Impact of Language Planning on Language Attitudes: A Case Study ...

Impact of Language Planning on Language Attitudes: A Case Study in Sarawak Su-Hie Ting Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Sarawak, Malaysia This paper examines the impact of language planning on language attitudes in the Malaysian state of Sarawak where there was strong resistance to replacing English with the national language (Bahasa Malaysia) as the ofcial language. A case study was conducted in a multi-ethnic organisation to nd out the language attitudes of participants four decades later. A language attitudes questionnaire adapted from Baker (1992) was used to elicit the participants’ beliefs regarding the importance of English in their daily lives, and their attitudes towards the use of English and Bahasa Malaysia. A total of 142 returned the questionnaires. Interviews and observations were also carried out at the research site to co-triangulate the data. The ndings of this study show that the participants were keen to be procient in both English and Bahasa Malaysia, and they also favoured the sharing of language functions for these two languages. The ndings suggest that the prevailing language attitudes were in tandem with the goals of the national language policy but the full impact of language planning has not been realised. Keywords: language attitudes, language planning, multilingual, Malaysia

Introduction Language attitudes arise when ‘one social group comes in contact with a second social group possessing a different language [and] each group then develops ideas about the other group’s language vis-a`-vis its own’ (Eastman, 1983: 30). Language planning then comes into play in bringing about attitudes, emotions, and actual usage of language, which are considered desirable according to the national language policy. As we are aware, language planning is ‘a government authorised, long-term, sustained, and conscious effort to alter a language’s function in a society for the purpose of solving communication problems’ (Weinstein, 1980: 56). According to Bourhis (1984: 174), language planning can be quite ‘a controversial enterprise when it involves the promulgation of a single language as the only ofcial language of a society or nation state’. However, it is a process many new nation states have to go through due to the need to have a common means of communication for the people, particularly when they are from diverse ethnic and language backgrounds. The aim of this study is to examine the impact of language planning on attitudes towards the use of English and Bahasa Malaysia in the Malaysian state of Sarawak, where there was strong resistance to the government policy of enforcing the use of Bahasa Malaysia for ofcial purposes of communication. 0143-4632/03/03 0195-16 $20.00/0 J. OF MULTILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

195

Ó 2003 S-H. Ting Vol. 24, No. 3, 2003

196

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Background Sarawak is a Malaysian state located on the island of Borneo, separated by the South China Sea from the other 11 states which are collectively referred to as West Malaysia. Sarawak shares its boundary with Brunei Darulsalam, Kalimantan (Indonesia) and Sabah, another Malaysian state on the island of Borneo. Sarawak has a population of 2,071,506 which comprises three main ethnolinguistic groups: Sarawak indigenous groups (48.33%), Chinese (25.45%), and Malays (22.32%) (Malaysia Department of Statistics, 2002). The Sarawak indigenous groups comprise at least ten major ethnolinguistic groups such as Iban, Bidayuh, and Melanau (see Harrison, 1959; Leigh, 1974). The Chinese, too, consist of more than ten sub-groups (e.g. Hakka, Foochow and Hokkien). The languages of the Sarawak indigenous groups and Chinese subgroups are mutually unintelligible. A difference is that the Chinese have a standard written language, Chinese Mandarin, which is understood by many in the Chinese community. The Malays are a relatively homogeneous group who understand one another despite regional variations in their native language, Sarawak Malay. The Sarawak indigenous groups and Malays are indigenous to Sarawak, whereas the Chinese migrated from China in the 19th and early 20th centuries in search of a better life and to seek religious freedom, in the case of the Foochow Christians (see Chew, 1990; Chin, 1981; Diu, 1972; Leigh, 1964; Tien, 1953). Sarawak was rst under the rule of the Brooke family (1841–1946) and later the East India Company (1946-1963). During this period of the British rule, English was the language of administration. In 1963, Sarawak joined the then Federation of Malaya to form Malaysia. One of the key conditions was that Sarawak had to accept Bahasa Malaysia as the national language and use it for ofcial purposes of communication. In the Federal Constitution of Malaysia (1997: 187-188), ‘ofcial purposes of communication’ means ‘any purpose of the Government, whether Federal or State, and includes any purpose of a public authority’. The people of Sarawak recognised that it was appropriate for the language of the original inhabitants of the land (Malays in West Malaysia) to be made the national language, particularly as a symbol of national unity which serves to unite the ethnically diverse people in the country through a common means of communication. However, there was strong resistance to using the national language as an ofcial language because: (1) the overall English literacy in Sarawak was higher than Malay; (2) the majority ethnic group (Sarawak indigenous groups) did not want to be excluded from the benets of Englishmedium education which they were just beginning to enjoy, such as overseas scholarships and career advancements; and (3) the Sarawak leaders then felt that their elite status, which was based in part on their mastery of English, would be threatened once English lost its status as the ofcial language of Sarawak (see Leigh, 1974). Furthermore, Sarawak did not have the educational facilities to build up literacy in Malay. According to Porritt (1997: 296), Sarawak had ‘a fragmented education system based on race and religion with an inbuilt bias in favour of the town dweller’. English schools were run by Christian missionaries, Chinese schools by Chinese clans, and a small number of Malay schools by the Government.

