| The hypothetical statement guiding the argument and analysis of this research is that 'quality' education can be attained by 'quality' learning, the success of which should inevitably be associated with language. In other words, language becomes the foundation of learning and education in general. Such postulation is based on the understanding that language, a signifying system within a larger semiological complex, is the major medium through which meanings of various forms e.g. images can be mediated and made sense of. Hong Kong is a place populated with Chinese people who use Cantonese as the medium for everyday communication. Therefore, it is natural that they should use Cantonese to make sense of the world and thus to learn. However, Hong Kong is also an international financial and commercial centre. Therefore, the government's policy is that Hong Kong people should become at least bilingual in Cantonese and English. There has been a hot debate on whether English should be used as the medium of instruction and learning. In the midst of this debate, Hong Kong Government has published seven Education Commission reports from 1982 to 1996, four of which have directly addressed the language policy issue leading to the publication of the Medium of Instruction Guidance for Secondary Schools, which mandated that 'mother tongue' should be used as the medium of instruction while at the same time allowing 114 (now 112) schools to use English based on the assumption that students in these schools have reached the so-called 'threshold' level in understanding instruction through English. This research has employed a critical discourse analytical approach to understand how the medium of instruction (MOI) policy in Hong Kong has been discursively constructed in this period. Ideologies governing the discourse of the threshold and exposure hypothesis in learning in the context of Hong Kong were closely examined. They were the main reasons why 'mixed-code' teaching, which could be a version of bilingual education that enhances cultural exchange through learning in both languages, was excluded from the discourse. It was observed the whole discourse on language learning was dominated by a positivist frame of problem solving ideology which turned language learning into a mechanistic behavior that could be manipulated, which ultimately discarded the ethical dimension, which this research regards as the foundation for creating a healthier environment both for language learning and policy development. Hence, this research has taken a post-positivist stance to argue for the redemption of 'mixed-code' teaching, the contribution of which has been misunderstood especially when identity, culture, and tradition that are closely associated with language are taken into account. |
