The chapter begins with a discussion of the linguistic and sociolinguistic motivations that lead to the creation of distinctive linguistic features in new varieties of English. This will include a review of issues connected with language contact, nativisation and the nature of code-mixing. The second part of the chapter will focus on the major issues confronting regional language policy makers associated with the teaching and learning of different languages for different needs. A consideration of the continuing use of local languages given the domain spread of English and regional lingua francas, including the increasingly important Putonghua, concludes the chapter.
This chapter first provides a broad historical overview about how English came to be used in Singapore and landmark language policies are also mentioned to provide an understanding about the status and roles that English has attained in the country. Next, a discussion of the main models for language variation in Singapore (Standard and Colloquial Singapore English) is included. The phonetic/phonological description of English in Singapore takes into account the acoustic research work done to substantiate earlier impressionistic descriptions. Wells’ (1982) lexical word sets are used to provide a standard means of comparing the realization of vowels across the different varieties covered in this volume. The grammatical and lexical description draws on work done by Lim (2004) and Deterding (2007).
This chapter provides an overview of the status of Malaysian English (MalE) and discusses the phonological, grammatical and lexical features of this variety. It begins by giving the socio-historical and socio-political context in which this variety is found, illustrating the cultural diversity of and regional differences in the country. Features of pronunciation, grammar and lexis are described and exemplified. This is done firstly by providing a description of the vowels, consonants and suprasegmental features found. Secondly, structural nativization at the grammatical level is discussed focussing on noun phrase structure and verb phrase structure. Thirdly, lexis in MalE is highlighted and categorised according to whether they are globally known or locally known, used formally of informally, their ethnic origin as well as their currency.
This chapter offers a partial synchronic description of some features of Brunei English. This variety can be distinguished from closely-related Englishes in neighbouring Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines through the study of the linguistic ecosystem that prevails in Negara Brunei Darussalam. The distinctiveness of the major in-group code choice of Bruneians, Brunei Malay, from other Malay varieties, is especially salient. Discussion of phonological features draws on recent work by Salbrina Haji Sharbawi (2006, 2009), and on earlier studies by Mossop (1996a, 1996b). The description of the syntax and morphology of Brunei English refers to the work of Cane (1994, 1996), whilst lexical and discoursal features are discussed with reference to work done separately and collaboratively by the authors.
Philippine English is a legitimate nativized variety of English. It is the language used by Filipinos in controlling domains such as science and technology, the judiciary, the legislature, bureaucracy, higher education, scholarly discourse, and the like. While it shares some of the linguistic properties ascribed to other varieties of English, especially those used in Asia, it has features that are unique to it. Based on findings of previous empirical studies, this chapter aims to describe the core linguistic features of Philippine English at the phonological (segmental and suprasegmental), lexical, grammatical and discourse levels. It also touches on the international intelligibility of the spoken register of this variety.
This chapter aims to provide information about Thai English, an English in the Expanding Circle, as a possible emerging variety of world Englishes. Firstly, an overview of English which is a foreign language in Thailand is provided in terms of its use, users, and its influential status. Secondly, distinctive features of Thai English are presented. Finally, a conclusion on how Thai English can be viewed as a new variety of world Englishes is drawn.
The status of Hong Kong English (henceforth HKE) as a ‘variety’ is still open to question, between a ‘nascent’ variety of English and a fully-fledged one. The phonology of HKE exhibits a smaller set of vowel and consonant contrasts than native varieties and other notable features include: initial [l]~[n] alternation (as in no~low), reduction of diphthongs before a [+stop] (take, joke, town), etc. Suprasegmental features of HKE include syllable-timed rhythm, distinctive stress patterns and absence of vowel reduction. Lexically, HKE includes novel expressions and grammatical structures often influenced by Cantonese.
Drawing on seminal works in the literature (e.g. Foley et al. 1998; Gupta 1994; Platt & Weber 1980), this chapter presents a historical account of the sociolinguistic landscape of Singapore from the time of post-British colonial rule to the present day. It examines how English use in Singapore has undergone rapid change because of the speed at which Singapore has developed as a nation (Lim & Foley 2004), and the way in which globalization has accentuated the duality of roles of English, as a local bridge language and as a “cash language”. Such development is examined against the background of national language policies enforced through the education system to serve Singapore’s political agenda and economic interest, but which marginalizes the cultural role of English as a local language.