Impact of Language Planning on Language Attitudes

197

As the people and the educational infrastructure were not ready for the use of Bahasa Malaysia as the ofcial language in Sarawak, negotiations were carried out to delay the implementation of the National Language Policy. A ten-year transition period was granted. Leigh (1974: 89) noted that according to the Constitution of the State of Sarawak, ‘there was no requirement for the Borneo states to act in 1973. Legally they have the option to delay implementation of Malay [Bahasa Malaysia] as the ofcial language as long as they wish’. Nevertheless, Sarawak accepted the revised National Language Act in stages. Bahasa Malaysia was introduced as a school subject simultaneously in primary school and Form One in 1969 after the occurrence of an ethnic clash in West Malaysia heightened the need for a common language to bridge ethnic differences. Following this, the Sarawak State legislature agreed to a change in the medium of instruction from English to Bahasa Malaysia for government schools in 1973 (Bruton, 1993: 81). The changeover began in 1976 in Primary One, and was completed in Upper Sixth Form in 1989.1 The introduction of Malay-medium education was an important step in building up the Sarawakians’ prociency in Bahasa Malaysia; for example, a comparison of the 1970 and 1980 census reports revealed that Bahasa Malaysia literacy rose amongst the Chinese (7% to 23%), Ibans (24% to 63%) and Bidayuhs (45% to 81%) (in Omar, 1994: 10). The increase in literacy is much greater than the natural improvement that is expected of a developing nation like Malaysia. This level of literacy was considered sufcient for the government ofcers and the people to conduct governmental business in Bahasa Malaysia. Thus, in 1985 the Sarawak State legislature accepted Bahasa Malaysia as the ofcial language, and the use of Bahasa Malaysia in Sarawak courts was enforced only in 1989. Nevertheless, English could still be used with the permission of the court, and according to the needs of justice. The use of English is still allowed in Sarawak State Assembly sessions. Despite the ofcial recognition of Bahasa Malaysia as the ofcial language in Sarawak, English continued to be used alongside Bahasa Malaysia for ofcial correspondence with government departments. As late as October 1997, the State Secretary of Sarawak issued a reminder for organisations to keep to the use of Bahasa Malaysia when writing to government departments, indicating that English was still being used for ofcial purposes of communication. This was the series of events which led Sarawak to accept Bahasa Malaysia as the ofcial language. However, considering that there was such strong resistance to this language policy in the past, it is important to nd out whether Bahasa Malaysia has weathered the resistance. Few studies have been conducted on the prevailing language attitudes in Sarawak (e.g. Cullip, 2000). Although the status and functions of languages affected by planning decisions in the Malaysian context have been discussed (e.g. Le Page, 1984; Omar, 1994; Ward & Hewstone, 1985), few empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the impact of language planning on attitudes towards the use of these languages. Furthermore, ndings from studies conducted in other parts of Malaysia (e.g. Kaur, 1995) cannot be extrapolated to Sarawak due to the different sociocultural context of Sarawak and the different way in which the National Language Policy was implemented. This study examines how langu-

198


age planning has inuenced language attitudes towards the use of English and Bahasa Malaysia, the two languages which compete for dominance as a language for ofcial communication and for wider communication.

The Study This case study was conducted in a multi-ethnic organisation in Kuching, Sarawak (Eko, henceforth) where both English and Bahasa Malaysia were used as ofcial languages. Eko is a semi-government enterprise which promoted the commercial, industrial and socioeconomic development of Sarawak. This organisation was chosen because the ethnic composition of the employees and the practice of using both English and Bahasa Malaysia for ofcial purposes of communication reect the scenario in Sarawak. Research access was gained with the help of an intermediary who was known to the top management of Eko. Hence, a positive research environment was secured, which might not have otherwise been possible since the study was not commissioned by the organisation. The eldwork took three months. A case study research design was chosen for several reasons. To begin with, this study essentially examines how language attitudes are inuenced by language planning. Conducting a case study in the organisation made it possible to understand different facets of the phenomenon through information gathered from questionnaires, interviews and observations of the participants’ language use. Indeed, as Yin (1994: 8) pointed out, the ‘how’ research question favours the use of a case study strategy because it makes use of a full variety of evidence – documents, artifacts, systematic interviews, and direct observations – to answer the question. Moreover, language attitudes are intricately bound with its sociocultural context (e.g. ethnolinguistic group vitality and language planning), and cannot be examined in isolation. Using case studies allows ‘an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events’ in context (Yin, 1994: 3). To increase the generalisability of ndings from this case study to broader theories on language planning, rigour was maintained in the conduct of the study. To ensure reliability, the procedures for data collection and analysis were closely documented in operational terms to establish a chain of evidence, where there are explicit links between the research questions asked, the data collected, and the conclusions drawn. Even data and eld notes not directly used as evidence in the study were systematically organised for others to inspect. The construct validity of the results was established by gathering data from multiple sources so as to minimise researcher bias in interpreting the results. Inferences made based on questionnaire results were subjected to rival explanations to nd out if the evidence was convergent – a strategy recommended by Yin (1994: 35) to increase internal validity. Nevertheless, considering that this is a case study, the results should be generalised to only settings that are similar to this urban workplace.

