its social context.
And his major contribution to the discussion of discourse and identity is that he places the construction of identity in the context of fluctuating culture and institutional values and that discourse contributes to processes of cultural change，in which the social identities associated with specific domains and institutions are redefined and reconstituted. In Fairclough’s view:
When one emphasizes construction , the identity function of language begins to assume great importance , because the ways in which societies categorize and build identities for their members is a fundamental aspect of how they work , how power relations are imposed and exercised , how societies are reproduced and changed （ Fairclough , 1992） .
（Source for original figure: Fairclough 1995. Adapted by O’Halloran 2003）
Fairclough’s framework relates social construction to social interaction，texts to other texts，discourse to identity. In conclusion，Fairclough demonstrates how language is socially constructed and probably the most powerful of all semiotic media for the social construction of reality and the construction of identity，and also identity construction in discourse covariates social-political change.
Thus in the study of identity，the factor of socio-political change cannot be avoided and in studying the institutionalized genre of the governments’Policy Address，the relation between one text and other texts should be involved.
Wodak（1999）adopts a Critical Discourse Analysis approach to the study of national identity. She holds that the national identity of individuals who perceive themselves as belonging to a national collectivity is manifested，in their social practices，one of which is discursive practice，and the respective national identity is shaped by state，political，institutional，media and everyday social practices，and the material and social conditions which emerge as their results，to which the individual is subjected. The discursive practice as a special form of social practice plays a central part both in the formation and in the expression of national identity. She tries to make clear that the concept of nation encompasses two aspects—a notion derived from the definitions of citizenship and other legal and democratic institutions and a traditional culturally and ethnically connotated understanding of nation. She further points out that the perception of a national identity contains both state-specific and cultural elements. The concept of citizenship，the positive interpretation of political and institutional achievements，language，common socio-cultural features and outstanding national-cultural achievements may all contribute to the construction of national identity. In this discourse-historical analysis，her main achievements lie in her construction of national sameness and uniqueness and also her framework of analyzing the topics，discursive strategies and linguistic devices in the discursive construction of national identity.
While after Ivanic（1998），identity refers to the idea of individuals identifying with certain social groups，communities and aligning themselves with the interests，values，beliefs and practices of these groups or communities. This definition is different in some aspects from other terms used in discussing identity，but they are not exclusive of each other.
Summarizing what has been reviewed up to this point，it is observed that the discursive construction of national identity or community identity revolves around the three temporal axes of the past，the present and the future and that origin，continuity/tradition，transformation，and anticipation are important ordering criteria. Spatial，territorial，and local dimensions（expanse，borders，nature，landscape，etc.）are likewise significant in the discursive construction of national identity. Thus national identity is on the one hand in relation to the themes of history and culture，and on the other hand in relation to the themes of“sameness”“difference”（or the“other”）and“uniqueness”. In order that we can analyze our body of data more systematically and completely，the present research is to base on critical discourse analysis as CDA is interdisciplinary，and at the same time draws on some theories from related perspectives in linguistics as complements.
In the past decades，interest in language and identity from disciplines such as linguistics，anthropology，psychology and sociology has experienced an unprecedented growth. Language is thought to express much more than what is signified by its words. It has been firmly established that linguistic processes and strategies play a fundamental role in the negotiation and construction of identities（De Fina，2006）. In such a context，the anti-essentialist vision of identity held by social constructionism has won wide recognition. Rather than viewing identity as something existing inside people，in the form of traits or characteristics，social constructionism regards it as the product of social encounters and relationships and，therefore，it is socially constructed in the process of negotiation in concrete and specific international occasions，entailing discursive practice（Berger & Luchman，1967；Burr，2003）. Identity is therefore，contrasted with the traditional view of the stable unchanging personality，constantly on the move，changing from situation to situation，from encounter to encounter. In opposition to traditional beliefs，identities are understood as constructed，multiple and dynamic（Woodward，1997；Martin，1995；Ainsorth & Hardy，2004）.
The acquisition of Hong Kong by Britain was the result of the infamous Opium War between 1940 and 1941. The emphasis on Hong Kong as a post for trade with China directed the British educational policy in Hong Kong in the 19th century. The policy aimed at supplying the human resource needs of the China trade and at serving the broader interests of Sino-British economic and diplomatic relations. The schools sought to produce bilingual，bicultural elites to function as middlemen between the British traders in Hong Kong and the merchants and officials of China. Great emphasis was placed on the students’learning Chinese as well as English and Confucian text was part of the curriculum.