The Malaysian government’s ruling that Malaysian schools use English as the medium for teaching Science and Mathematics (henceforth TSME) starting January 2003 had engendered various reactions (the switch back to Malay took place in 2010). These reactions, supportive or otherwise, cut across the boundaries of the racial groups: Malays, Chinese and Indians. After independence, English schools became national schools, using Malay as the medium of instruction, with English as a compulsory language, even for the Chinese and Tamil schools. Malay opposition to TSME in English has a nationalistic and historical basis. Chinese opposition finds a basis in cognitive concerns while the Indians seem to be neutral for various reasons. This chapter discusses the perception of TSME in English among Malaysians in the light of national language policy and planning and the government’s intent in achieving Vision 2020.
Although Brunei is one of the oldest established states in Southeast Asia, education planning and language planning in particular are recent phenomena. Basic formal education, limited to a small number of boys only, was introduced in 1912 while language planning was only vaguely described in the 1950s and then formally as a language-in-education plan in 1984. This chapter analyses present language planning in relation to its historical context. In particular, it examines why two non-Bruneian languages, Standard Malay and English, emerged as the current mediums of education in the country’s schools. Brunei’s geography, its recent history and current economic and political events all contribute to the present status of language planning in Brunei.
This chapter presents the English language from the viewpoint of language policy. English was first introduced to the Filipinos through the American public school system and, for half a century, the language was systematically promoted as a civilizing tool. Today, beliefs and attitudes about English, as well as the various ways in which the language is used, may be traced to the Filipino experience of American colonial education. A brief survey of the English language policy situation in the Philippines from the American colonial period to contemporary times reveals diffusions in language policy formulation. Such diffusion has resulted in conflicting policies and practices that marginalize Philippine languages and contribute to the further deterioration of education among Filipino children.
In Thailand, education is the main area in which language policy is enacted, and this chapter investigates foreign language policy and practice, especially concerning English, in an attempt to shed light on language policy. We identify seven sources of English language education policy, namely, the National Education Act, national education standards, Ministry of Education recommended textbooks, isolated Ministry of Education initiatives, demand-driven changes in the types of schools, test washback, and decentralised decision making. We show that these sources present conflicting versions of language policy. To examine how the policies are implemented in practice, we interviewed principals and teachers at four representative government secondary schools. The findings show awareness of the various policies but a great diversity in how they are implemented.
Until 1974, Chinese had no de jure status as an official language of Hong Kong where the colonial government had often claimed to favour a laissez-faire approach to language planning. In the run-up to the resumption of Chinese sovereignty throughout the 1990s, official policy became more interventionist. From 1995, the stated policy of the government has been to promote a “biliterate” and “trilingual” society, and the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in schools. Immediately after the change in sovereignty, Putonghua became a compulsory school subject. This chapter examines the issue of language planning and policies both from a historical perspective and through a consideration of current policies and practice across the domains of government, law and education in Hong Kong.
To a large extent, the importance of English in a given Southeast Asian legal system reflects the extent to which the polity in which it is situated is perceived as an ESL rather than an EFL society. Thus Singapore, Malaysia, Myanmar and Hong Kong SAR, which were British colonies, Brunei, a former British protectorate, and the Philippines, a former American colony, have all evolved into societies in which an influential section of the population uses English in a variety of local domains and above all in the legal one. Conversely, polities once colonised by non-anglophone countries (Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Macao SAR) and those that avoided colonisation altogether (Thailand) have legal systems in which English plays a minor role at best.
This chapter takes a synchronic approach to the investigation of influences of other languages on Malaysian, Singapore, Philippine and Brunei English. Whilst it would be naïve to describe all features as simply the result of transfer from other languages, it is important to consider the axiom that all Southeast Asian Englishes are spoken and written by people who have access to other languages and for whom English is an add-on. It is suggested that all Southeast Asian Englishes are code-mixed varieties, and the main focus is on aspects of code-switching and on broader issues of language contact and pidginisation. In the discussion section, a framework from code-switching research is outlined for analysis at both text- and sentence-level.
