et 115
TRANSCRIPT
BEd in Teaching English as a Second Language Assignment Cover sheetStudent ID number: 1034570
Module name and code: Sociolinguistics ET 115 Module tutor: Mukul Saxena Personal tutor: Nigel Prentice Word count: 1660
Date due: 12 noon on 12 January 2011 Date submitted: 12 January 2011 Online Receipt attached (please delete as appropriate) YES
Work may be submitted before the due date; Work may be submitted after the due date if an extension has been granted in writing. Work submitted late without a written extension will be penalised at the rate of 5% per 24 hours (starting at noon on the day that the essay is due). Work submitted more than a week after the due date without written extension will not be assessed.
In completing the details on this cover sheet and submitting the assignment, you are doing so on the basis that this assignment is all your own work and that you have not borrowed or failed to acknowledge anyone elses work. Please say if you agree to this statement YES
1
INTRODUCTION Based on the definition given by Fasold (1984), in multilingual communities, there has always been a pattern at the starting point for any study of language choice. Since this choice does not include random decisions on the part of the speaker, the problem of language choice was typically approached by searching for a social structure which are domains. Participants, setting and topic are three significant factors in the general concept of domain. This is quite necessary to capture overall generalizations about any speech community. Therefore, a simpler model can be derived which summarizes the use of language application particularly for multilingual communities. It is proposed that in certain domains, one language variety is more likely to be appropriate than another language (Fishman, 1967). The language variety is influenced by factors such us location, topic and participant. In domain analysis, a community with bilingualism may use high language(s) in formal domain while low language(s) in informal domain. The language use that creates a pattern is based on the features of the language itself; prestige, literary, heritage, acquisition, standardisation, stability, lexicon, and phonology. There are three objectives of this project; to study the pattern of language use each of the member in the family of the group members; to discover how language variety shapes the diaglossic situation in the English multilingualism of Malaysia; and to find out the factors that influence the language use at the macro and micro level. METHODOLOGY Questionnaire: Interviews were conducted among the target group which consists of the family members of each student by using the formulated questionnaire given by the lecturer. The interviews were carried out via phone calls and internet (emails, Skype, Yahoo Messenger, MSN and Facebook).
Discussion: Discussions were held for several purposes:
2
i.
Collecting individual data and classifying them according to age, gender and domains by using Microsoft Excel.
ii. iii.
Consulting lecturer to ensure that the progress is on the right track. Delegating the tasks among the group members in order to optimize the work output.
iv.
Compiling the individual data to produce a group data by tabulation.
Introspection: Each individuals thoughts and opinions were also examined and analysed in order to avoid biasness during group discussions. FINDINGS The overall analysis shows that in all domains (TABLE 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 6.1), Low Malay is widely used excluding the educational domain (TABLE 5.1) which High English variety is mostly favoured upon. The least varieties chosen range from Low Chinese to French. Gender wise again Low Malay is highly favoured by both male and female respondents with the exception for High English in the education domain and also Kelantanese dialect for female respondents in the neighbour domain. Low Malay is also highly preferred across all ages (TABLE 1.2, 2.2., 3.2, 4.2, 6.2) with High English again preferred in the education domain (TABLE 5.2) by all walks of life. PART B The overall distribution of language use in different domain are divided into two categories; Low prestige languages (L) and High prestige languages (H) regardless of both gender and age influence. Malaysians prefer to use (H) in formal domains such as education (TABLE 5.1) and employment (TABLE 6.1). Meanwhile, they would use (L) in informal domains like family (TABLE 1.1), friendship (TABLE 2.1) and neighbourhood (TABLE 3.1). However, for the religion domain (TABLE 4.1), it seems that Malaysians prefer to use (L) despite the formal situation where (H) is expected to be used. Based on the group data, formal Malay and English varieties are used in the formal domains, whereas informal Malay is usually used in informal domains. Moreover, regional dialects, such as the Kelantanese dialect are used in certain regions in Malaysia by certain people and may not be accepted or understood by the larger community. This reason explains why people use certain languages only in certain regions and situations. In addition, Malaysians are expected to use Standard English (H) and Malay
3
(H) in formal domains such as education, employment, and religion due to the Language Planning Policy implemented by the government. On the same note, the Malaysian Educational Policy has also made it compulsory to pass the English subject. This is particularly necessary if they wish to pursue their study to a higher level. Furthermore, English is a lingua franca of the world. Therefore, learning the language becomes an obligation for Malaysian students since English is a medium towards international knowledge. Code mixing and code switching also appears in the finding. For example, most of the respondents prefer to use English in situations that require them to although their mother tongue is Malay. Consequently, the combinations of these factors language planning, language education policy as well as globalization has contributed to the usage of each and every domain. The diaglossic situation in Malaysia may not have a wide gap between one variety to another but it is still observant through the many usage of varieties.
