Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Edgar W. Schneider
Download by: [University of Nottingham - Malaysia Campus] Date: 01 November 2016, At: 22:22
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 44
Edgar W. SCHNEIDER 1
Abstract: This article presents a model which argues that a fundamentally uniform
developmental process, shaped by consistent historical, sociolinguistic and language-
contact conditions, has operated in the emergence of New Englishes, and it applies this
framework to a discussion of the evolution and some present-day features and usage
characteristics of Malaysian English. The Dynamic Model of the evolution of New
Englishes, which builds upon the mutual identity definitions by the parties involved in a
colonization process and describes five consecutive phases of evolution, is sketched
briefly. It is shown that the early history of English in Malaysia, from the establishment
of the colony of Penang to independence, conforms nicely to the generalizations made for
the first two phases, called foundation and exonormative stabilization and marked by
gradually expanding elite bilingualism and slight linguistic transfer. Malaysias
nationalist language policy of the 1960s and after impeded the further expansion and
development of English in the country; nevertheless, it is shown that Malaysian English
has progressed deeply into the third phase of nativization, being widely used in the
country in various domains and employed as a carrier of a local identity having developed
distinctive features of its own. Recent redirections of educational policy have given new
weight and impetus to English in Malaysia in a complex sociolinguistic setting.
1. INTRODUCTION
The English language as spoken in Malaysia shares much of its history and some
of its distinctive properties with other Asian varieties of the language, but in recent
decades, due to the nationalistic language policy that the country has pursued since
independence, it has been on the retreat (a trend which now seems to be reversing
again). This paper looks at the historical emergence of English in Malaysia and
some recent characteristics of Malaysian English in a coherent and holistic
framework. This framework is based on the Dynamic Model of the evolution of New
Englishes (Schneider 2003), which claims that a uniform psycholinguistic and
sociolinguistic process, with characteristic structural ramifications, underlies the
emergence of all New Englishes. In essence, with loosening ties with the mother
country leading to independence, both colonizers and settlers from (mostly) Britain
1 This is the written version of a lecture given at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in Bangi on the 12th
Dec. 2003. I extend my sincerest thanks to Prof. Saran Kaur Gill for inviting me to give this lecture and
to contribute it to this special issue and to the participants for their interesting and most welcome
reactions. In particular, I would like to thank the group of students who after the lecture spent more than
an hour with me, sharing their thoughts and attitudes on their nation and its linguistic complexities.
44
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 45
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
and the indigenous population realise that they have to forge a new nationhood
together, and these new identity constructions may find expression in a newly-
emerging variety of English, the result of a characteristic series of structural
evolution processes which result from long-term, pre- and post-independence
language contact. It is claimed that this evolutionary process proceeds along five
subsequent, characteristic stages, each of which has political, sociopsychological,
sociolinguistic and structural properties that characterise it.
The following section outlines the main ideas and pertinent components of this
Dynamic Model. For a fuller documentation, discussion, and application to further
countries, the reader is referred to Schneider (2003), where a concise tabular
summary of the main stages and components is also provided (255). The main part
of this paper will characterise the evolution and the present status of Malaysian
English in the light of this model.
Central to the Dynamic Model are several theoretical influences: identity theory
(the assumption that human behaviour, including linguistic behaviour, defines and
delimitates social group bonds as correlates of an individuals social identity;
Jenkins 1996), accommodation theory (the assumption that cooperative speakers
adjust their mutual linguistic behaviour to express their solidarity with each other;
Giles 1984), and language contact theory (which predicts that specific types of
language contact typically result in specific linguistic changes; Thomason 2001).
Establishing ones identity means defining the line of distinction between us
versus others, a differentiation which is then given symbolic expression, most
readily by linguistic means. In other words, talking in a certain way implies ones
desire to associate with others who talk the same way, and thus creates social bonds.
In a post-colonial context, this redefinition of who we and the others are
typically changes from a line of identity demarcation separating immigrants from
the regions original population to the establishment of a joint identity, based not
upon history but upon shared territory. In the early stages of colonial history
immigrant colonizers and the indigenous population consider themselves distinct
from each other, but in the course of time they have come to realise that they share a
joint future and constitute the population of a new, culturally hybrid nation an
identity construction which in many cases finds expression in a new variety of
English.
Hence, the Dynamic Model of the Evolution of New Englishes (Schneider
2003) builds upon the following central assumptions:
45
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 46
(1) In the process of the English language being uprooted and relocated in
colonial and post-colonial history, New Englishes have emerged by
undergoing a fundamentally uniform process which can be described as a
progression of five characteristic stages: foundation, exonormative
stabilization, nativization, endonormative stabilization, and differentiation.
