Content uploaded by Anna Danielewicz-Betz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anna Danielewicz-Betz on Jan 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
English Today
http://journals.cambridge.org/ENG
Additional services for English Today:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Varieties of English in the urban landscapes of Hong Kong
and Shenzhen
Anna Danielewicz-Betz and David Graddol
English Today / Volume 30 / Issue 03 / September 2014, pp 22 - 32
DOI: 10.1017/S0266078414000236, Published online: 05 August 2014
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0266078414000236
How to cite this article:
Anna Danielewicz-Betz and David Graddol (2014). Varieties of English in the urban landscapes of
Hong Kong and Shenzhen. English Today, 30, pp 22-32 doi:10.1017/S0266078414000236
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ENG, by Username: graddol, IP address: 212.69.47.50 on 04 Sep 2014
Varieties of English in the urban
landscapes of Hong Kong
and Shenzhen
ANNA DANIELEWICZ-BETZ AND DAVID GRADDOL
Changing English landscapes around a Chinese border
Background
The border between mainland China and Hong
Kong has become one of the world’s most fascin-
ating linguistic divides. On one side lies the main-
land Chinese city of Shenzhen, stretching the entire
length of the border – an extraordinary urban
development which in many ways epitomises the
recent urbanisation of modern China. On the
other side lies the Special Administrative Region
(SAR) of Hong Kong (see Figure 1). It is not pos-
sible to cross from Hong Kong to mainland China
by land without passing through one of the
Shenzhen checkpoints.
The population of Shenzhen (over ten million)
outnumbers that of Hong Kong (just over seven
million). The territory which Shenzhen now occu-
pies formerly contained both Cantonese- and
Hakka-speaking communities. However, most of
the population of Shenzhen has migrated from
other parts of China and speak other Chinese lan-
guages/dialects as their first language. For this rea-
son, spoken Mandarin, known as Putonghua, has
become the day-to-day lingua franca of most of
Shenzhen’s citizens. Although Putonghua has
been promoted for many years by the Beijing
government as the ‘national language’, and is the
usual medium of education in mainland China,
Cantonese is still widely used in Guangdong prov-
ince, outside the new factory towns populated by
migrant workers.
The influx of migrant workers, together with the
use of Putonghua as the medium of instruction in
mainland schools, has led to a rapid language shift
in the former homeland of Cantonese in mainland
China. Hong Kong, meanwhile, has emerged as
the main cultural and political centre for
the Cantonese language. Cantonese, along with
English, is the main medium of education at all levels
in Hong Kong; and is used in government and law.
These linguistic differences reflect the way the
two territories have remained distinct in respect
ANNA DANIELEWICZ-
BETZ is an Associate
Professor in the Centre for
Language Research,
University of Aizu, Japan.
Her research interests
include Pragmatics, Critical
Discourse Analysis and
Interdisciplinary Studies (e.g.
Geosemiotics, Forensic
Linguistics, Corporate Discourse). She is also an
experienced business consultant and trainer offering
customised in-house business English courses and
coaching services for multinational companies.
Email: anna.danielewicz.betz@gmail.com
DAVID GRADDOL is
Director of the English
Company (UK) Ltd and its
partner in Hong Kong, The
English Company (Hong
Kong) Ltd. He is a former Co-
Editor of English Today and
the author of several books
which document the rise of
global English, including The
Future of English? (1997) and English Next (2006).
His recent book for Cambridge English (Profiling
English: The Pearl River Delta, 2013) combines his
interest in Language Landscapes and in the role of
English in economic development. Email: david@
english.co.uk
doi:10.1017/S0266078414000236
22
English Today 119, Vol. 30, No. 3 (September 2014). Printed in the United Kingdom © 2014 Cambridge University Press
of culture, economy and language even after
1997, when Hong Kong ceased to be a British
colony and reverted to Chinese sovereignty. The
People’s Republic of China (PRC) refers to this
arrangement as ‘one country, two systems’.A
part of the handover agreement was an undertak-
ing by China to allow a different legal system
(known as ‘Basic Law’) to operate in Hong
Kong for at least 50 years after handover.
However, only 15 years later, many Hong Kong
citizens feel that they are now being absorbed
into the PRC with increasing speed. Linguistic
issues loom high in what is seen by many in
Hong Kong as a struggle to maintain the city’s
cultural identity. Especially sensitive is the per-
ception that Putonghua is playing an increasingly
important role in Hong Kong and that the place of
Cantonese is weakening.