4
PART C There are several varieties in the pattern of language used in my family when compared to the overall distribution of language used in the different domains. For instance, in the family domain, most of my family members use the Pahang dialect instead of informal Malay. This in mainly due to the fact that we originate from Pahang and it is our identity. Besides, my parents used language planning in my home in order to prioritise the usage of Pahang dialect rather than informal Malay. This is to instil love towards my state and country and acts as a heritage for future generations. Moreover, as the topic discussed is informal and the participants are only between the family members, it is more comfortable for us to speak the Pahang dialect rather than informal Malay. However, despite the discourse being an in formal topic, my brothers and I will use a more formal tone when conversing with our parents to show our respect towards them. Subsequently, almost all of my family members will use the Pahang dialect in the friendship domain when speaking to their friends as most of them originates from Pahang. Generally, the Pahangite will prefer to use the Pahang dialect rather than the informal Malay as they are more competent in using it. Moreover, if a Pahangite uses a different variety of language such as the Kelantanese dialect, they will be teased and laughed at by their friends as they are different from the social community. Therefore, the Pahang dialect is more preferred to be used than other varieties. However, I have to use code-switching and code-mixing between the variety of informal Malay and informal English as I have many friends that originates from different parts of Malaysia. As the participants are changed, I could not use the Pahang dialect as they generally would not be able to understand me and comprehensible communication could not be achieved. In addition, as the neighbourhood domain mainly revolves around the neighbours, the participants generally will consists of the Pahangite, therefore, my family members will be more comfortable in speaking the Pahang dialect instead of the informal Malay dialect. Besides, the nature of the relationship between the participants is usually friendly as they are neighbours thus further reducing the need to converse in the informal Malay. Nonetheless, the situation changes in the religion domain despite the participants involved remains the Pahangite. When a more formal topic such as marriage is being discussed, the adults in my family members will switch to the formal Malay instead of the Pahang dialect when addressing the imam (priest). The imam is regarded as the head of religious issues in my village and is held in a higher position due to the knowledge that he has. As religion is very significant to the Malaysians especially the Muslims, the imam is referred to in a formal manner in order to display our respect to him. However, my three younger brothers still use the Pahang dialect when conversing about the marriage arrangements as they are still young and their thoughts are considered insignificant regarding the matter. In the education domain, both of my parents are excluded from the survey as they are no longer learning in formal ways. On the other hand, there is not too much difference between the macro analysis and the micro analysis data as most of the students in Malaysia use the same educational system and we are required to use both formal English and Malay in writing our essays. This is because the government has noticed the importance of learning
5
English and tries to create a thriving bilingual society by adding prestige to the English language and maintaining the prestige that the Malay language has already acquired. In the employment domain, only my parents are working and both of them uses the formal Malay in their workplace. As both of them are Malay language teachers and the setting is in a Malay school, they are required to use the formal Malay in teaching their students. When compared to the macro analysis, there is not too much difference as a meeting is a formal occasion and formal Malay is more encouraged to be used. Moreover, they also have good educational background and therefore, they are able to use the formal Malay. However, the Pahang dialect is still used sometimes during the meeting due to the fossilisation of the language.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, most of the states in Malaysia have their own unique dialect in language variety and they are not ashamed of using it but proud to be using it instead. This creates diverse cultural identities that are distinct from each other. Furthermore, our research also confirms the diglossic community in Malaysia as the low Malay is also generally comprehensible by all the people in Malaysia despite most state prefers their own dialect. English language has also been given prestige due to the corpus planning by the Malaysian government through the need of passing the English subject in order to progress to a higher educational level. This shows that Malaysia is a multilingual country.