Participants A total of 142 multi-ethnic employees participated in the present study. The participants spoke their respective ethnic languages (and often other ethnic


199

languages as well), English, and Bahasa Malaysia. However, their prociency in these two standard languages depended on their educational background. A larger proportion of the participants had English-medium educational background (n = 85), and they were uent in English. Fewer had an English-cumBahasa Malaysia (n = 21) or a Chinese (n = 5) educational background. Those with a Bahasa Malaysia background (n = 31) were more procient in Bahasa Malaysia than English, and they tended to be younger (see Note 1). The majority of the participants were Malays (n = 76), with smaller numbers of Sarawak indigenous groups (n = 43) and Chinese (n = 22).

Questionnaires Questionnaires were used in this study to examine language attitudes. This direct method of measuring language attitudes is based on the mentalist approach, in that attitude is viewed as a state of readiness, an intervening variable between a stimulus affecting a person and that person’s response (Agheyisi & Fishman, 1970: 138; Cooper & Fishman, 1974: 7).2 The questionnaire used in this study was adapted from Baker (1992), who examined the attitudes of students towards the use of English and Welsh in Wales. Baker’s questionnaire was divided into sections for biographical information, self-reported language use, the participants’ beliefs and the affective dimensions of their attitudes to language use – in line with Edwards’ (1982: 20, 1999: 109) distinction between these two aspects of language attitudes. The similarity between the language situation in Wales and Malaysia is that the ofcial functions for both Welsh and English have decreased with government support for the use of English and Bahasa Malaysia respectively. Baker’s questionnaire encompassed both the additive and subtractive notions of bilingualism. Additive bilingualism means that the two languages can coexist, with a separation of language functions. Subtractive bilingualism means that the rise in the use of one language leads to a fall in the use of the other. However, unlike Welsh in Wales, English is still important economically in Malaysia. Thus, the questionnaire was adapted to suit the language scenario in Malaysia. The questionnaire was piloted on 11 multi-ethnic participants from Kuching, where the study was later conducted. As a result of the feedback from these participants, some items were added to obtain more specic information, and others were reworded for clarity. In the actual study at Eko, the questionnaire was distributed to all the employees at Eko. Out of 219 questionnaires, 142 were returned, giving a response rate of 64.8%.

Results and Discussion Participants’ beliefs regarding the importance of English Section 2 of the questionnaire elicited the participants’ responses to 18 items on the importance of English for various functions in their daily life on a scale of 1 (not important), 2 (rather important) and 3 (very important). The responses for the ‘very important’ and ‘not important’ categories are highlighted as these two reveal distinctive patterns in the participants’ attitudes. All percentages of results quoted in this section are found in Table 1.

200


Table 1 Participants’ responses showing their beliefs regarding the importance of English for various functions in their daily life (n = 142) Functions of English In the family domain: For bringing up children For passing examinations In the friendship domain: For making friends For winning friends’ liking For social activities such as playing games singing together joking together For gaining acceptance in the community For living in Sarawak For living in Malaysia In the employment domain: For getting jobs in the private sector For getting jobs in the government service For securing promotions in the private sector For securing promotions in the government service For earning more money For work-related functions: making telephone calls obtaining information giving explanations