The World Englishes (henceforth WE) paradigm has made possible the recognition of legitimate Outer Circle varieties, with nascent inroads into pedagogy. This has been followed by growing acceptance in the Expanding Circle. Nevertheless there is also resistance, rendering the adoption of a WE approach in the Expanding Circle unresolved. The author outlines the relevance of WE theory to the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles, and its ramifications for educators and students in those differing contexts, drawing on the work of Kachru, Mufwene, Seidlhofer, and Sridhar. He then looks at how a WE-informed curriculum can be implemented in the Expanding Circle. The chapter also addresses the fundamental teacher-education efforts needed to assure that the theoretical vision of Additive Language Learning is realized in practitioners’ daily implementation.
Southeast Asian countries are diverse in their histories, ethnic and racial populations, and languages. English in these countries therefore functions within a wide variety of roles and contexts that are not always very similar to one another. One exception to this, however, is the role of English within popular culture. This chapter examines the different ways that English is used across popular culture in Southeast Asia. As the linguistic expressions in popular culture are not “naturally occurring” or spontaneous uses of language, popular culture data have long been overlooked in sociolinguistic descriptions of Englishes. Therefore this chapter also proposes a rationale and methods for the study of pop English in Southeast Asia.
The Internet has come to dominate our lives and emerged as one of the key communication technologies. Since the Internet is a medium which can be considered revolutionary and is therefore bound to have a profound effect on language, it is crucial to evaluate and study its impact on language. Although many have noted the linguistic changes emerging in online communication, not many have studied the phenomenon and written about it. This study examines the extent to which the Internet fosters diversity of languages or English dominance. In addition, it looks at how standard English competes with various varieties of English in online realms in Malaysia and the complex interrelationship between the Internet and English language variation in Malaysia.
This chapter attempts to investigate linguistic politeness in Malay and Malaysian English (henceforth MalE) and has three primary objectives. Firstly, it aims to compare the two systems of politeness through the use of politeness markers in Malay and MalE. Secondly, it sets out to identify the levels of directness and typical politeness markers that are common when Face Threatening Acts (henceforth FTAs) are performed in the two languages amongst educated Malay bilingual speakers in Malaysia. It is hoped that this study will afford a clearer picture of the linguistic permutations of the transfers of directness levels in multilingual Malaysia. Thirdly, the chapter will compare the data obtained for Malay and MalE with that of House and Kasper’s (1981) for British English (henceforth BrE) as the parameters of this chapter have been extensively modelled on those of House and Kasper.
The chapter begins with a discussion of the linguistic and sociolinguistic motivations that lead to the creation of distinctive linguistic features in new varieties of English. This will include a review of issues connected with language contact, nativisation and the nature of code-mixing. The second part of the chapter will focus on the major issues confronting regional language policy makers associated with the teaching and learning of different languages for different needs. A consideration of the continuing use of local languages given the domain spread of English and regional lingua francas, including the increasingly important Putonghua, concludes the chapter.
This chapter first provides a broad historical overview about how English came to be used in Singapore and landmark language policies are also mentioned to provide an understanding about the status and roles that English has attained in the country. Next, a discussion of the main models for language variation in Singapore (Standard and Colloquial Singapore English) is included. The phonetic/phonological description of English in Singapore takes into account the acoustic research work done to substantiate earlier impressionistic descriptions. Wells’ (1982) lexical word sets are used to provide a standard means of comparing the realization of vowels across the different varieties covered in this volume. The grammatical and lexical description draws on work done by Lim (2004) and Deterding (2007).
This chapter provides an overview of the status of Malaysian English (MalE) and discusses the phonological, grammatical and lexical features of this variety. It begins by giving the socio-historical and socio-political context in which this variety is found, illustrating the cultural diversity of and regional differences in the country. Features of pronunciation, grammar and lexis are described and exemplified. This is done firstly by providing a description of the vowels, consonants and suprasegmental features found. Secondly, structural nativization at the grammatical level is discussed focussing on noun phrase structure and verb phrase structure. Thirdly, lexis in MalE is highlighted and categorised according to whether they are globally known or locally known, used formally of informally, their ethnic origin as well as their currency.
This chapter offers a partial synchronic description of some features of Brunei English. This variety can be distinguished from closely-related Englishes in neighbouring Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines through the study of the linguistic ecosystem that prevails in Negara Brunei Darussalam. The distinctiveness of the major in-group code choice of Bruneians, Brunei Malay, from other Malay varieties, is especially salient. Discussion of phonological features draws on recent work by Salbrina Haji Sharbawi (2006, 2009), and on earlier studies by Mossop (1996a, 1996b). The description of the syntax and morphology of Brunei English refers to the work of Cane (1994, 1996), whilst lexical and discoursal features are discussed with reference to work done separately and collaboratively by the authors.