6
BIBLIOGRAPHY Fasold, R. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. New York: Basil Blackwell. Fishman, J. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23:29--38.
7
APPENDICES
8
TABLE 1.1 FAMILY Types of Language 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 1 2 9 3 5 1 9 4 6 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 1 6 1 2 4 2 2 1 5 6 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 30 34 39 40 41 2 1 8 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
FEMALE
MALE
1) Overall findings: (male + female of all ages) highest - (2) = 37 lowest (23) =1 2) According to sex: Male : highest (2) =18 lowest (6, 21, 23, 34) = 1 Female : highest (2) = 19 lowest (7) = 1 3) According to age (TABLE 1.2) : MALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 9 - lowest : (4, 15, 17) = 1 26 40 - highest : (2) = 3 - lowest : (21) = 1 41 65 - highest : (2) = 5 - lowest : (15, 23,34,39) = 1 66+ - highest : (34) = 2 - lowest : (2,4,6,16,17,30,39) = 1 FEMALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 9 - lowest : (6, 15, 16, 21, 34) = 1 26 40 - highest : (2) = 3 - lowest : (21) = 1 41 65 - highest : (2) = 6 - lowest : (4,15,16,30,34) = 1 66+ - highest : (34) = 2 - lowest : (4,14,15,30,39) = 1
9
TABLE 2.1 FRIENDSHIP Types of Language 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 1 2 12 2 6 1 12 5 9 3 4 3 2 2 1 9 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 6 1 14 15 16 17 18 21 23 30 34 39 40 41 4 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1
FEMALE
MALE
1) Overall findings: (male + female of all ages) highest - (2) = 47 lowest (18,41) =1 2) According to sex: Male : highest (2) =21 lowest (30, 39) = 1 Female : highest (2) = 26 lowest (18,30,39,40) = 1 3) According to age (TABLE 2.2) : MALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 12 - lowest : (6, 21) = 1 26 40 - highest : (2,4) = 3 - lowest : (15,16,21) = 1 41 65 - highest : (6) = 6 - lowest : (15, 16,17,21) = 1 66+ - highest : (34) = 2 - lowest : (2,4,6,16,17,21,30,39) = 1 FEMALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 12 - lowest : (15,41) = 1 26 40 - highest : (2) = 5 - lowest : (4,15,16) = 1 41 65 - highest : (2) = 9 - lowest : (15,16,21,34) = 1 66+ - highest : (34) = 2 - lowest : (4,14,15,18,30,39) = 1
10
TABLE 3.1 NEIGHBOUR Types of Language 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 1 2 11 2 6 1 2 2 2 4 2 3 4 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 6 14 15 16 17 18 21 23 30 34 39 40 41 2 1 7 1 1 1 1
FEMALE
MALE
1) Overall findings: (male + female of all ages) highest - (2) = 26 lowest (6,18) =1 2) According to sex: Male : highest (2) =20 lowest (6,30, 34) = 1 Female : highest (14) = 8 lowest (18,30,39) = 1 3) According to age (TABLE 3.2) : MALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 11 - lowest : (15, 17) = 1 26 40 - highest : (2) = 2 - lowest : (4,21) = 1 41 65 - highest : (2) = 6 - lowest : (4, 15,17,39) = 1 66+ - highest : (-) = - lowest : (2,4,6,16,21,30,34,39) = 1 FEMALE 10 25 - highest : (14) = 4 - lowest : (15,16) = 1 26 40 - highest : (3) = 4 - lowest : (4,17,21) = 1 41 65 - highest : (14) = 3 - lowest : (34) = 1 66+ - highest : (34) = 2 - lowest : (14,15,18,30,39) = 1
11
