THE LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE IN MALAYSIA

In the year 1957, the language Bahasa Malaysia, or previously known as Bahasa Melayu, is recognised as the official language for Malaya in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution. However, the role of the language as the official language was to be fully attained ten years after independence, after the use of English in official situations had been phased out. Finally, the language was implemented as a national and official language of Malaysia on 1 st of September in 1967 for the Malay Peninsula, for the state of Sabah in 1973 and for the state of Sarawak in 1985. In Malaysia, this national and official language also plays the role as an integrating device for uniting the citizens of the country.

Bahasa Malaysia can be written using the Latin alphabet or Arabic alphabet (Jawi). The Latin alphabet however, is the more commonly used script for both official and informal use of the language. Many words have also been borrowed into Bahasa Malaysia. These borrowed words have mainly come from Arabic, Sanskrit, Tamil, Persian, Portuguese, Dutch and even certain Chinese dialects. Many English words especially from the scientific and technological spheres

have been borrowed and “accommodated” into the language (especially in the

way these words are spelt).

In all Malaysian schools (with the exception of national-type schools), Bahasa

67 -9

Malaysia is the medium of instruction. Almost all (except the English language)

subjects are taught in this language. In national-type schools, the language is N

taught as a compulsory subject. This means that effectively, all Malaysian school- I

going citizens would attain a certain level of competence in the language

IN D

E CE

regardless of ethnic background. The result of this is a citizenry who may or may

not have native-like proficiency in the language but would definitely be able to

comprehend and function reasonably using the national language. On the other P

hand, the English language also plays a dominant role in the linguistic landscape

of the nation for a variety of reasons, mainly historical, economic and social. The

English language has and continues to be widely used in many professional and

CO 1 2 0

commercial workplaces in Malaysia.

I2 N

E CC Ethnolinguistic Vitality

The notion of ethnolinguistic vitality was introduced by Giles, Bourhis and

Taylor (1977) and it is used as a gauge of the socio structural factors that affect Taylor (1977) and it is used as a gauge of the socio structural factors that affect

Fig. 1 The Objective Factors for Assessing Ethnolinguistic Vitality

E D IN

(Giles, Bourhis & Taylor, 1977)

According to Giles et al., status factors include the ethnic group’s economic

status, its social and socio-historical prestige as well the language status - both P

N within and outside the intergroup setting. They proposed that status factors can E

determine and affect the social identity of linguistic group members. They also

postulated that the group’s language which has international recognition has a

1 2 0 CO

clear advantage over other groups’ languages which may not or hardly be

N I2

internationally recognised. An example of this is the French speaking group in

CC E

Quebec which has a clear advantage over other groups whose language is

internationally hardly recognised (Giles et al., 1977). Secondly, demographic

factors which include the actual number of the group members, its distribution factors which include the actual number of the group members, its distribution

Minority group speakers who are concentrated in the same geographical area may stand a better chance of surviving as a dynamic linguistic community by virtue of the fact that they are in frequent verbal interaction and can maintain feelings of solidarity (Giles et al., 1977)

Thirdly, institutional support factors refer to the extent which the ethnic group has gained formal and informal support from institutions of a community, region, state, or a national setting. Formal supports are where the members of the group gained positions of control at the decision-making levels of the government apparatus, in business, industry, mass media, religious and cultural domains while informal support actually refers to the community-internal institutions, such as the pressure groups (Giles et al., 1977). A pressure group is

a group which has organised itself to represent and safeguard its own ethnolinguistic interests in various state and private activities including education, mass media, government services, business, finance, etc.

However, the framework above by Giles et al. is subjected to several

modifications and amendments. As mentioned by Giles et al. themselves, the -25

socio-political factors that affect the ethnolinguistic vitality are not exhaustive or

necessarily mutually exclusive (Giles et al., 1977). Therefore, there can be any 67

other additional factors which could be added into the three main sets of

variables identified in this framework. Their framework has also been criticised

SB I

because it only allows measuring the vitality ‘objectively,’ which means

measuring only from outside the group; it does not really study about the

IN E D

group’s perception of its own vitality. Although the objective vitality of a group

might be low, the subjective perception of the group towards its own vitality O R

might be much higher. Furthermore, they analysed vitality by only assessing the P

related factors that have an effect on it. Their findings are basically organised

descriptions of the factors which characterised the group and their language

usage. Plus, as the social settings will be different for every language group, CO

therefore only surface and simple comparisons can be made and this may result

N I2

in limitations on the information obtained from the analysis. Due to these

CC E

reasons, there is actually no precise measurement for the complete R

understanding and measurement of the objective vitality of the language. This

In 1981, Bourhis, Giles and Rosenthal proposed that a group’s members’ subjective vitality perceptions of each of these variables may be as important as the group’s ‘objective’ vitality and thus, they proposed the theory of “subjective” ethnolinguistic vitality (SEV). Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality is defined as a perception of the ethnolinguistic group members towards own and also other groups’ vitality that were in contact with their group (Bourhis et al., 1981). It was also forwarded that the subjective factors could be used to study the language behaviour of the group members. Therefore, in order to study the subjective vitality perceptions, Bourhis et al. (1981) designed the subjective ethnolinguistic vitality questionnaire (SEVQ). They later used this questionnaire as an instrument to study about the language behaviour in Greek and Anglo communities in Australia. However, later studies have shown that although the SEVQ differentiates well between the in-group and out-group vitality, it is not able to reflect the vitality differences within the group.