Philippine English is a legitimate nativized variety of English. It is the language used by Filipinos in controlling domains such as science and technology, the judiciary, the legislature, bureaucracy, higher education, scholarly discourse, and the like. While it shares some of the linguistic properties ascribed to other varieties of English, especially those used in Asia, it has features that are unique to it. Based on findings of previous empirical studies, this chapter aims to describe the core linguistic features of Philippine English at the phonological (segmental and suprasegmental), lexical, grammatical and discourse levels. It also touches on the international intelligibility of the spoken register of this variety.
This chapter aims to provide information about Thai English, an English in the Expanding Circle, as a possible emerging variety of world Englishes. Firstly, an overview of English which is a foreign language in Thailand is provided in terms of its use, users, and its influential status. Secondly, distinctive features of Thai English are presented. Finally, a conclusion on how Thai English can be viewed as a new variety of world Englishes is drawn.
The status of Hong Kong English (henceforth HKE) as a ‘variety’ is still open to question, between a ‘nascent’ variety of English and a fully-fledged one. The phonology of HKE exhibits a smaller set of vowel and consonant contrasts than native varieties and other notable features include: initial [l]~[n] alternation (as in no~low), reduction of diphthongs before a [+stop] (take, joke, town), etc. Suprasegmental features of HKE include syllable-timed rhythm, distinctive stress patterns and absence of vowel reduction. Lexically, HKE includes novel expressions and grammatical structures often influenced by Cantonese.
Drawing on seminal works in the literature (e.g. Foley et al. 1998; Gupta 1994; Platt & Weber 1980), this chapter presents a historical account of the sociolinguistic landscape of Singapore from the time of post-British colonial rule to the present day. It examines how English use in Singapore has undergone rapid change because of the speed at which Singapore has developed as a nation (Lim & Foley 2004), and the way in which globalization has accentuated the duality of roles of English, as a local bridge language and as a “cash language”. Such development is examined against the background of national language policies enforced through the education system to serve Singapore’s political agenda and economic interest, but which marginalizes the cultural role of English as a local language.
The Malaysian government’s ruling that Malaysian schools use English as the medium for teaching Science and Mathematics (henceforth TSME) starting January 2003 had engendered various reactions (the switch back to Malay took place in 2010). These reactions, supportive or otherwise, cut across the boundaries of the racial groups: Malays, Chinese and Indians. After independence, English schools became national schools, using Malay as the medium of instruction, with English as a compulsory language, even for the Chinese and Tamil schools. Malay opposition to TSME in English has a nationalistic and historical basis. Chinese opposition finds a basis in cognitive concerns while the Indians seem to be neutral for various reasons. This chapter discusses the perception of TSME in English among Malaysians in the light of national language policy and planning and the government’s intent in achieving Vision 2020.
Although Brunei is one of the oldest established states in Southeast Asia, education planning and language planning in particular are recent phenomena. Basic formal education, limited to a small number of boys only, was introduced in 1912 while language planning was only vaguely described in the 1950s and then formally as a language-in-education plan in 1984. This chapter analyses present language planning in relation to its historical context. In particular, it examines why two non-Bruneian languages, Standard Malay and English, emerged as the current mediums of education in the country’s schools. Brunei’s geography, its recent history and current economic and political events all contribute to the present status of language planning in Brunei.
This chapter presents the English language from the viewpoint of language policy. English was first introduced to the Filipinos through the American public school system and, for half a century, the language was systematically promoted as a civilizing tool. Today, beliefs and attitudes about English, as well as the various ways in which the language is used, may be traced to the Filipino experience of American colonial education. A brief survey of the English language policy situation in the Philippines from the American colonial period to contemporary times reveals diffusions in language policy formulation. Such diffusion has resulted in conflicting policies and practices that marginalize Philippine languages and contribute to the further deterioration of education among Filipino children.
In Thailand, education is the main area in which language policy is enacted, and this chapter investigates foreign language policy and practice, especially concerning English, in an attempt to shed light on language policy. We identify seven sources of English language education policy, namely, the National Education Act, national education standards, Ministry of Education recommended textbooks, isolated Ministry of Education initiatives, demand-driven changes in the types of schools, test washback, and decentralised decision making. We show that these sources present conflicting versions of language policy. To examine how the policies are implemented in practice, we interviewed principals and teachers at four representative government secondary schools. The findings show awareness of the various policies but a great diversity in how they are implemented.
