While "democracy" is doubtless the subject that generates the most anguished commentary in our local press, "language" surely runs a close second. Most commentators, at least in the English-language press, bemoan a largely undocumented decline in English standards. But concerns about the status and health of Cantonese nevertheless also make regular appearances, usually in the context of a perceived threat from Putonghua.

As an existential matter, reports of Cantonese's imminent demise are greatly exaggerated. It is the mother tongue of roughly as many speakers as major languages like Italian and several times as many as such solidly self-perpetuating languages as Greek. Hong Kong alone has considerably more native speakers of Cantonese than there are of, for example, Lithuanian or Estonian - which are not going anywhere.

But language is inherently bound up in questions of identity. And because it is the primary method by which people connect to those immediately around them, language and identity operate in a self-reinforcing loop.

Language - like identity, for which it often a proxy - both unites and divides, which is why it is also closely linked to politics. In the terminology of "One Country, Two Systems", greater use of Putonghua is championed by those who emphasize the former, while the banner of Cantonese is often waved by those concerned about the integrity of the latter. And as is often the case in politics, the real issues can be hidden behind layers of rhetoric, disingenuousness and misunderstanding.

One ultimately sterile argument is whether Cantonese is a "dialect" or a "language". As a matter of linguistic classification, Cantonese and Mandarin are two distinct languages: They are mutually unintelligible and at least as different from one another as English and German.

In common parlance, however, the terms also have unfortunate political baggage. "Languages" have legitimacy; "dialects" are often seen as being deviations from some approved standard. Languages have literature; dialects have accents and slang.

But the reality is that the terms "dialect" and "language" do not fit well onto the reality of the Chinese language family. Chinese speakers are not just bound by both a common written representation and form; Cantonese speakers also clearly consider themselves to be speaking "Chinese" in a way that English speakers do not consider themselves to be speaking "Germanic".

Another unhelpful argument is which form of Chinese is "older", more expressive, genuine or some other variant of "better". All languages are spoken in the moment; none is more ancient than any other. Nor is any language more earthy, poetic, refined, romantic, euphonic, etc. than any other. Languages now considered literary, from Italian to English, were - before such exponents as Dante and Shakespeare - once considered atrociously vernacular and plebeian. Conversely, every language has a more than adequate supply of swear words, insults and terms of endearment.

All tongues are therefore equal. A corollary, therefore, is that a language's status as "national" gives it no right to impose itself upon speakers of other languages. History is replete with examples of oppression in the name of linguistic unity, with current leading lights of democracy having been some of the worst offenders, even within living memory. Suggestions that Putonghua might have precedence over Cantonese are therefore not just misguided but also likely to have a political effect entirely opposite to that intended by their proponents.

However, those objecting to greater use of Putonghua need to explain why the pressure for better English standards - and parental demand for English-medium education - does not similarly threaten Cantonese. And given that written Chinese is closer to Mandarin than spoken Cantonese, a case can be made for using the former to teach it. The opposite case can of course be made as well, which is why these things are best left to educators.

Conversely, those advocating greater emphasis on Putonghua need to explain - probably on the basis of pragmatic livelihood considerations which in general motivate people better than appeals to patriotism - why it is a better choice than English as a second language. A good argument can be made, of course: Fluency in Putonghua might have a better economic return per class hour than English for some, or perhaps most, students. "Trilingualism", however, is - given the difficulties experienced in achieving bilingualism - a cop-out rather than a serious objective.

Of all the litmus tests for national feeling, language is one of the least reliable. Putonghua is the national language but the mainland is multilingual and whether one speaks Putonghua is very much an accident of birth.

Hong Kong Cantonese speakers are already adopting Putonghua as a second language because it is a sensible thing to do; Hong Kong people are nothing if not practical. No one should feel threatened by this: Language ability is not an either/or proposition. Cantonese has a rich history, a dynamic present and a potentially vibrant future. Hong Kong people should relish it, study it, speak it, create in it and promote it, and no doubt will.

(HK Edition 08/20/2015 page10)