Johnson, Giles, and Bourhis (1983) then argued that objective and subjective vitality may provide a starting point from which the difficult link between sociological (collective) and social psychological (individual) accounts of language, ethnicity and intergroup relations can be explored. Johnson et. al (1983) have suggested that ‘the vitality variables were identified as being

important on the basis of the existing empirical literature relating to sociological

factors promoting and impeding language maintenance and assimilation’ (1983, 85

258). The following are some of the assumptions discussed in the literature on

7 8 -9 9

ethnolinguistic vitality (EV) theory,

(a) The EV theory is able to provide a useful direction for furthering the N

understanding of the factors and variables that are involved in language

maintenance, shift or attrition in a language-contact setting. Together S G

D IN

with the assistance of the instrument SEVQ, the study of language

attitudes, intergroup relations, language-use choice, and language CE

maintenance or shift might gain fruitful findings and provide a new point

of view. N E

(b) The degree of the group’s EV will affect the group members’ subjective

vitality perceptions and thus, determine the strategies of the group and

2 1 CO

manifestation of the group’s ethnic identity. Accordingly, the combination

N I2

of both ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ vitality analyses will provide a

CC E

sociologically sound profile of the ethnic group being studied.

(c) The EV perceptions of one generation will influence the language behaviour of the following generations, which might lead either to language maintenance or language shift.

(d) The attitude of the ethnolinguistic group is affected by the relative vitalities between the majority and minority groups. By reflecting on both the groups’ subjective EV perceptions, acculturative attitude of respective group can be studied and explored.

As with most theories and models, there are always criticisms. John Edwards (1992) claims that the framework introduced by Giles et al., is not used systematically. Instead, he takes a more interdisciplinary approach that involves sociology, linguistics, politics, geography, and economics. This approach greatly helps in his classification of various factors that affect language vitality. He believes that a comprehensive typology could serve as a tool to compare different vitality contexts and he concludes that such a framework of variables could provide more detailed predictions when applied in different cases. Other than John Edwards, Harald Haarmann (1986) also suggests that the Giles et al.’s theory is only effective when applied at a macro level because the framework fails to consider specific language relations at micro levels. Thus, he suggests that “language ecology,” should be included in the framework in order to draw a comprehensive picture to accurately identify explanatory variables that affect the vitality (Haarmann, 1986 quoted in Diarmait Mac Giolla, 2003).

Contrary to Edwards and Haarmann, Colin Baker justifies Giles et al.’s theory by

suggesting that “Giles et al create a model rather than a list of many factors 85

involved in language vitality” (Baker, 2006). However, at the same time, Baker

67 8 -9

seems to agree with Edward’s statement that a comprehensive typology would

be a useful tool in predicting whether a particular language will survive and N

sustain or fade and disappear in a community. According to Husband and

Saifullah Khan (1982), the socio-structural variables identified as determining S G

IN D

vitality are conceptually ambiguous. By simply depending on sociological and

demographic information, the variables may only be able to produce a simplified CE

and surfaced analysis of the ethnolinguistic group. They also explained that

socio-structural variables are not separate and independent but instead, are

interrelated and it is inappropriate to analyze the variables individually and

categorise a group as ‘low’ or ‘high’ vitality through these mutually dependent

CO 1 2

variables. Husband and Saifullah Khan also questioned the specification of

I2 N

‘ethnolinguistic’ group because some significant and important factors as age,

E CC

gender, social class and sub-cultural divisions are being ignored. Lastly they

criticise on the specification of institutional support and control factors on the

grounds that the institutions belong to the dominant group and the ethnic grounds that the institutions belong to the dominant group and the ethnic

In this paper, we adopt the view of Daria Boltokova, from the University of British Columbia, in her thesis paper “Probing the Concept of Language Vitality: The State of Titular Languages in the National Republics of Russia, 2004. Different from the ethnolinguistic vitality theory which analyzes vitality of an ethnolinguistic group as a whole, Daria attempts to focus her analysis particularly on the vitality of the language of an ethnolinguistic group. It is an effort to place language vitality as one of the categories deserving individual attention.

According to Daria, it is a fact that language does not exist on own and the vitality of the language might depend largely on the ability of the speakers to survive as a distinct homogeneous group. He points out that there is difference between examining the vitality of an ethnolinguistic group to survive as a distinct collective entity and examining the survival of an individual language. Daria also states that it is possible that some traditions and customs that are said to be essential to ethnic groups may cease to exist or be diminished while the language is still able to be sustained. Or, in opposite case, the mother tongue of a particular group may be abandoned but the ethnic identity in general would still remain strong in the group. In the thesis he points to the case study of the Buryat minority group in the Buryatia Republic of Russia, where the Buryat language is

not widely used amongst Buryats who favour the Russian language but the

Buryat language still holds “a symbolic, unifying value and its abandoning does 85

not affect the ethnic identity itself.” Chandra (2006) further states that when

67 8 -9

investigating the vitality of an ethnolinguistic group, one first needs to identify

the definition of ethnic identity or what actually constitutes in an ethnic group. N

The debates on this issue are still ongoing and would be endless. The different S G

IN D

approaches and debates above have lead us to decide that the study of linguistic

vitality of Bahasa Malaysia in this paper would be somewhat separately from CE

investigating both the ethnicity and the ethnic group’s vitality. Our stance would

be that while the attributes of ethnicity maybe extinct or diminished, a language

can still be sustained or vice versa. No doubt that the existence of an ethnic

group as a collective entity does enhance the survival of the language but the

CO 1 2

survival of a particular language as an individual aspect is still different from the

I2 N

survival of a particular ethnicity as a group.

E CC

R The other determining reason that leads to our decision would be the

background setting of the study. This paper is mainly focusses on the linguistic background setting of the study. This paper is mainly focusses on the linguistic

THE LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE IN MALAYSIA