In 1984，Britain and China had a successful diplomatic encounter in Beijing，and representatives of the two countries entered into an agreement—Sino-British Joint Declaration，that，in 1997，Britain would return the colony of HK to China. This agreement was widely hailed as a model of international co-operation，peacefully negotiated by two countries with radically different histories，cultures，ideologies and political systems（Flowerdew，1998）. In 1990，the Basic Law of HK was promulgated by the National People’s Congress in Beijing which codified the constitutional framework that was to give effect to the promised“ high degree of autonomy”with“HK people ruling HK”as well as to regulate central government—SAR relations. In 1991，Bill of Rights was introduced to HK. The last Britain-appointed HK Governor，Chris Patten arrived in HK in 1992 and announced his political reform package which resulted in the deterioration of Sino-British relationship. Patten’s reform package continued to be introduced into the Legislative Council（LegCo）and the first fully elected LegCo was produced in September in 1995. On the other hand，the Preparatory Committee began their work to select the first Chief Executive of the Special Administrative Region of HK. On July 1st，1997，the People’s Liberation Army troops crossing the border，HK was handed back to China，LegCo replaced by a provisional legislature and the Basic Law in force and Dong Jianhua the first Chief Executive of HKSAR. Dong resigned because of declining health in 2005 and Zeng took over him as acting chief executive and his successor.
The identity of HK people is not easily discernable. Ma & Fung（1999）describe the development of HK identity as having followed an“erratic path”: it is a good example of what Martin（1995）refers to as an identity having“nothing to do with homogeneity and permanence”. Although 95% of the population of HK is ethnic Chinese，these people mostly are either immigrants from the Mainland or are the children of such people（Flowerdew，2004）. Colonial policy，by minimizing contact with Mainland China，created a space for the creation of a local HK identity，which thus can be said to be determined in terms of the cultural differences between HK and the Mainland（Ma & Fung，1999）. HK people have traditionally seen themselves as sophisticated and Westernized in contrast to the less“civilized”mainlanders（Ma &Fung，1999；Flowerdew，2002）. Even now，although the former British colony is a Special Administrative Region of China，HK people are reluctant to label themselves as“Chinese”when asked to do so in opinion surveys. They prefer to refer to themselves as“HK people”or“HK Chinese”. Of course，identity is multi-faceted and in the case of the people of HK，three dimensions of identity seem to be particularly salient: ethnic identity，cultural identity and political identity which do not necessarily coincide. As to the first，no HK Chinese would be likely to deny that they are ethnically Chinese. However，politically they do not want to identify with the government of the People’s Republic of China（PRC），they might say they are not“Chinese”in this political sense（Flowerdew，2004）. Then again，as suggested by Ma & Fung（1999），they might not want to be considered Chinese in the sense of sharing cultural values with mainland Chinese. This is the complicated nature of HK identity.
Several recent books and papers on HK have tried to analyze the main factors that led to the emergence of a specific HK identity. We refer to Ackbar（1997），Bhabha（1994），Baker（1983），Chen & Jackie（1997），Chen J. C.（1997），Cheng J.（1984，1997），Faure（1996），Jacquet R.（1997），E. Kit-wai Ma（1999），Lau Siu-Kai（1982），O’Toole（1997），Scollon R.（1999），and Flowerdew（2004）. These factors include the territory’s prolonged separation from China，the coming to adulthood of a generation born in the colony，the benefits of the economic boom，and the Government’s social reforms in the 1970s and after，the control of the PRC Government over the HKSAR Government and the economic boom in Mainland China as well.
Even though ethnic Chinese make up 95% of the population，English was the only official language until 1974. While Cantonese has always been the language of the home，English still remains essential for education，business，the government，and the law. Whereas in the past English might have been perceived as the colonial language，English has now become the international language of upward and outward mobility，enabling HK people to enter university，to take on positions in the HK international business world，or to go overseas to study or to emigrate.
However complex HK identities are，it is definite and explicit that before the 1997 Transition，HK people were British citizens nominally according to the previous Common Law of HK because they held the passports of British National Overseas issued by the British Government，and that after transition，HK people are Chinese citizens as HK is a region of China and it accords with the Basic Law.
The basic premise on which the present research is based is the interdependency between language and social reality. As already introduced，the research intends to show how HK identity is represented and constructed based on linguistic evidences.
Language use is shaped socially and the variation in language use is systematic and that what makes it systematic is its correlation with social variables: language varies according to the nature of the relation between participants in interaction，the type of social event，the social goals people are pursuing，and so forth.