(2) The participant groups of this process experience it in complementary ways,
from the perspective of the colonizers (settlers strand), that of the colonized
(indigenous strand), or that of other parties involved in colonial settings, like
later immigrant groups (adstrate strand). In the course of time these
developmental strands get more closely intertwined and their linguistic
correlates, in an ongoing process of mutual linguistic accommodation,
approximate each other.
(3) The stages and strands of this process are ultimately caused by and signify
reconstructions of group identities of all participating communities, with
respect to the erstwhile source society of the colonizing group, to one
another, and to the land which they jointly inhabit.
46
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 47
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
47
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 48
consistently show a marked local accent (frequently caused by transfer from the
phonology of indigenous languages), and they will nativize the language
grammatically by using constructions peculiar to the respective country. Indigenous
usage will start as preferences, variant forms used by some while at the same time a
majority of others will still stick to the old patterns; then it will develop into a habit,
used most of the time and by a rapidly increasing number of speakers, until in the
end it has turned into a rule, constitutive of the new variety and adopted by the vast
majority of language users, with a few exceptions tolerated. It is interesting to
observe that this indigenization of language structure mostly occurs on a lexico-
grammatical level, where individual words, typically high-frequency words, adopt
characteristic but marked usage and complementation patterns. Hence, we typically
find innovations in areas such as varying prepositional usage, varying verb
complementation patterns, the emergence of localized set phrases, or word-
formation products.
Phase 4, Endonormative stabilization, is marked by the gradual adoption and
acceptance of an indigenous linguistic norm, fostered by a new, locally rooted
linguistic self-confidence, even if discussions about norms of linguistic correctness
continue. This phase typically requires that political independence has been
obtained: For a local norm to be accepted also in formal contexts, it is necessary that
a community is entitled to decide language matters as affairs of her own. By this
point a community has largely reached an understanding that the new local norm
shall be accepted as adequate also in formal usage. Psycholinguistically, it is
important that the new language variety is typically regarded as a carrier of a new
regional identity, and is thus positively evaluated. For a language to gain official
recognition it is important that it is gradually codified, i.e., local usage is recorded in
accepted sources of reference like dictionaries, grammars and usage guides and
the publication of such books, in turn, strengthens the distinct dignity and
acceptance of the new variety. In addition, these attitudes are reflected by the new
variety being employed for literary writing, creative expressions of the new,
culturally hybrid identity by means of the newly adopted language variety.
By the last phase, Differentiation, the emergence of a new variety of English
trails off. Politically and culturally, and as a consequence also linguistically, a new
nation has reached not only independence, having freed herself from some external
dominant source of power and orientation, but even self-dependence, an attitude of
relying on ones own strengths, with no need to be compared to anybody elses.
Such a new, solid basis allows for more internal diversity, so at this stage new
regional and social varieties within the formerly new varieties emerge, as carriers of
new social identities within the overall community.
The next section of the paper examines whether the model is applicable to the
48
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 49
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
Schneider (2003:260) argues that Malaysian English has progressed into stage 3
and is currently undergoing nativization. On the other hand, the last deliberately
decided nationalistic language policy which the country pursued for a few decades
raises the question whether its development has come to be halted along the road, as
it were. Therefore, I will be looking at the development of Malaysian English
specifically in the light of the Dynamic Model.2 Particular emphasis will be paid to
evidence of structural nativization, the micro-sociolinguistic, strictly linguistic side
of the indigenization process.
The early stages of the transportation of English to and the spread of the
language in Malaysia are fairly well documented (e.g. Platt, Weber & Ho 1983;
Asmah 2000; Gill 2002; Nair-Venugopal 2000), and up to the countrys
independence in 1957 the developments appear to conform nicely with stages 1 and
2 of the Model. The British came to the region to establish secure trading outposts
and, at the same time, to challenge the economic and political power of other
European nations in the region, most notably the Dutch.
It all began with the establishment of the colony of Penang in 1786, as a safe
harbour for the East India Company. After some struggle, in 1824 Melaka was
ultimately taken over from the Dutch, and soon thereafter the Straits Settlement,
comprising the core British possessions of Penang, Melaka, and Singapore, were
united. Throughout much of the nineteenth century, until it gained the status of a
crown colony in 1889, the colony was governed from India, which accounts for quite
some impact of Indian English (which had been established earlier) in the early
shaping of its variety through the immigration and employment of many Indians, for
instance as teachers in English-medium schools (Platt, Weber & Ho 1983:8).