In this complex and rapidly changing political,
economic and linguistic context, English is acquir-
ing new roles and meanings on both sides of the
border. This article briefly summarises how some
of these issues can be read in the language land-
scapes of the region.
English in Shenzhen
In Shenzhen, and other cities of Guangdong, such
as Guangzhou, English is learnt and taught primar-
ily as a foreign language, but its use in public
spaces is becoming more prominent. This not
only reflects the increasing number of international
visitors and expatriate workers, but also the desire
to project an identity as an ‘international city’.
Learning English in Shenzhen, as elsewhere in
China, is not only a necessity in order to pass high-
stakes exams, such as the gaokao (university
entrance exam), but offers a route to overseas
study, or at least to better employment opportun-
ities at home.
Shenzhen both cooperates with and competes
with Hong Kong in economic activity. Since the
use of English as an official language is one of
Hong Kong’s distinctive characteristics, it may be
that the employment of English in Shenzhen indi-
cates as much an orientation to ‘Hong Kong’
style as its aspiration to become a world city.
When Shenzhen hosted the Universiade games in
2011, the city introduced a ‘Shenzhen
speaks English’ campaign, modelled on a similar
Figure 1. Location map of Shenzhen and Hong Kong
VARIETIES OF ENGLISH IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPES OF HONG KONG AND SHENZHEN 23
campaign in Beijing ahead of the 2008 Olympics, in
order to promote the learning and use of English by
its citizens. According to the Shenzhen Standard,a
local English-language newspaper:
a good English speaking environment can bring the
city and its foreign guests closer by facilitating
international communication. ... Workers in public
sectors such as restaurants, hotel, taxi and bus drivers
will be receiving English language training, and
more than 200 English speaking promotions have
been in circulation since January. (Shenzhen
Standard, 2010)
English in Hong Kong
Hong Kong is officially ‘biliterate and trilingual’.
The term ‘trilingual’ refers to the fact that although
‘Chinese’ (or rather a Hong Kong variety of
Cantonese) and English have been co-official spo-
ken languages in Hong Kong, Putonghua, the offi-
cial spoken language of the mainland, has
increasing currency in Hong Kong (see Figure 2).
The term ‘biliterate’, in the context of Hong
Kong, is, however, not easy to understand.
Ostensibly it refers to English (and hence a
roman wri ting system) on the one hand, and written
Chinese (using ideograph-based characters), on the
other. Yet, there are several differences between
the written Chinese as used in mainland China
and that in Hong Kong, the most prominent of
which is use of ‘simplified characters’ in the for-
mer, in contrast to the ‘ traditional characters’
used in the latter. These differences, which have
become culturally very sensitive in present-day
Hong Kong, appear to be elided in Hong Kong’s
policy statement, though the Hong Kong govern-
ment itself provides three versions of its websites
as ‘language’ options: English, ‘traditional’ and
‘simplified’ (see Figure 3).
Schools in Hong Kong can choose between
English and Chinese as the medium of instruction.
Although the situation is complex and fluid,
English remains the medium of greatest prestige
and is used by mo st international schools in the
SAR. English is also extensively used for teaching
in the city’s universities.
Language landscapes in Shenzhen
and Hong Kong
The study of language landscapes (often abbre-
viated to LL) has become a popular research
approach in recent years. English Today has
Figure 3. The Hong Kong government now provides its web pages in three ‘languages’: English,
Traditional and Simplified Chinese
Figure 2. The changing proportions of Hong
Kong’s adult population who can speak
Cantonese, Putonghua and English
24 ENGLISH TODAY 119 September 2014
published several articles on signs in various cities
of the world (e.g. McArthur, 2000; MacGregor,
2003; Schlick, 2003; Stewart & Fawcett, 2004;
Ong et al., 2013). Hong Kong has already proved
to be a rich research site for LL, featuring in a num-
ber of edited collections and books (e.g. Shohamy
& Gorter, 2008; Jaworski & Thurlow, 2010;
Shohamy et al., 2010; Graddol, 2013). Our own
interest is in what an LL approach can contribute
to our understanding of the rapid social and eco-
nomic change currently taking place in the border
zone and how it is creating a new social geography
in the Shenzhen and Hong Kong region.