Very important

Moderately important

Not important

49.29% 65.49%

37.32% 29.58%

13.39% 4.93%

41.55% 24.65%

37.32% 40.14%

21.13% 35.21%

14.79% 16.20% 12.68% 27.46%

49.30% 50.00% 49.30% 45.08%

35.91% 33.80% 38.02% 27.46%

27.46% 26.06%

52.11% 51.41%

20.43% 22.53%

71.83%

23.24%

4.93%

45.07%

45.07%

9.86%

59.86%

32.39%

7.75%

45.07%

38.73%

16.20%

35.21%

38.03%

26.76%

44.37% 55.63% 50.70%

45.78% 38.03% 41.55%

9.85% 6.34% 7.75%

Family domain The results show that the perceived importance of English in the family domain is linked to children’s education. About half of the participants (49.29%) believed that it was very important for them to speak English with their children at home so as to give their children a head start in education. Better academic performance usually opens up opportunities for higher education. Support for this is found in that 65.49% of the participants believed that prociency in English was important for them to pass examinations. In Malaysia, a good command of English is generally considered crucial for success in tertiary education because undergraduates need to read reference books in English, and some of their courses are conducted in English as well. While English competency is believed to increase one’s chances of securing better jobs, there was no consensus among the participants that a mastery of English enhanced their earning power (see Table 1). Friendship domain The results indicate that the participants were inclined to believe that it was more important to use English at the initial stage of a friendship than when


201

the friendship was already established. A total of 41.55% of the 142 participants reported that it was very important for them to use English for making friends; 37.32% believed that English was of moderate importance; and 21.13% rated English as not important at all for this purpose. In forming friendships, the element of liking is present. In the questionnaire, the participants were asked how important it was for them to use English in order for them to be liked. Only 24.65% of the participants reported that English was very important for this purpose; 40.14% attributed moderate importance to English, and 35.21% felt that English was not important at all. The perceived importance of English for social activities such as playing games, singing together and joking is similar to that of using English to win the liking of friends. The contrast in the participants’ reported beliefs on the importance of English for making friends and for participating in social activities with friends suggests that English is valued as a language of wider communication – one that is more likely to be understood by others, particularly if the interactant is from another dialect or ethnic group. However, when the friendship has developed negotiations may take place for the use of other languages and English recedes in importance. Besides facilitating communicative efciency, English is also a symbol of ethnic tolerance as it is not the native language of any ethnic group in Sarawak. Thus, speaking English in inter-ethnic interactions would bring about a closer rapport with interactants, as opposed to social dissociation if participants insisted upon speaking their ethnic languages. The proportion of participants rating English as very important for gaining acceptance in the community, living in Sarawak and living in Malaysia ranged from 26.06% to 27.46%. So English is still perceived as important for community life.

Employment domain The results indicate that the participants attributed the greatest importance to the use of English in the employment domain. The two functions examined are the importance of English for gaining employment and securing promotions. Out of 142 participants, 71.83% believed that competency in English was very important for them to acquire a job in the private sector, but only 59.86% rated English as very important for securing promotions later in their career. The interview results indicate that the participants deferred to their superiors’ language choice as a sign of respect, and this was important for the speedy accomplishment of the task at hand. Since there was a tendency for superiors to speak English, participants felt that they needed to be procient in English to interact with them. In the government service, English-language competency was not deemed to be so necessary, either for securing a job or increasing the chances of getting promotions, as indicated by only 45.07% of the participants rating English as very important for these purposes. This is not surprising, in that English is widely regarded as the de facto ofcial language in the private sector, whereas Bahasa Malaysia is the ofcial language for governmental business. Both in the private sector and the government service, the results show that

202


English is considered more important for gaining employment than for securing promotions. In fact, the participants’ perception of the importance of English-language skills for securing jobs is not misplaced. Many job advertisements placed in local newspapers include English competency as a selection criterion, particularly for organisations in the private sector. Nevertheless, a pass in English at SPM level (equivalent to British ‘O’ level) is a prerequisite for working in government departments. We have seen how important English is at the workplace. We now turn to the participants’ beliefs regarding the importance of English for some workrelated functions. Of the tasks examined, more participants believed that English was very important for obtaining information (55.63%) and giving explanations (50.70%) than for making telephone calls (44.37%). Less than 10% of the participants rated English as unimportant for these purposes (see Table 1). It is likely that the participants were used to conducting interactions involving the exchange of information in English as they have learnt the scientic jargon, computer terminology or management concepts in English. The interview data show that for non-work-related interactions, other languages such as Bahasa Malaysia, Sarawak Malay and Chinese featured more prominently. For example, one respondent, Majid, said that, ‘If it’s work matters, it’s Bahasa Malaysia. If it’s like “Majid, minum [have a drink]”, that’s Local Malay [Sarawak Malay]’. Participants whose main language of communication was not English, made a clear distinction between using English for work-related matters and other languages for casual talk. To sum up, the participants believed that English was important in various domains for different reasons. In the family domain the use of English is valued for its potential in preparing their children for tertiary education, which in turn ensures a better career. On the other hand, English is important in the friendship domain as a language of wider communication in interactions with people from other ethnic groups. The participants attributed the greatest importance to the use of English in the employment domain. Since English is the de facto ofcial language in this workplace, any lack of prociency would handicap one’s chances of securing a job or getting promoted in the job. The affective dimension of participants’ attitudes towards the use of English and Bahasa Malaysia Sections 3 and 4 of the quesionnaire contained 36 items on the affective dimension of the participants’ attitudes towards the use of English and Bahasa Malaysia. The responses elicited were ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neither Agree Nor Disagree’, ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Disagree’. However, as the responses at the extreme ends of the Likert Scale were minimal, the results were recategorised as ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’ and ‘Disagree’ (see Table 2 for participants’ responses). The affective dimensions of the participants’ attitudes are discussed in terms of how they felt about having competency in English and Bahasa Malaysia, and how they felt about using these two languages for wider communication and for ofcial purposes of communication. In line with the focus of this paper, only the responses for items related to these are presented in Table 2. For further details, please refer to Ting (2001).