Throughout the second half of the nineteenth as well as the early phase of the
twentieth century the British influence expanded politically and geographically, if
2 The fundamental applicability of such a cyclic model, similar in orientation though slightly different in
detail, is confirmed by Gill (2002:69ff), who posits a Dependent / Exonormative Phase, an
Independent / Liberation and Expansion Phase, and a Pragmatic Post-Independence / Endonormative
Phase.
49
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 50
only rather slowly. In the Treaty of Pangkor of 1874 a British advisor to the Sultan
of Perak was established, and 1896 saw the foundation of the Federation of Malaya,
subject to the jurisdiction of a British Resident General.
Large-scale population movements caused by the British during that period are
the basis of Malaysias present-day multicultural make-up. Notwithstanding
migrations of smaller groups and the presence of indigenous Orang Asli, two major
adstrate groups were attracted: Mostly throughout the second half of the nineteenth
century Chinese people came to work in the tin mines; and predominantly the early
twentieth century saw the immigration of Indian (primarily Tamil) workers to labour
in the rubber plantations. In addition, the British colonial government provided
incentives for smaller groups to migrate as well and to bring into effect their own
special skills like the Punjabi Sikhs, who originally constituted a strong portion
of the police force.
With the stable colonial status of the 19th and 20th centuries came an ever-
increasing demand for English. English-medium schools, run both by Christian
missions and the government, were established, beginning early in the 19th century
in the Straits Settlement but gradually spreading to the Malay states as well. The
goal of these institutions was strictly utilitarian, serving the interests of the British:
to train a local elite for administrative and service functions, and essentially formal
access to English was a privilege to those of higher status amongst the indigenous
population. This attitude is epitomised by the establishment of the Malay College of
Kuala Kangsar (known as MCKK) in the 1920s, a boarding school reserved for the
sons of the Malay rulers and those of noble birth which nurtured civil servants and
top administrators (Asmah 2000:13); in a similar vein, the foundation of a
corresponding girls school, the MGC in KL as late as in 1947, was originally meant
to educate suitable matches as partners for the local elite. Education at these
institutions implied complete immersion into English: when the British began to
withdraw from the area in the late 1950s, English had become the dominant
language of the non-European elites, both as a language of power and prestige and
as an inter-ethnic link language (Lowenberg 1991:365). This educational policy had
long-lasting effects that went beyond what the British had had in mind: English-
medium education in these institutions created inter-ethnic bonds and established a
value system that soon thereafter paved the way to a desire for independence.
Certainly through many daily interactions and also some less upwardly orientated
institutions, also through stipends for the gifted but less affluent, English in that
period also spread beyond these social confines into the vernacular domain, but only
hesitantly so: English prior to Independence in 1957 had an exclusionist-cum-
divisive function (Asmah 1996:515).
The colonial period of 1786 to 1957 quite clearly corresponds to phases 1 and 2
50
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 51
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
of the Dynamic Model. In that light, the following constituent factors and details
peculiar to Malaysia can be identified:
* The political status of the region, including but going beyond political entities
like the Straits Settlement and the Federated Malay States, was fully in line
with the model, leading from the arrival of the English and their language to a
long-term stable colonial status, with the Empire gradually expanding its
sphere of influence and dominance.
* In Malaya, the transition from phase 1 to phase 2 cannot be dated precisely,
having been marked by a gradual extension of the colonial grip and impact. In
that respect the region is not a unity, because British influence and power
spread slowly and gradually from a small number of coastal enclaves along the
coastal regions and into the interior as well as, even later, to the states of
Sarawak and Sabah. The implication is that the onset of phase 2, a stable,
exonormative colonial orientation, can be dated perhaps a century earlier in
Penang and Melaka than, for instance, in the non-Federated States.
* Malaya was a trade settlement in Mufwenes (2001) terms, i.e. British in-
migrants performed functions in the interest of the Empire and their trade
company but did not perceive themselves as settlers in the strict sense;
therefore, the breadth and impact of the settlers strand, like the number of
expatriate residents, were relatively limited.
* To a large extent the identity writings of the parties involved, European settlers
and the Asian indigenous population, were in line with the models predictions.