In Hong Kong all official signs are bilingual.
Street signs show the English name first, with
Chinese, in traditional characters, below the
English version (see Figure 4). In other places,
such as the MTR, official signs usually show
Chinese first, with English underneath (as in
Figure 5). This difference reflects an ongoing
shift in the priority of English in the Hong Kong
landscape.
By contrast, until a few years ago, there was little
English to be found in the landscape of Shenzhen
(see Figure 6). Shenzhen, however, like other
major cities in China, has recently adopted a policy
of including English on signs in public places
(below the simplified Chinese text), partly to help
visitors and partly to enhance the municipality’s
claim to be an international city (see Figure 7). In
2013, the city released regulations regarding the
use of English on signs. Recently, the municipal
authorities in Shenzhen have become concerned
Figure 5. A station sign on the Hong Kong MTR
Figure 6. Chinese-only signs are still easily
found in Shenzhen
Figure 7. A bilingual street sign in Shenzhen
Figure 8. A sign in a Shenzhen Metro station
Figure 4. A typical street sign in Hong Kong
VARIETIES OF ENGLISH IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPES OF HONG KONG AND SHENZHEN 25
about the lack of standardisation in public signs
and the high number of English errors.
Bilingual public signs now must be made avail-
able in locations including parks, public squares,
cultural and sports facilities, and resorts. The
city’s main roads, train stations, airport and
Metro stations also have to provide bilingual public
signs, according to the regulations. ‘In order to
eliminate incorrect English signs at the source,
we will examine all new bilingual signs before
they appear in public’, said Tang Lixia, head of
the foreign affairs office (Shenzhen Daily, 2013).
The increased use of English in public spaces in
Shenzhen makes it possible to compare its English
landscapes with those of Hong Kong, and to
explore ways in which the identities of the two cit-
ies are changing or merging with respect to English
usage. One approach, which we employ here, is to
explore the different varieties of English found on
signs in the region.
Exonormative varieties
Broadly, English spelling and usage in mainland
China tends to be American-based, whereas in
Hong Kong, a former British colony, it is British
(see Figures 8 and 9). This distinction is seen
most clearly in institutional usage. For example,
mainland English-language newspapers such as
the China Daily conform to an American copy-
editing style, whereas the main English language
newspaper in Hong Kong – the South China
Morning Post – uses a British style. This difference
extends to government publications and to many
official signs and notices in the two territories.
In extended texts, differences between American
and British styles are apparent in three main areas:
spelling, vocabulary and grammar. On signs,
which typically use short, abbreviated texts, differ-
ences in grammar are less apparent. Both spelling
and vocabulary differences, however, are easily
found. Furthermore, there are a few words, such
as ‘center’ as opposed to ‘centre’,or‘elevator’
rather than ‘lift’, which appear on notices with
high frequency and which help give Shenzhen a
more ‘American’ look than Hong Kong.
Occasional examples of what appear to be
hypercorrections towards a British norm can be
found in Hong Kong (see Figure 10).
Local varieties of English
In Shenzhen, there is no recognised local variety of
English, though it is common to see English
notices which reflect features of the Chinese lan-
guage. The situation in Hong Kong, as a former
British colony, is different. Linguists have argued
over whether there exists a fully institutionalised
‘Hong Kong’ English, in the way that Indian
English or Singapore English is recognised. Our
Figure 9. A similar sign in the MTR station on
the Hong Kong side of the border
Figure 11. ‘Shroff’ is an old Anglo-Indian word
Figure 10. An example of hypercorrection of
British ‘meter’ to ‘metre’ in Hong Kong
26 ENGLISH TODAY 119 September 2014
view, like that of Finzel (2012), is that Hong Kong
English ‘holds an intermediate position between a
norm-developing and a norm-dependent variety’.
However, as we have seen, official signs attempt
to follow an external norm. Local features are
more likely to be found in informal and ephemeral
notices.
An exception to this general rule is provided by a
small number of words that appear on formal signs
in Hong Kong and which have their origins in
eighteenth century Indian English. These words
are still to be found in other former British col-
onies, such as India and Singapore, and so are
not limited to Hong Kong. One such word is
‘shroff’, meaning, in Hong Kong, a car park cash-
ier. Another is ‘nullah’, referring to a channelled
stream. A third is the word ‘chop’ denoting a
Chinese seal or stamp. All three words are also
used in spoken English in Hong Kong. Figures
11–13 give examples of those words that appear
on public si gns.