203

Table 2 Participants’ responses showing the affective dimension of their attitudes towards the use of English (E) and Bahasa Malaysia (BM) (n = 142) Aspects of language attitudes Competency in English and BM I like hearing E being spoken I like speaking E I would like to speak both E and BM well I would like to write well in both E and BM Malaysians should be able to speak both E and BM Foreigners working in Malaysia should learn BM Speaking both E and BM is for all age groups I would like to marry someone who is good at both E and BM I would like my children to speak E well I would like my children to be good at both E and BM It is all right to code-switch between E and BM in informal conversations Language for wider communication I prefer to use E rather than BM to make someone understand what I am saying There are more useful languages to learn than E I feel comfortable using E with people from any ethnic group I would like to speak like a native speaker of E People think I show off when I speak E English as a medium of education I prefer E to be used as the medium of education in school I prefer E to be used as the medium of education at university I like science subjects to be taught in E at school I think it is necessary to keep the standard of E high in schools I am considered high class if I speak E Language for governmental business I think ofcial documents should have both E and BM I like to write ofcial letters in BM rather than E Road signs should be in both E and BM Status and role of E versus BM I want E to be as important as BM in Malaysia E will become less popular when everyone in Malaysia can speak BM I would like BM to replace E as a language of business communication

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

84.50% 82.39% 92.96% 97.18% 96.48%

14.79% 16.90% 5.63% 2.11% 2.11%

0.71% 0.71% 1.41% 0.71% 1.41%

89.44%

7.75%

3.11%

46.48%

20.42%

33.00%

45.07%

28.87%

26.06%

94.37% 96.48%

3.52% 2.11%

2.11% 1.41%

76.06%

16.20%

7.74%

45.77%

33.80%

20.42%

33.81%

38.73%

27.46%

53.52%

23.24%

23.24%

21.13%

40.85%

38.02%

17.61%

33.80%

48.59%

71.13%

16.20%

12.67%

73.94%

16.20%

9.86%

58.45%

31.69%

9.86%

92.96%

2.82%

4.22%

14.79%

38.03%

47.18%

80.28%

11.27%

8.45%

42.25%

36.62%

21.13%

78.17%

12.68%

9.15%

78.87%

9.15%

11.98%

25.35%

23.24%

51.41%

15.5%

28.87%

55.63%

204


Competency in English and Bahasa Malaysia The results show that the participants had favourable attitudes towards acquiring competency in English and Bahasa Malaysia. Out of 142 participants, 84.5% reported that they liked hearing English being spoken, and 82.39% liked speaking English themselves. Even more participants reported that they would like to be able to write and speak well in both languages (97.18% and 92.96% respectively). A total of 96.48% also wanted their children to be good at both languages but this expectation did not extend to their spouses. Only 45.07% expressed a desire for their spouse to have a good mastery of both English and Bahasa Malaysia. We move on to nd out the participants’ attitudes towards other people acquiring competency in English and Bahasa Malaysia. Out of 142 participants, 96.48% felt that Malaysians should be able to speak both languages, and 89.44% felt that foreigners working in Malaysia should learn to speak Bahasa Malaysia. Such responses show that language planning has been successful in instilling the awareness that prociency in Bahasa Malaysia is needed to live in the Malaysian speech community. Age is a factor which affects prociency in Bahasa Malaysia because Sarawakians aged 48 and above in the year 2003 did not learn this language in school (see Note 1). In view of this, participants were asked how they felt about the use of Bahasa Malaysia across age groups. For this, 46.48% felt that age should not be a hindrance to speaking Bahasa Malaysia but 33.0% were aware of the age factor and reported that speaking Bahasa Malaysia was more for younger people. For those who could not speak Bahasa Malaysia well, one way out was code-switching between English and Bahasa Malaysia – a common feature of Malaysian use of English. This was acceptable to 76.06% of the participants for informal conversations. Language for wider communication In this section, we examine how the participants felt about using English and/or Bahasa Malaysia for wider communication across ethnic boundaries. Since Sarawak has an ethnically diverse population, the decision of what language to use in order to be understood surfaces whenever interactions with unfamiliar persons occur. As English is a standard language which is taught in school, it is more likely to be understood. However, this study shows that only 45.77% of the participants favoured using English to bridge communication gaps, but English was not the preferred choice for 20.43% of them. They might nd languages other than English more useful – only 33.81% considered English the most useful language to learn. In addition, the results indicate that 53.52% of the participants reported that they felt comfortable speaking English with people from any ethnic group but 23.24% were not at ease. Taken together with the results for English as the preferred language for bridging communication gaps, we can conclude that about half of the participants felt positively about using English as a language for wider communication. One point to note is that only 21.13% were keen to speak like native speakers of English but 38.02% were happy to speak English with a Malaysian accent. My experience of living in this speech community is that one who speaks with a native speaker accent might be perceived as a ‘show off’, some-