Until 1974, Chinese had no de jure status as an official language of Hong Kong where the colonial government had often claimed to favour a laissez-faire approach to language planning. In the run-up to the resumption of Chinese sovereignty throughout the 1990s, official policy became more interventionist. From 1995, the stated policy of the government has been to promote a “biliterate” and “trilingual” society, and the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction in schools. Immediately after the change in sovereignty, Putonghua became a compulsory school subject. This chapter examines the issue of language planning and policies both from a historical perspective and through a consideration of current policies and practice across the domains of government, law and education in Hong Kong.
To a large extent, the importance of English in a given Southeast Asian legal system reflects the extent to which the polity in which it is situated is perceived as an ESL rather than an EFL society. Thus Singapore, Malaysia, Myanmar and Hong Kong SAR, which were British colonies, Brunei, a former British protectorate, and the Philippines, a former American colony, have all evolved into societies in which an influential section of the population uses English in a variety of local domains and above all in the legal one. Conversely, polities once colonised by non-anglophone countries (Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Macao SAR) and those that avoided colonisation altogether (Thailand) have legal systems in which English plays a minor role at best.
This chapter takes a synchronic approach to the investigation of influences of other languages on Malaysian, Singapore, Philippine and Brunei English. Whilst it would be naïve to describe all features as simply the result of transfer from other languages, it is important to consider the axiom that all Southeast Asian Englishes are spoken and written by people who have access to other languages and for whom English is an add-on. It is suggested that all Southeast Asian Englishes are code-mixed varieties, and the main focus is on aspects of code-switching and on broader issues of language contact and pidginisation. In the discussion section, a framework from code-switching research is outlined for analysis at both text- and sentence-level.
The World Englishes (henceforth WE) paradigm has made possible the recognition of legitimate Outer Circle varieties, with nascent inroads into pedagogy. This has been followed by growing acceptance in the Expanding Circle. Nevertheless there is also resistance, rendering the adoption of a WE approach in the Expanding Circle unresolved. The author outlines the relevance of WE theory to the Inner, Outer and Expanding Circles, and its ramifications for educators and students in those differing contexts, drawing on the work of Kachru, Mufwene, Seidlhofer, and Sridhar. He then looks at how a WE-informed curriculum can be implemented in the Expanding Circle. The chapter also addresses the fundamental teacher-education efforts needed to assure that the theoretical vision of Additive Language Learning is realized in practitioners’ daily implementation.
Southeast Asian countries are diverse in their histories, ethnic and racial populations, and languages. English in these countries therefore functions within a wide variety of roles and contexts that are not always very similar to one another. One exception to this, however, is the role of English within popular culture. This chapter examines the different ways that English is used across popular culture in Southeast Asia. As the linguistic expressions in popular culture are not “naturally occurring” or spontaneous uses of language, popular culture data have long been overlooked in sociolinguistic descriptions of Englishes. Therefore this chapter also proposes a rationale and methods for the study of pop English in Southeast Asia.
The Internet has come to dominate our lives and emerged as one of the key communication technologies. Since the Internet is a medium which can be considered revolutionary and is therefore bound to have a profound effect on language, it is crucial to evaluate and study its impact on language. Although many have noted the linguistic changes emerging in online communication, not many have studied the phenomenon and written about it. This study examines the extent to which the Internet fosters diversity of languages or English dominance. In addition, it looks at how standard English competes with various varieties of English in online realms in Malaysia and the complex interrelationship between the Internet and English language variation in Malaysia.
This chapter attempts to investigate linguistic politeness in Malay and Malaysian English (henceforth MalE) and has three primary objectives. Firstly, it aims to compare the two systems of politeness through the use of politeness markers in Malay and MalE. Secondly, it sets out to identify the levels of directness and typical politeness markers that are common when Face Threatening Acts (henceforth FTAs) are performed in the two languages amongst educated Malay bilingual speakers in Malaysia. It is hoped that this study will afford a clearer picture of the linguistic permutations of the transfers of directness levels in multilingual Malaysia. Thirdly, the chapter will compare the data obtained for Malay and MalE with that of House and Kasper’s (1981) for British English (henceforth BrE) as the parameters of this chapter have been extensively modelled on those of House and Kasper.