The impact of Chinese on the English
of signs
The increasing use of English signage extends
beyond the confines of organisations that might
be expected to have both a language policy and
the means to enforce it. Indeed, many informal
signs can be found which might be said to contain
‘Chinese English’. Leaving aside, for the moment,
Figure 13. ‘Chop’ is an old Anglo-Indian word
Figure 14. An incorrect plural on a business
sign in Hong Kong
Figure 12. ‘Nullah’ is an old Anglo-Indian word
Figure 15. Incorrect singular and plural,
accompanied by a prepositional problem (on a
Hong Kong ferry)
VARIETIES OF ENGLISH IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPES OF HONG KONG AND SHENZHEN 27
the controversial issue of whether such signs repre-
sent ‘errors’ or some emergent new English var-
iety, we can note characteristics of the English
even on formal signs which reflect Chinese linguis-
tic features in both Shenzhen and Hong Kong .
Number
Chinese does not make a distinction between sin-
gular and plural noun forms. Where necessary, a
qualifier such as a number is used to disambiguate.
This probably explains why problems with number
are commonly found in Chinese English . There
exists variation in singular and plural on identical
or contextually similar signs (see Figures 14–17).
Use of prepositions
English phrasal verbs are known to be a challenge
for English learners and the use of prepositions
seems especially problematic for Chinese speakers
since the meanings of Chinese prepositions do not
simply map on to English ones. The character在
(zài) for example, can mean ‘in’, but also ‘at’,or
‘outside of’, dependin g on the context. This may
explain the over-use of prepositions, e.g. on MTR
signs in Hong Kong (Figures 18–19).
Use of articles
Since there are no articles in Chinese, it is not sur-
prising that some signs use articles in non-native
ways even in Hong Kong (Figure 20).
Past participles and past tense
Chinese does not mark tense in the way English
does. This probably explains the variety of past
participle forms (e.g. allowed, as in Figure 21).
Use of conjunctions
On the prohibition signs, which are so common in
both mainland China and Hong Kong, the conjunc-
tion ‘and’ is often used where ‘or’ is logically
expected (e.g. ‘no puking and urinating’).
Figure 22 illustrates both this and the lack of the
preposition ‘down’ to complete the phrasal verb.
Figure 18. ‘Exit from’–an unnecessary
preposition (in an MTR station in Hong Kong)
Figure 17. ‘Offender will be prosecuted’
Figure 16. ‘Please mind your steps’ is
frequently found on signs both in Hong Kong
and Shenzhen (this one is from the ifc mall,
Hong Kong)
Figure 19. ‘Touching to’: an unnecessary preposition (in an MTR station in Hong Kong)
28 ENGLISH TODAY 119 September 2014
Figure 21. The struggle with past participles
Figure 22. The conjunction issue on
prohibition signs
Figure 20. The definite article is sometimes
overused
Figure 23. The street is referred to here as ‘Ren
Min Nan Lu’
Figure 24. Lower on the same sign, it is
referred to as ‘Renmin Nan Road’
Figure 25. Here, the street is referred to as
Renmin S Rd
VARIETIES OF ENGLISH IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPES OF HONG KONG AND SHENZHEN 29
English and romanised Chinese
In Hong Kong, many generic place name elements
such as ‘road’ or ‘lane’ are given in English.
However, less generic parts of place names – the
proper name elements – are often rendered as
romanised Chinese. Hence the ‘English’ part of
bilingual place name signs is often a mix of
English and romanised Chinese.
In Shenzhen, the practice regarding generic
place name elements is mixed. Sometimes, such
elements as Lu (road) or Bei/Nan (north/south)
may be given in pinyin; sometimes they are trans-
lated into English (see Figures 23–24). The policy
intention is to standardise on fully translated
English on signs (as in Figure 25), but this will
take time to be realised, partly because of the num-
ber of different governme nt departments respon-
sible for street signs, and partly because most
departments lack procedures which ensure proper
proof-checking by a proficient English speaker.
In the meantime, place name elements such as
‘Lu’ can probably be regarded as loanwords in an
emergent local variety of English.
