World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition: Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes [1 ed.] 9789027266651, 9789027249180

Citation preview

Varieties of English Around the World

G58

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes

Michael Percillier

John Benjamins Publishing Company

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Varieties of English Around the World (VEAW) issn 0172-7362 A monograph series devoted to sociolinguistic research, surveys and annotated text collections. The VEAW series is divided into two parts: a text series contains carefully selected specimens of Englishes documenting the coexistence of regional, social, stylistic and diachronic varieties in a particular region; and a general series which contains outstanding studies in the field, collections of papers devoted to one region or written by one scholar, bibliographies and other reference works. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/veaw Editor Stephanie Hackert

University of Munich (LMU)

Editorial Board Manfred Görlach Cologne

Rajend Mesthrie

University of Cape Town

Peter L. Patrick

University of Essex

Edgar W. Schneider

University of Regensburg

Peter Trudgill

University of Fribourg

Walt Wolfram

North Carolina State University

Volume G58 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition. Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes by Michael Percillier

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes

Michael Percillier University of Mannheim

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Cover illustration “Rafflesia”, by Steve Cornish. 2006. Source: https://flic.kr/p/qkRAK. Licence: CC BY 2.0

doi 10.1075/veaw.g58 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2016021961 (print) / 2016039000 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 4918 0 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 6665 1 (e-book)

© 2016 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com

For my parents, Doris and Jean For Evi

Table of contents

List of abbreviations

xi

List of maps, figures and tables

xiii

Acknowledgements

xvii

chapter 1 Introduction1 1.1 Aims of the study  2 1.2 Structure of the study  4 chapter 2 Historical overview 2.1 Pre-colonial period  5 2.2 Early modern Southeast Asian states and the colonial period  7 2.3 Independence 11 chapter 3 English in postcolonial Southeast Asia 3.1 Linguistic ecologies in the post-colonial period  13 3.1.1 Singapore 13 3.1.2 Malaysia 14 3.1.3 Indonesia 15 3.1.4 Overview of linguistic ecologies in the three countries  19 3.2 Profile of English in Southeast Asia  19 3.2.1 Singapore English  19 3.2.2 Malaysian English  21 3.2.3 English in Indonesia  22

5

13

chapter 4 Theories and models for a comparative study of second-language varieties and learner Englishes23 4.1 Classifying varieties of English  23 4.2 Comparing second-language varieties and learner Englishes  27 4.2.1 Attempts at bridging the paradigm gap  28 4.2.2 Adopting and adapting theories and methodologies  29 4.2.3 A concerted and empirical approach  30

viii World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

chapter 5 Data & Methodology 5.1 Singapore 37 5.2 Malaysia 38 5.3 Indonesia 39 5.4 Overview of data  42 5.5 Data processing  42 5.5.1 Transcription 42 5.5.2 Annotation  42 5.5.3 Data format  44 5.5.4 The special case of missing past tense marking: Phonology or morphology?  45 5.6 Performing searches  46 5.6.1 Annotated format  46 5.6.2 Unannotated format  46 5.6.3 R data frames  47 chapter 6 A comparative feature inventory 6.1 Phonological features  49 6.1.1 Consonant clusters  50 6.1.2 Isolated final plosives  53 6.1.3 Monophthongisation  56 6.1.4 Fricatives  58 6.1.5 Devoicing  62 6.1.6 Stress  63 6.1.7 Spelling pronunciation  64 6.1.8 Vowel length  65 6.1.9 Sandhi  65 6.1.10  Other cases  66 6.1.11  Summary of observed phonological features  66 6.2 Morphological features  67 6.2.1 Plural marking  68 6.2.2 Past tense marking  71 6.2.3 Third person singular present tense marking  80 6.2.4 Word class and verb forms  82 6.2.5 Comparative  84 6.2.6 Case  85 6.2.7 Progressive aspect  86 6.2.8 Perfect  87 6.2.9 Summary of observed morphological features  88

37

49



6.3 6.4 6.5

Table of contents

Syntactic features  89 6.3.1 Deletion  89 6.3.2 Word choice  99 6.3.3 Redundant items  108 6.3.4 Word order  110 6.3.5 “One relative clauses”  111 6.3.6 Invariant question tags  112 6.3.7 Passive voice  113 6.3.8 Inversion  114 6.3.9 Summary of observed syntactic features  115 Discourse features  115 6.4.1 Discourse particles  116 6.4.2 Code-mixing and code-switching  118 Overall summary  120 6.5.1 Frequencies of features  120 6.5.2 Major trends observed  122

chapter 7 Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 7.1 Origin of features  128 7.1.1 Origin of phonological features  128 7.1.2 Origin of morphological features  137 7.1.3 Origin of syntactic features  148 7.1.4 Feature origin across varieties  156 7.2 Register 158 7.3 Malay L1 and Chinese L1 speakers  162 7.4 Learner proficiency  164 7.4.1 Phonological features  165 7.4.2 Morphological features  167 7.4.3 Syntactic features  168 7.4.4 Discourse features  169 7.4.5 Features unique to the learner variety  170 7.4.6 Acquisition of grammatical morphemes  172 7.4.7 Learner fluency  175 chapter 8 Implications for postcolonial Englishes and the ESL/EFL distinction 8.1 The genesis of postcolonial Englishes  179 8.2 Revisiting the ESL/EFL distinction  183 8.3 Other levels of the ESL/EFL distinction  184 8.4 Postcolonial developments  187