205

one who is trying to impress others with his or her language ability. However, speaking English without the (put on) accent is still regarded as ‘showing off’ by 17.61% of the participants although 48.59% of the participants did not agree with this. The interview data told a different story; for example, this was how Mohamad felt about speaking English: When I spoke English with my friend, other people heard me speaking English, and told me, you’re showing off, act. In the interview Mohamad talked at length about his frustration at not having the opportunity to practise speaking English, as he did not want to be chided for forgetting his ethnic identity. The Malays are particularly wary of speaking English to another Malay because English is often perceived as subtracting from their Malay identity by their community. In view of the negative connotative meanings associated with the use of English within the Malay community, it is possible that when more people acquire prociency in Bahasa Malaysia, this language might gain popularity as a language for crossethnic communication. In brief, these results show that while English is denitely a language for wider communication, it is not the only useful one. It would be interesting to explore how the participants feel about Bahasa Malaysia standing alone as a language for wider communication. However, for this study, the comparison is made with English in line with the additive and subtractive notions of bilingualism, in which the languages could coexist or where the rise in the popularity of one is accompanied by a fall in the usage of the other.

Language for ofcial purposes of communication One of the goals of the national language policy was for Bahasa Malaysia to replace English as the ofcial language, and there was resistance to this at the time Sarawak joined Malaysia. Now, four decades later, we examine the participants’ attitudes towards using English as a medium of education and for governmental business. First, as a medium of education. A majority of the participants preferred English to be used as a medium of instruction in school (71.13%) and at university (73.94%). At the time of the study, the question on the use of English as a medium of instruction was hypothetical in the sense that the Malaysian Government was unlikely to revert to the former state of affairs after so much time and effort had been invested in the implementation of the national language policy to establish Bahasa Malaysia as the language of instruction in the education system. With the changeover to Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of education, the standard of English has declined. This issue has received much attention in the press, political speeches and academic seminars. The results of this study conrmed that there was a concern over the declining standard of English with 92.96% of the participants feeling that it was necessary to keep the standard of English high in schools. The Government was also concerned. In 1993, a proposal was put forward to introduce the use of English for teaching science subjects in secondary school so as to provide students with more exposure to the use of English during school hours, but it was not well received.3 The participants’ responses were indicative of general sentiments

206


in the community: only 58.45% of the participants were supportive of this idea, 31.69% were neutral about it, and the rest were not in favour. In writing about the language scenario in Malaysia, Ridge (1999: 10) observed that the Malaysian’s Government’s emphasis on the national language policy was: showing every sign of moving the policy basis further away from what was formerly largely internally dened ethnic and national identity issues to a basis even more rmly rooted in an information technology world, a world that only highlights the external orientation of Malaysia’s new layer of action and identity. With the onset of globalisation, English is acknowledged as a language which provides a gateway to knowledge and advancements in science and technology in this global community. But does English still carry with it the elite status, as it did during the British rule in Sarawak? At that time, those with academic potential were usually given scholarships for tertiary education overseas, and these graduates were given high-ranking administrative posts upon their return to Sarawak. In other words, a mastery of English enabled them to move up the social ladder. The questionnaire results showed that only 14.79% of the participants associated speaking English with higher social class, and 47.18% disagreed with this. However, this excerpt from an interview with one of the participants, Muria, illustrates the unmistakeable link between status and the use of English: The person is well-dressed with the coat and the tie, automatically you would speak English. ... If they are well-groomed [and look] like [an] ofcer, tie, you know. ... [I] denitely [use] English. According to Muria, people with higher status were usually more likely to be uent in English, and their attire provided clues of their status in society. Muria’s viewpoint was also shared by other participants, and it was the interview data which provided greater insight into this dimension of the participants’ attitudes towards the use of English. Although not all participants were inclined to speak English with those with a higher social status, English is invariably still associated with an elite status. As Wardhaugh (1994: 356) points out, it is common for new states in Asia and Africa to have elites who speak a European language such as English or French: This language not only serves many as an internal working language but is also still regarded as the language of mobility. It is both the language that transcends local loyalties and the one that opens up access to the world outside the state. It is unlikely that in these circumstances such outside languages will disappear. Although Bahasa Malaysia is acknowledged as a language of mobility in Malaysia in government circles, prociency in English is still considered a necessity. With regard to the use of language for governmental business, the participants in this study supported the use of dual ofcial languages. A majority