In Hong Kong, pinyin is rarely used for roman-
isation. Instead, a variety of older forms of roman-
isation are employed. Although there is an official
romanisation standard used by the Hong Kong
government – known as Cantonese pinyin –
which students are required to use in school
exams, it is rarely found on signs.
For example, Figure 4 showed a Hong Kong
street name as ‘Peking Road’, whereas the pinyin
rendering of China’s capital city is ‘ Beijing’ (the
first element ‘bei’ meaning ‘north’). Of course,
an interesting feature of romanisation is that, unlike
most Chinese characters, it reflects pronunciation.
Hence romanised place names in Hong Kong
reflect the local spoken language – Cantonese –
rather than Putonghua. So Chinese romanisation
in Hong Kong differs from that used in Shenzhen
in two ways: the correspondence rules which relate
sound to spelling are different, as are the pronun-
ciations represented.
These two factor s imply that there are differ-
ences in the way roman forms and Chinese charac-
ters relate to each other on signs in Hong Kong and
Shenzhen. For example, in Hong Kong a frequent
place name element is ‘Tai’ which represents the
Chinese character for ‘big ’ (大), as depicted in
Figure 26. We can see in Figure 7, however, that the
character associated with ‘Tai’ in the Shenzhen
street name ‘Taizi Road’ is a different character
(
太, meaning ‘prince’).
Figure 26. ‘Tai’ is a frequent place name
element in Hong Kong but means something
different from ‘Tai’ in Shenzhen place names
Figure 27. The Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology uses AmE spellings
such as ‘Center’ alongside BrE vocabulary such
as ‘Car park’ and ‘Lift’
Figure 28. In Shenzhen Metro station, passengers are asked to ‘Mind the gaps’
30 ENGLISH TODAY 119 September 2014
Since English is almost always accompanied by
Chinese on signs in both territories, differences in
co-occurrence of this kind may play a role in defin-
ing a different ‘look’ and meaning of English in
each landscape.
Emergent varieties
The merger of American and British varieties
In both Shenzhen and Hong Kong , many exam-
ples of mixing American and British English
(AmE and BrE, respectively) features in single
notices or recorded announcements can be
found. Station signs might refer interchangeably
to a ‘return ticket’ and a ‘round trip ticket’, for
instance. The phrase ‘bulky luggage’ and the
word ‘elevator’ might appear together on the
same notice. The terms ‘rubbish bin’ and ‘garbage
can’ might be heard in announcements on a single
ferry trip.
What can be observed on signs (and also in
announcements and audio messages, e.g. on the
underground trains, ferries, escalators) is a blurring
of distinction between these two native varieties of
English. Perhaps this signals that both Hong Kong
and Shenzhen have joined other global cities in
which some form of lingua franca English can be
observed emerging in the landscape, one that blends
elements of AmE and BrE. For example, in the
lobby of a hotel in Shenzhen there is a room
designated as ‘Business Center’ and ‘Business
Centre’ in adjacent notices. A notice on the
campus of Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology mixes AmE spellings (such as
‘Center’) alongside BrE vocabulary, such as ‘Car
park’ or ‘Lift’ (see Figure 27).
Development of local varieties
In Shenzhen Metro station, a not ice on the platform
doors asks passengers to ‘Mind the gaps’ (see
Figure 28). Is this an example of the number prob-
lem mentioned earlier? Nothing is actually wrong
with such a sign, but the well-known equivalent
on the London Underground ‘Mind the gap’
(used also on the MTR in Hong Kong) makes it
seem unidiomatic in this context. However, similar
‘Mind the gaps’ signs are to be found elsewhere in
China, including the Beijing subway. When such
signs appear consistently, they must eventually be
regarded as new local forms. In fact, language
landscapes may be an important means whereby
features of a local English variety become
institutionalised.
A more difficult case is presented by the earlier
examples of English which appear to be influenced
by the grammar of Chinese. Should these be
regarded as indicative of an emergent local variety,
or as errors?
Changing features on signs
The matrix depicted in Table 1 indicates the main
linguistic resources which we have described as
being available in the Shenzhen–Hong Kong
region for the construction of signs and notices.
The selections noted for each side of the border
are indicative of the traditional unmarked choices
in each area. Deviations from this are likely to be
either an indication of on-going change or regarded
as marked usages. For example, notices do
Table 1: A matrix of the linguistic features appearing on signs in Shenzhen and Hong Kong
Shenzhen Hong Kong
Chinese Simplified 37
Traditional 73
Cantonese 73
English US 37
British 73
Local ? 3
Error 3 ?