Agents and representatives of the Empires perceived themselves as British
outposts in the tropics an identity construction which renowned authors like
Somerset Maugham, Joseph Conrad and Anthony Burgess have represented in
English literature and which we see symbolized in the Hill Stations which
the British established, preserving a reminiscence of a home environment in a
foreign climate. Conversely, it is clear that the indigenous rulers accepted an
English education for their sons and also daughters as an enriching
contribution to their enduring local roots and status.
* Consequently, as predicted, in the indigenous strand bilingualism spread
continuously, although locally it remained largely associated with elitism and
reserved to a minority.
* The distinctively Malay setting was enriched by the growth and importance of
Chinese and Indian adstrate communities throughout colonial history.
Sociolinguistically, these two groups can be compared to the ethnic Malays but
adopt distinct accommodation strategies of their own. In a global British
perspective the Chinese and Indians, together with the original Malays,
constituted the Asian, in a broader regional, i.e. non-European, sense
51
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 52
With the constitution of 1957, the cutting back of the role of English began.
English was retained as a co-official language in addition to Malay for a transition
period, but the pronounced intention was to develop Malay into a national language
and to remove this special status of English after a ten-year transition period. Due to
regional differences caused by the union with part of Borneo this period was
extended somewhat: The official status of English ceased in peninsular Malaysia in
52
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 53
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
1967, in Sabah in 1973, and in Sarawak in 1985 (Asmah 2000:15). Formally, the
National Language Act of 1976 ... disestablished English as the joint official
language, giving sole status to Malay (Gill 2002:25).
The policy of replacing English by Bahasa Malaysia was also an element in the
power struggle between the Malays and the successful and increasingly influential
Chinese and South Asians (Lowenberg 1991:365). Depriving English of its formerly
privileged status was a logical, in a sense an unavoidable step on the side of the
government, as Gill (2002) points out otherwise, no room would have been left
for the full development of Bahasa Malaysia. In practice the most important step in
the implementation of the new policy was the Ministry of Educations decision to
turn all English-medium schools into Malay-medium, beginning in 1969, a process
which was completed, reaching university entrance level, by 1983. Today, it is
widely accepted that Bahasa Malaysia has securely established its position as a truly
national language (Jernudd 2003:59). On the one hand, in many regions of rural
Malaysia, English is of little use; on the other, it is true that young Malaysians of all
ethnicities are fully conversant in and comfortable with the Malay language.
It is perhaps this security that has resulted from the practical success of the
national language policy, the fact that Bahasa Malaysia is fully entrenched in the
nation now without serious challenges, that has allowed a partial redirection of the
nations language policy that started in the early 1990s. This newly pragmatic
orientation was presumably triggered, certainly fostered by the former Prime
Minister Dr. Mahathirs policy of Vision 2020, the goal of turning Malaysia into a
fully developed country by that year. The implied emphasis on globalization and
technological advancement requires full fluency in English on the side of Malaysian
engineers and businesspeople, amongst others. Consequently, the Education Act of
1996 approved of the re-introduction of English as a medium of instruction in
technical subjects. On the other hand, there is a Malay intelligentsia in the country,
represented by the Malay Intellectual Congress, who resisted the early proposals in
1993 to re-introduce English as a medium of instruction in the sciences (for
documentation see Gill 2002:110-112; cf. Nair-Venugopal 2000:49), arguing that it
would weaken the further development of the Malay language. Hence, it was only in
2003 that the new English-medium policy for teaching Maths and the Sciences was
put into effect. In sum, Malaysias recent language policy has been marked by non-
linear developments and opposing tensions and tendencies,3 and it is too early to
predict its long-term effects.
3 The tensions can be sensed reading Gill (2002), a book which strongly argues in favour of upholding
high standards of Malaysian English for the Malaysian business community and also for the population
at large to be able to empower themselves and create opportunities on the Malaysian and international
platforms.
53
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 54
Given the developments of the last few decades, where does Malaysian English
stand, then, in the light of the Dynamic Model? I claim that despite the opposing
forces just discussed it has proceeded substantially into phase 3, nativization.
54
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 55
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
55
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 56
* merger of [i] and []: feel fill, bead bid all have [i]
* merger of [u] and []: pool pull, Luke look all have [u]
* merger of [e] and []: set sat, man men all have [e]
* merger of [] and []: pot port, cot caught all have [o]
* variant realizations of []: schwa tends to get replaced by a full vowel, the
quality of which frequently depends upon orthography
* monophthongization of diphthongs: e.g. coat, load with [o], make, steak with
[e]
* shift in the placement of accents.