TABLE 4.1 RELIGION Types of Language 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 1 3 1 2 2 9 2 6 2 10 4 2 1 8 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 3 4 1 5 6 14 15 16 17 18 21 23 30 34 39 40 41 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
FEMALE
MALE
1) Overall findings: (male + female of all ages) highest - (2) = 40 lowest (4,5,30) =1 2) According to sex: Male : highest (2) =19 lowest (4,5, 21) = 1 Female : highest (2) = 21 lowest (16,18,21,30) = 1 3) According to age (TABLE 4.2) : MALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 9 - lowest : (4,15, 16) = 1 26 40 - highest : (2) = 2 - lowest : (1,17) = 1 41 65 - highest : (2) = 6 - lowest : (15,17) = 1 66+ - highest : (2,16) = 2 - lowest : (5,17,21) = 1 FEMALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 10 - lowest : (15,21) = 1 26 40 - highest : (1) = 4 - lowest : (2) = 1 41 65 - highest : (2) = 8 - lowest : (15,16) = 1 66+ - highest : (2) = 2 - lowest : (14,18,30) = 1
12
TABLE 5.1 EDUCATION Types of Language 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 1 14 1 5 2 3 3 15 2 4 2 6 3 4 2 3 13 3 5 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 1 4 2 5 6 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 30 34 39 40 41 1
FEMALE
MALE
1) Overall findings: (male + female of all ages) highest - (3) = 45 lowest (22,41) =1 2) According to sex: Male : highest (3) =23 lowest (14) = 1 Female : highest (3) = 22 lowest (22,41) = 1 3) According to age(TABLE 5.2): MALE 10 25 - highest : (3) = 15 - lowest : (14) = 1 26 40 - highest : (3) = 2 - lowest : (1) = 1 41 65 - highest : (1) = 5 - lowest : (3) = 4 66+ - highest : (3) = 2 - lowest : (-) = FEMALE 10 25 - highest : (3) = 13 - lowest : (22,41) = 1 26 40 - highest : (1,3) = 3 - lowest : (-) = 41 65 - highest : (3) = 5 - lowest : (5) = 1 66+ - highest : (-) = - lowest : (3) = 1
13
TABLE 6.1 EMPLOYMENT Types of Language 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 10 25 26 40 41 65 66+ 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 3 5 2 3 6 3 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 3 1 3 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 1 5 6 14 15 16 17 18 21 23 30 34 39 40 41
FEMALE
MALE
1) Overall findings: (male + female of all ages) highest - (2) = 45 lowest (6) =1 2) According to sex: Male : highest (2) =10 lowest (14,21) = 1 Female : highest (1) = 10 lowest (16,14) = 1 3) According to age (TABLE 6.2) : MALE 10 25 - highest : (2) = 3 - lowest : (3,4) = 1 26 40 - highest : (-) = - lowest : (2,3,4) = 1 41 65 - highest : (2) = 6 - lowest : (21) = 1 66+ - highest : (-) = - lowest : (1,21) = 1 FEMALE 10 25 - highest : (2,4) = 3 - lowest : (3,6) = 1 26 40 - highest : (3) = 4 - lowest : (1) = 3 41 65 - highest : (1) = 5 - lowest : (14) = 1 66+ - highest : (-) = - lowest : (-) = -
14
SEMINAR GROUP B GROUP 1 NAME MOHAMAD SHAHRILNIZA BIN MOHD NOR MOHD FIRDOUSE BIN SHAMSUDIN SITI SYAHIRAH BINTI MOHD NASHUHA NOR ERNA BINTI RAMLI WAN NUR HIDAYAH BINTI WAN SAHID MOHAMMAD IZZUL IQBAL BIN NORZAMANI CHARO BINTI SANI NORDIN SHARIFAH MAHIRAH BINTI SYED MOHAMAD NOR ALYA BINTI ZULKIFLI MUHAMMAD FAIZ BIN NORMAN ISKANDAR NOOR SYAHIRA BINTI SALIM STUDENT ID 1034567 1034580 1034566 EMAIL [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
1034574 1034586
[email protected] [email protected]
1034571
1034579 1034581
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
1034665 1034570
1034578
15