207

of the participants (80.28%) felt that ofcial documents should be in both languages, for example, forms issued by the Government for applications for visas, passports, identity cards and government jobs. The large number in support of dual ofcial languages suggests an inertia in switching to using Bahasa Malaysia for ofcial purposes of communication. However, in their own use of language for written ofcial communication, there are signs of compliance with the national language policy as 42.45% of the participants preferred to use Bahasa Malaysia to write ofcial letters. Only 21.13% expressed a preference for English. The support for the use of dual ofcial languages extended to language use in road signs (78.17% in favour). Road signs and billboards constitute the linguistic scenery of a place, and it is important for Malaysia to project the national identity through the use of Bahasa Malaysia in public places. On the one hand, the use of dual ofcial languages in public notices benets foreigners as well as those Malaysians who do not know much Bahasa Malaysia. From items on language use, we move on to items which touch directly on the status and role of English versus Bahasa Malaysia in an attempt to obtain greater insight into the impact of language planning on attitudes. Out of the 142 participants, 78.87% felt that English should be as important as Bahasa Malaysia in Malaysia, and 51.41% wanted English to be as popular even if prociency in Bahasa Malaysia became widespread. One domain where English is valued is communication in the private sector – 55.63% of the participants reported that they would like English to remain as a language of business communication. If we look at the goals of the national language policy, the participants’ language attitudes suggest that language planning has not achieved its full impact because there is some ambivalence as to whether we could do without the use of English for ofcial purposes of communication.

Conclusions Legislation often precedes change in language-use behaviour and language attitudes but in the Malaysian state of Sarawak the full implementation of the national language policy had to be put on hold until the people were more receptive towards using Bahasa Malaysia for ofcial purposes of communication. In this study, it was found that the participants were keen to be procient in both English and Bahasa Malaysia, which is a good sign, since many in their mid-40s and above did not learn any Bahasa Malaysia in school. However, the full impact of language planning which is for Bahasa Malaysia to completely take over the role of English for ofcial purposes of communication has yet to be reected in the language attitudes of the participants. Their support for the use of dual ofcial languages indicated that, while that they were already embracing Bahasa Malaysia into this role, they still held on to the previous role of English as an ofcial language. Where wider communication was concerned, the usefulness of English as a common language was clear but other languages were also important. The participants’ favourable attitudes to the sharing of language functions between Bahasa Malaysia and English may be of concern to some who feel that the goals of the national language policy were not yet achieved. And the concern is not misplaced,

208


since the participants would still like English to perform the functions ofcially designated for Bahasa Malaysia. The implications of the ndings of this study on language planning is that providing institutional support to establish the national language as the preferred language for wider communication and for ofcial purposes of communication has limited impact when external factors work against this. Limited impact means that the Government can only control language use for certain purposes such as using English as the medium of education and for written communication in governmental business. Oral communication is somewhat beyond the control of the Government as transactions with government ofcers could take place in any language, depending on the language prociency and repertoire of the interactants. For the context of Sarawak where the previous language of administration was English, the removal of institutional support cannot restrict the use of English since English has wider usage in the international community – particularly since prociency in English provides access to tertiary education and better careers. Because of these personal benets, people want to learn and use English to achieve these ends. Providing institutional support for Bahasa Malaysia can elevate its position but it cannot get rid of the competing language. Moreover, as Wardhaugh (1994) has pointed out, it is unlikely that external languages which open up access to the world outside will disappear. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank Dr Jack Li (Fooyin University, Taiwan ROC) for his comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Su-Hie Ting, Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia ([email protected]).