4 The following descriptive statements are based partly upon the literature (with sources identified) and
partly upon observations of my own during my recent stay in Malaysia in December 2003.
56
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 57
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
57
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 58
58
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 59
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
suggested that ...; English is used at tertiary level; ... perception of falling
object; English football league has ...; and Leading diploma programs that lead
you to [] local and international degree. The last example, which I observed on a
poster advertising English courses (!) in the centre of Kuala Lumpur, indicates that
this pattern is absolutely accepted in a formal context; there is obviously no
awareness of the lack of an article in this structure being remarkable in any way.
Not surprisingly, the lexis of Malaysian English has incorporated borrowings
from indigenous languages. This includes many spheres of life, predominantly
culturally distinctive terms (e.g. tudung), including words for different ethnic kinds
of food. Lowenberg (1991:367-369) shows that Malaysian policy thrives upon what
he calls banner words; he cites gotong-royong, adat, bumiputra, or rakyat as
examples. David (2000) probes into another segment of vocabulary which is both
regionally and socially restricted, namely newly-emerged adolescent in-group slang;
she lists the following examples (amongst many others): dungu stupid, wasted
sperm useless individual, chun nice, lepak blues, bang criticise, slambar
relax, or Like reallah!
Finally, there is an additional phenomenon that can also be subsumed under the
notion of structural nativization, namely the emergence of code-shifting and code-
mixing as an unmarked communicative device. In their daily interactions speakers
who share a multilingual repertoire freely insert words from one language into a
stretch of discourse that is basically in another, or they simply mix languages in
largely unconstrained ways. It is not surprising that in a multilingual country like
Malaysia, and especially among the young who have expressly been raised
multilingually, this occurs on a fairly regular basis. There are signs that this mixed
code is assuming the role of a positive identity carrier, either in addition to or
replacing Malay and/or mesolectal English in that social function (Lowenberg
1991:372; Nair-Venugopal 2000:55; David 2000:71; cf. Malaysian students
interview statements reported below and Thompson 2003 on the same process in the
Philippines).
Certainly, at this time it would be futile to claim that Malaysia has moved or is
moving beyond stage 3 of the Dynamic Model. However, in cyclic models
overlapping phenomena from successive phases are to be expected, so it may be
asked if there are any traces of even later stages discernible in Malaysia.
A feature which typically marks the transition between phases 3 and 4 is the
complaint tradition. This attitude of upholding an external norm and complaining
about the presumed loss of old standards can also be observed at times in Malaysias
59
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 60
60
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 61
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
61
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 62
personalities.
In sum, it can be stated that the Malaysian students I talked to wish to see the
cultural and linguistic heritage of Malaysia recognised and employed in all of its
richness and diversity.
REFERENCES
62
04.Articles(Schn-final 04.5.11 2:35 PM 63
Evolutionary Patterns of New Englishes and the Special Case of Malaysian English
Library Pty.
Merican, Fadillah. 2000. Going native and staying strong: Malaysian fiction in
English. In Halimah and Ng (eds.), 2000. 107-38.
Morais, Elaine. 2000. Talking in English but thinking like a Malaysian: insights
from a car assembly plant. In Halimah and Ng (eds.), 2000. 90-106.
Morais, Elaine. 2001. Lectal varieties of Malaysian English. In Ooi (ed.), 2001.
33-52.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nair-Venugopal, Shanta. 2000. Language choice and communication in Malaysian
business. Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Newbrook, Mark. 1997. Malaysian English: Status, norms, some grammatical and
lexical features. In Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), Englishes around the world. Vol.
2: Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Australasia. (Varieties of English Around the
World, G18, G19) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. 229-256.
Platt, John, Heidi Weber and Mian Lian Ho. 1983. Singapore and Malaysia.
(Varieties of English Around the World, T4) Amsterdam, Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Salleh, Habibah. 2000. Which English? And, does it matter? In Halimah and Ng
(eds.), 2000. 57-63.
Schneider, Edgar W. 2003. The dynamics of New Englishes: From identity
construction to dialect birth. Language 79:3. 233-281.
Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language contact: An introduction. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Thompson, Roger M. 2003. Filipino English and Taglish: Language switching from
multiple perspectives. (Varieties of English Around the World, G31)
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Times-Chambers Essential English Dictionary. 1997. 2nd ed. Singapore: Federal
Publications.
Zuraidah, Mohd Don. 2000. Malay + English -> a Malay variety of English vowels
and accent. In Halimah and Ng (eds.), 2000. 35-45.
63