On the one hand，discourse is shaped and constrained by social structure in the widest sense and at all levels；on the other hand，discourse is socially constitutive and contributes to the constitution of all those dimensions of social structure which directly or indirectly shape or constrain it: its own norms and conventions as well as the relations，identities and institutions which lie behind them. We can distinguish three aspects of the constructive effects of discourse. Discourse contributes first of all to the construction of what are variously referred to as“social identities”and“subject positions”for social“ subjects ”and types of“ self ”. Secondly，discourse helps construct social relationships between people. And lastly，discourse contributes to the construction of systems of knowledge and belief. Thus，discourse，identities and social practice in time-space form a mutually constituting set implicated in the cultural politics of identity and the constitution of humanity as a form of life. It is the very plasticity of identity that marks its cultural and political significance，for the shifting and changing character of identities chronicles the way that people think about themselves and others at a given time and space.
Socio-political change has a great impact on discourse and identity construction in the highly institutionalized genre of HK governments’Policy Address. Therefore，the transition of Hong Kong sovereignty on July 1st，1997“has been complex，subtle and profound...this is because the real transition is about identity and not sovereignty”（Yeung，1998；Chan，2002）. Therefore，the fact is evident that the British Colonial Hong Kong Government tried to construct a Hong Kong identity relating to Britain while the HKSAR Government tries to construct a Chinese Hong Kong identity in such a highly institutionalized genre as Policy Address.
The present research is to study and compare the two identities discursively constructed in the HK governments’Policy Addresses pre- and post-transition and to find out the constructive strategies employed in such a genre.
In the specific discipline of linguistics，identity is also attracting increasing attention. Social linguistic investigations such as those made by Labov’s（1963）and Milroy’s（1980）have proved that language is used as a means of expressing social identity when different ethic groups use language to align with certain social groups and to disassociate from others. Systemic Functional Linguistics（SFL）proposes that language performs simultaneously three meanings，or“ metafunctions ”（e. g. ，Halliday，1994；Halliday & Mathiessen，1999）. Among the three meanings，namely ideational meaning，textual meaning and interpersonal meaning，interpersonal meaning refers to the use of language to negotiate social relations—to express the“self”and influence others. Hence，it can be concluded that identity is a concept of“self”in relation to its contrary of“other”and can be defined in relations.
Communication is what makes relationships possible and the specificity of the human species is that the privileged medium of communication，unknown to other species，is language（Martin，1995）. Martin suggests that it is language that makes it possible for members of a community to enter into relation with one another and it is precisely through the use of language that differences and values of a collectivity are expressed. Hence，language lies at the heart of the notion and expression of identity. Discourse becomes an“instrument for constructing an ‘imagined community’”（Martin，1995）. Following Wodak，et al.（1999），identity is the product of discourse. Fairclough（1995）also considers that the questions of identity and questions of relations are inseparable in practice: how an identity is constructed is in part a question of how one relates to another.
In order to have a thorough and comprehensive study of the political discourse of the governments’Policy Address，the represent research，according to Ivanic’s definition of identity，takes into consideration the social，political，cultural and discoursal factors of the society of HK and the PA of the two governments in HK. In this research，the study of HK identity in the governments’PA refers to the study whether or not the ideas demonstrated in HK governments’PA identify with the social groups，communities in mainland China and align HK and HK people with the interests，values，beliefs and practices of Mainland China. In other words，the HK identity discursively constructed in the two HK governments’PA are defined in the relationship to Mainland China.
Thus，the working definition of the discursively constructed HK identity in the present study should take the following aspects into consideration:
①HK identity is discursively，by means of language，produced，represented，and constructed；
②HK identity can be regarded as a complex of common ideas，values，concepts，attitudes，plans，history，etc. In other words，the construction of identities is to construct the in-group commonness，sameness，which goes hand in hand with the construction of out-group difference and uniqueness（Hall，1994，1996；Martin，1995）；
③HK identity revolves around the three temporal axes of past，present and future；
④Identities can be expressed in the kind of relations aligning or alienating oneself with another party，which，in this research，is reflected in HK’s relations with Mainland China；
⑤There is no such thing as the one and only national identity in an essentializing sense，but rather that different identities are discursively constructed according to contexts，that is according to the social field，the situational setting of the discursive act and the topic being discussed. In other words，identities are not completely consistent，stable and immutable and they co-vary with socio-political changes like the 1997 HK transition of its sovereignty.
A series of studies on HK identity have been focusing on the HK people’s perception of their identity with quite contradictory outcomes. A review of such research may shed light on our present study as only discourse that accords with people’s cognitive framework can be accepted and help constitute reality（You & Chen，2010），and in addition，no government can construct an identity of its people in opposition to its people’s attitude，expectation and perception.