Roman Mandarin pinyin 37
Cantonese pinyin 73
Other 73
Minority languages e.g. Filipino, Malay 73
VARIETIES OF ENGLISH IN THE URBAN LANDSCAPES OF HONG KONG AND SHENZHEN 31
sometimes appear in Hong Kong in simplified
Chinese, but they can generate hostility from
local residents and be seen as directed to mainland
visitors. On the other hand, Hong Kongers appear
less sensitive to an increasing use of American
spelling and vocabulary in English, which seems
not to be regarded as a sign of ‘mainlandisation’.
What such a matrix does not adequately capture
is the typical combination of elements found on
bilingual, or multilingual signage. These combina-
tions also change over time and contribute to a
changing identity of the language landscape.
Conclusion
It is clear that the English in the language land-
scapes of both Shenzhen and Hong Kong is diverse
and undergoing change. We have distinguished
between external norms, local norms, potentially
emergent norms reflecting Chinese linguistic fea-
tures, and errors. None of these are clearly defined
categories, but there appear to be on-going shifts,
especially in Hong Kong, from BrE to AmE, and
from AmE to local norms.
As might be expected in a major Asian city,
many languages besides English and Chi nese can
be found in the landscape of Hong Kong. This
paper has focused only on English and its relation-
ship with Chinese.
The study of language landscapes offers an
opportunity to monitor sociolinguistic change in
English, especially that occurring in border regions
undergoing political, economic and other transfor-
mations. From this perspective, language land-
scapes serve as an indicator of change, not only
in linguistic terms. Some signage (e.g. advertising,
announcements on public transport) can change
fast; others retain a memory of former times (e.g.
older forms of romanisation, right-to-left writing).
Generally speaking, there appears to be a slowly
decreasing use of English in public life in Hong
Kong, whilst it is increasing on the mainland.
The priority of English in Hong Kong (such as
placing English first on signs) is more and more
looking like a colonial legacy: Chinese seems to
have become the first, or more prominent language
on bilingual signs and notices, as well as in spoken
announcements.
At the same time, the regular use of English in
public signage in Hong Kong, together with trad-
itional written Chinese characters and spoken
Cantonese in public announcements, serve an
important role in demarcating Hong Kongers’
identity from that of mainlanders.
▪
References
Finzel, A. M. 2012. English in the linguistic landscape of
Hong Kong: a case study of shop signs and linguistic
competence. MA thesis. Online at <http://opus.kobv.de/
ubp/volltexte/2013/6412/>.
Graddol, D. 2013. Profiling English in China: The
Pearl River Delta. Cambridge: Cambridge English
Language Assessment. Online at <www.cambridge
english.org/images/151564-profiling-english-in-china-
dg.pdf>.
Jaworski, A. & Thurlow, C. (eds) 2010. Semiotic
Landscapes. London: Continuum.
MacGregor, L. 2003. The language of shop signs in Tokyo.
English Today, 19(1), 18–23.
McArthur, T. 2000. Interanto: The global language of signs.
English Today, 16(01), 33–43.
Ong, K. K. W., Ghesquière, J. F. & Serwe, S. K. 2013.
Frenglish shop signs in Singapore. English Today, 29(3),
19–25.
Schlick, M. 2003. The English of shop signs in Europe.
English Today, 19(1), 3–17.
Shenzhen Daily. 2013. Public invited to report incorrect
English signs. (27 September 2013). Online at <http://
szdaily.sznews.com/html/2013-09/27/content_2637906.
htm> (Accessed February 2014).
Shenzhen Standard. 2010. Campaign to promote English
language to Shenzhen citizens. (16 August 2010). Online
at <www.shenzhen-standard.com/2010/08/16/campaign-
to-promote-english-language-to-shenzhen-citizens/>
(Accessed February 2014).
Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. (eds). 2008. Linguistic Landscape:
Expanding the scenery. Abingdon: Routledge.
Shohamy, E., Ben Rafael, E. & Barni, M. (eds) 2010.
Linguistic Landscapes in the City. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Stewart, P. & Fawcett, R. 2004. Shop signs in some
small towns in northern Portugal. English Today, 20(1),
56–58.
32 ENGLISH TODAY 119 September 2014
