This current study explores the ontological understanding of English in Hong Kong’s language education and policy, with a focus on translanguaging. The Biliteracy and Trilingualism Policy (BTP), established in 1997, governs the relative status of Cantonese, English, and Putonghua, influenced by historical, political, and social factors. English holds a prestigious status due to colonial influence and globalization, whereas Putonghua's prominence has risen post-handover.
Ontology, in a linguistic context, concerns the nature of language existence—whether it exists independently or is socially constructed. Hall & Wicaksono's (2020) ontological model underpins the current study, linking ontology to epistemology (knowledge sources and validity) and ideology (belief systems). Their framework includes conceptualizations such as internalized and externalized language, national and native languages, and platonic or idealized language forms. The ontological commitment to "Standard English" is questioned, as it is often seen as an ideological construct rather than an observable reality.

In Hong Kong, English language education is shaped by ontological assumptions of an idealized "Standard English," leading to high-stakes examinations and stringent teaching methods. The influence of neoliberalism in policy formation reinforces English's economic utility, positioning it as a prerequisite for Hong Kong’s global competitiveness. However, recent studies show divergent attitudes toward English, with some favoring its global utility and others critiquing its dominance over Cantonese and Putonghua.

Translanguaging offers an alternative perspective, rejecting fixed language boundaries and instead recognizing fluid, dynamic language practices that reflect speakers' diverse linguistic repertoires. García and Li (2014) argue that translanguaging is more than code-switching/mixing; it redefines language use in multilingual contexts, empowering students by leveraging their full linguistic resources. This framework challenges the rigid separation of languages in Hong Kong’s classrooms and highlights the potential for a more inclusive and effective pedagogical approach.

The framework suggests that the entrenched monolingual approach in English language teaching, derived from policies emphasizing "pure" English instruction, fails to address Hong Kong's multilingual reality. As French philosopher Gills Deleuze once said: “[m]ultilingualism is not merely the property of several systems each of which would be homogenous in itself: it is primarily the line of flight or of variation which affects each system by stopping it from being homogenous” (Deleuze & Parnet, 2007, p. 4). A translanguaging perspective can thus provide a more flexible and context-sensitive approach to language education, addressing students' diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This theoretical understanding calls for a reevaluation of Hong Kong's language policy, emphasizing social justice and inclusive pedagogies that accommodate the complexity of language practices in a multilingual society.

The study adopts a qualitative approach, analyzing language policy documents and educational frameworks in Hong Kong from an ontological and translanguaging perspective. This includes discourse analysis of policy texts, examining how language ideologies are constructed and reinforced. Key policy documents reviewed include the 1974 White Paper (Hong Kong Government, 1974), the 1982 Llewellyn Report (Llewellyn et al., 1982), the Education Commission Reports (ECR 1 (Education Commission, 1984) and ECR 4 (Education Commission, 1990)), and the 2017 English Language Education Curriculum Framework (Curriculum Development Council, Education Bureau, 2017). These documents outline the historical evolution of Hong Kong’s language policy and the emphasis on English as a medium of instruction. The analysis also considers sociopolitical factors influencing language policy, such as decolonization, globalization, and national identity concerns. The study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how language policies shape educational practices and public attitudes in Hong Kong. This study draws on the theoretical model by Hall & Wicaksono (2020), which provide a lens to examine how "English" is conceptualized and operationalized in education policies. This study also incorporates studies on language attitudes, such as Bacon-Shone, Bolton, & Luke (2015), which explore public sentiment toward the three official languages. Empirical data from surveys and studies on language attitudes contribute to understanding the societal impact of language policies.

Key observations include the persistence of the monolingual approach in English language teaching, despite research advocating for more flexible, multilingual pedagogies. Policy documents reflect a strong ideological commitment to "Standard English," often disregarding the practical language needs of students. The tension between policy ideals and classroom realities underscores the need for a paradigm shift. Beyond the context of English, this study also unveils the underlying disruption and flow in the balance of all the three languages in Hong Kong. With the change in local population, influence of globalization trend, as well as shift of language ideologies, there is a need for a more dynamic, holistic, and flexible understanding in the context of language education and policy. The current study suggests a reconceptualized understanding for the study of language education and policy in Hong Kong, through Deleuze’s concepts of assemblage in a rhizomatic frame, which is a multiplicity of heterogenous elements that function collectively for “a symbiosis, a ‘sympathy’” (Deleuze & Parnet, 2007, p.69), and the concept of translanguaging. This study suggests that through theorizing, researching and professional development of translanguaging practices in language classroom, the implications could be further extended to inform the formulation of language policy and curriculum design in language education, for the development of students’ biliteral and trilingual ability. This study also understands that the assemblage is not stabilized, as it is influenced by both the endogenous and exogenious pressure stemmed from the wider aspects of institutional, socio-political, and socio-cultural forces. Therefore, it is a kind of ‘line of becoming’, a ‘involution’ (Deleuze and Guttari, 1987, p.238), for something new and different that can better capture the ever-evolving language situation in Hong Kong. Discussions in this study could also bring new insights to the investigation of language education and policy in other multilingual contexts.

Bacon-Shone, J., Bolton, K., & Luke, K. K. (2015). Language use, proficiency and attitudes in Hong Kong. Social Sciences Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. Curriculum Development Council (CDC), The Education Bureau. (2017). English language education: Key learning area curriculum guide (Primary 1–Secondary 6). Hong Kong: HKSAR Government Logistic Department. Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. Deleuze, G., & Parnet, C. (2007). On the superiority of Anglo-American literature. In Dialogues II (Rev. ed.) (H. Tomlinson & B. Tomlinson, Trans.) (pp. 36-76). Columbia University Press. Education Commission. (1984). Education Commission report no. 1. Government Printer. Education Commission. (1990). Education Commission report no. 4. Government Printer. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging and education. In Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 63-77). Palgrave Pivot. Hall, C. J., & Wicaksono, R. (Eds.). (2020). Ontologies of English: Conceptualising the language for learning, teaching, and assessment. Cambridge University Press. Hong Kong Government. (1974). Official languages ordinance. (No. 10/74). Government Printer. Llewellyn, S. J., Hancock, G., Kirst, M., & Roeloffs, K. (1982). A perspective on education in Hong Kong: Report by a visiting panel. Government Printer.