Lau（1997）conducted a series of questionnaire surveys on the problem of the identity of HK people and when asked about their identities whether they identified themselves as“Hongkongese”“Chinese”“both”，or“neither”，the vast majority of the respondents had no difficulty choosing with Hongkongese or Chinese as their primary identity and the Hongkongese identity was adopted by more respondents than the Chinese identity. The findings are shown below.
Table 1 Identities of the HK Chinese
Lau further points out that the survey findings showed the socio-demographic differences between the Hongkongese and Chinese—females are more likely to identify themselves as Hongkongese than males，the more educated people were also more inclined to call themselves Hongkongese，respondents who were born in HK were more likely to see themselves as Hongkongese，those who had a stronger sense of belonging to HK were more prepared to leave this community before 1997 because they were more worried about HK’s future.
As a matter of fact，instead of two totally separate or mutually exclusive identities，the identities of Hongkongese and Chinese overlapped considerably as“Chineseness”in the ethnic sense and in the historical-cultural sense was an integral component in both the Hongkongese and the Chinese identities and was the basis for all of them to see themselves as Chinese. For example，in traditional China，the country or the group was accorded a status and importance much superior to the individual. Lau’s 1993 survey showed that the long period of Westernization and limited governance in HK had failed to drastically transform the HK Chinese’conception of the proper relationship between the individual and the country in the abstract. Furthermore，despite their different identities，both the Hongkongese and Chinese were proud of the same set of things about Hong Kong and China—mostly about economic development and things related to it.
In his survey，Lau found that the most salient differences between the Hongkongese and the Chinese were their attitudes towards the PRC，the mainland Chinese and the Chinese central government. The greater mistrust of China on the part of the Hongkongese were in line with their greater support for Britain and the fact that they had a more favorable image of colonial rule than the Chinese and were more inclined to demand that Britain take a strong approach to China. According to Lau，HK Chinese，particularly those with the Hongkongese identity，were jolted by the June Fourth Incident in such a way that they were fully aware of their common political fate，which was perceived to be uncertain and miserable. The year 1989 can be considered as a milestone in the formation of the local identity among the HK people. Moreover，in this study，it is evident that still a small percentage of people did not know or were not certain of their identity，which further illustrates that the identity of HK people is complicated and problematic and needs further research.
HK University conducted a survey anniversarily to examine HK people’s attitude towards their particular identity. The poll，entitled“People’s Ethnic Identity Before and After the Handover”，has been carried out every June since 1997. People of age 18 or above were interviewed and asked whether they are proud of formally becoming a national citizen of China after the 1997 Handover. The 1997 results show that advocates for“Yes”and“No”were close to equal，with 46.6% and 45.7% respectively. However，there has been significant change in the results since 1998，which has remained fairly steady since. In June 1998，31.6% of the 555 respondents said“Yes”，65.7% answered“No”，and the remainder said“Don’t know/ Hard to say”. In a poll conducted in June 2001，35.4% of the 1 074 respondents said“Yes”，59.9% said“No”，and the rest“Don’t know/ Hard to say”. These results add to the general picture that Hong Kong people’s identification with the Mainland is still rather shallow. According to a poll conducted by the Chinese University’s Hong Kong’s Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies，75.9% of the 1 002 respondents wanted to elect the Chief Executive through universal suffrage. When asked how long they think it would take for universal suffrage to be realised in Hong Kong，38% said not until 10 years or more，21% said 5～10 years，and 8% said never（Abraham，2002；Hong Kong Economic Journal，2002）. In conclusion，Hong Kong people are maintaining their identity as distinct from that of the Mainland.
The above study and survey further show that HK identity is a complex issue on which HK people themselves cannot come to agreement and there is still confusion in HK identity which leads to room for further research. The HK people’s perception of their identity may have an effect on its government and the policy makers，but it is not of concern in this research. The key issue here focuses on how the HK governments define the identity of its people in their Policy Address，which becomes the concern of this research.
In this part，we review identity research in different perspectives from different disciplines and draw a working definition for the discursively constructed identity，particularly HK identity. Furthermore，some research on HK identity from approaches other than CDA are reviewed in order to show the complexity of this HK identity. It is also our aim here to declare that HK people’s attitude toward their identity is not a focus of this research，but the British Colonial HK Government，and the HKSAR Government as a partly elected government，cannot go completely against its people’s opinions and attitudes in their PAs.