Notes 1. Putting aside the small number of students produced by the Malay schools prior to the change in medium of education in Sarawak, the rst cohort with Bahasa Malaysia educational background is aged 33 and below in the year 2003. Those aged 34 and above tend to be more procient in English than Bahasa Malaysia. Sarawakians aged 48 and above did not learn Bahasa Malaysia as a subject in school, and usually have limited prociency in this language, with the exception of Malays. 2. Nearly all researchers in the eld of language attitudes adhere to the mentalist approach (Appel & Muysken, 1987: 16). The matched-guise technique (Lambert, 1967), either in its original or a modied form, is not appropriate for this study since too little is known about language attitudes in this speech community to decide which variables to control. Furthermore, questionnaires enable information about specic attitudes to be obtained (Cargile et al., 1994: 212). 3. This idea was laid to rest for a while until it became imperative for the Government to address once more the problem of low English standards. In 2002, the Prime Minister of Malaysia suggested a reversion to English-medium education – a drastic measure in light of the national language policy. Due to strong reactions arising from the fear that the position of Bahasa Malaysia might be threatened by this move,


209

the Government dropped the idea and decided to implement the use of English for teaching science and mathematics in 2003 in Primary One, Form One and Form Six.

References Agheyisi, R. and Fishman, J. (1970) Language attitudes: A brief survey of methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics 12 (5), 137–157. Appel, R. and Muysken, P. (1987) Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. Baker, C. (1992) Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bourhis, R.Y. (1984) The Charter of the French Language and cross-cultural communication in Montreal. In R.Y. Bourhis (ed.) Conict and Language Planning in Quebec (pp. 174–204). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bruton, R. (1993) Farewell to Democracy in Sarawak: Theoretical Exploration of Socio-cultural Transmissions, with Reference to Change, Conict and Contradiction. Devon: Merlin Books. Cargile, A.C., Giles, H., Ryan, E.B. and Bradac, J.J. (1994) Language attitudes as a social process: A conceptual model and new directions. Language and Communication 14 (3), 211–236. Chew, D. (1990) Chinese Pioneers on the Sarawak Frontier 1841–1941. Singapore: Oxford University Press. Chin, J.M. (1981) The Sarawak Chinese. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Cooper, R.L. and Fishman, J.A. (1974) The study of language attitudes. Linguistics 136, 5–19. Cullip, P.F. (2000) Language use and attitudes of the Remun of Sarawak. The Sarawat Museum Journal LV (76), 1–44. Diu, M.K. (1972) The diffusion of Foochow settlement in the Sibu-Binatang Area, Central Sarawak, 1901–1971, Unpublished MA thesis, University of Hawaii. Eastman, C.M. (1983) Language Planning: An Introduction. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp. Edwards, J.R. (1982) Language attitudes and their implications among English speakers. In E.B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds) Attitudes towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts (pp. 20–33). London: Edward Arnold. Edwards, J. (1999) Rening our understanding of language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18 (1), 101–110. Harrison, T. (ed.) (1959) The Peoples of Sarawak (radio programme). Sarawak, Malaysia: Sarawak Museum. Kaur, K. (1995) Why they need English in Malaysia: A survey. World Englishes 14(2), 223–230. Lambert, W.E. (1967) A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23, 91–110. Leigh, M.B. (1964) The Chinese Community of Sarawak: A Study of Communal Relations. Malaysia: University of Singapore. Leigh, M.B. (1974) The Rising Moon: Political Change in Sarawak. Sydney: University of Sydney Press. Le Page, R.B. (1984) Retrospect and prognosis in Malaysia and Singapore. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45, 113–126. Malaysia. Department of Statistics (1995) Population and Housing Census of Malaysia 1991. Kuala Lumpur: Government Statistics Department. Malaysia. Department of Statistics, Sarawak (2002) Monthly Statistical Bulletin Sarawak December 2002. Kuching: Government Statistics Department. Malaysia. Legal Research Board (1997) Federal Constitution (as at 31st January 1997). Kuala Lumpur: International Law Book Services. Omar, A.H. (1994) English in Malaysia: A typology of its status and roles. In T. Kandiah and J. Kwan-Terry (eds) English and Language Planning: A Southeast Asian Contribution (pp. 242–260). Singapore: Times Academic Press.

210


Porritt, V.L. (1997) British Colonial Rule in Sarawak, 1946–1963. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Oxford University Press. Ridge, B. (1999, November) Malaysia towards 2000: Crisis, Globalisation and Language Policy. Paper presented at the 11th Colloquium of the Malaysia Society, Australian National University, Canberra. Tien, J.K. (1953) The Chinese of Sarawak: A Study of the Social Structure. London: The London School of Economics and Political Science. Ting, S.H. (2001) Language Choice in Multilingual and Organisational Settings: The Case of Sarawak, Malaysia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Australia. Ward, C. and Hewstone, M. (1985) Ethnicity, language and intergroup relations in Malaysia and Singapore: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 6 (4), 271–296. Wardhaugh, R. (1994) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (3rd edn). Massachusetts, Oxford: Blackwell. Weinstein, B. (1980) Language planning in Francophone Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning 4 (1), 55–77. Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks: Sage.