127

179

ix

x

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

chapter 9 Conclusion and outlook

189

References

197

Index

203

List of abbreviations

CLI Cross-Linguistic Influence EFL English as a Foreign Language ENL English as a Native Language ESL English as a Second Language GSSEC Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus ICE International Corpus of English IndonE Indonesian learner English MalE Malysian English NIECSSE National Institute of Education Corpus of Spoken Singapore English SgE Singapore English SLA Second Language Acquisition TLU Target-Like Use UIB Universitas Internasional Batam

List of maps, figures and tables

Maps Map 2.1 Map 5.1

Map of Malaysia, Singapore and western Indonesia marking the major locations mentioned in the historical overview6 Map showing the locations of data collection, UIB on Batam and Tanjung Pinang on Bintan40

Figures Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2

Pro-independence slogan written in English (Indonesia 1947)17 Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in 2011, displaying a sign in English18 Figure 3.3 Footwear shop in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia, in 200918 Figure 4.1 Kachru’s ‘Three Circles’ model (adapted from Crystal 1997: 54)24 Figure 6.1 Overview of normalised frequencies for full (f) versus reduced (r) realisations of final consonant clusters52 Figure 6.2 Overview of ratios for full (f) versus reduced (r) realisations of final consonant clusters53 Figure 6.3 Overview of ratios for full, glottal stop, and unreleased realisations of final plosives55 Figure 6.4 Relative frequencies of plural marking types70 Figure 6.5 Relative frequencies of analytically marked and implicit plurality in cases of missing inflectional plural marking71 Figure 6.6 Relative frequencies of past tense marking types73 Figure 6.7 Relative frequencies of adverbial marking and contextual marking strategies in cases of missing inflectional past tense marking77 Figure 6.8 Relative frequencies of regular and irregular verbs for cases of missing inflectional past tense marking78 Figure 6.9 Relative frequencies of types of third person singular present tense marking81 Figure 6.10 Relative frequencies of missing, unexpected and standard progressive aspect87 Figure 6.11 Relative frequencies of deletion types91 Figure 6.12 Relative frequencies of verbal deletion subtypes95

xiv World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Figure 6.13 Relative values of deleted prepositions97 Figure 6.14 Relative frequencies of non-standard word choice by affected word class101 Figure 6.15 Overall comparison of non-standard features by category121 Figure 7.1 Comparison of potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the category phonology157 Figure 7.2 Comparison of potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the categories morphology (m) and syntax (s)157 Figure 7.3 Comparison of relative values for potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the categories phonology (p), morphology (m) and syntax (s)159 Figure 7.4 Comparison of non-standard features observed in Singapore English, formal Singapore English, informal Singapore English, Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English159 Figure 7.5 Overview of phonological features with separate marking of the features ‘isolated plosive reduction’ and ‘monophthongisation’161 Figure 7.6 Overview of non-standard features grouped into Malay (m) L1 and Chinese (c) L1 speakers163 Figure 7.7 Distribution of speakers by number of years of learning English at the time of recording165 Figure 7.8 Scatterplot of phonological features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English166 Figure 7.9 Scatterplot of morphological features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English167 Figure 7.10 Scatterplot of syntactic features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years learning English168 Figure 7.11 Scatterplot of discourse features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English170 Figure 7.12 Scatterplot of non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English171 Figure 7.13 Scatterplots of TLU scores of grammatical morphemes in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English174 Figure 7.14 Scatterplot of rapidity of speech measures in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English176 Figure 8.1 Illustration of feature selection in the nativisation process180 Figure 8.2 Illustration of feature range selection in the nativisation process181 Figure 9.1 Bilingual sign at Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in 2011, displaying two non-standard features in the English language portion191 Figure 9.2 Model of the range of sociolinguistic variation of English in ESL and EFL settings192



List of maps, figures and tables xv

Tables Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 6.11 Table 6.12 Table 6.13 Table 6.14 Table 6.15 Table 6.16 Table 6.17 Table 6.18 Table 6.19 Table 6.20 Table 6.21 Table 6.22 Table 6.23 Table 6.24

Examples of Malaysian and Indonesian loanwords from English and Dutch as donor languages10 Overview of English and Malay in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia19 Data used for Singapore English broken down by file38 Data used for Malaysian English broken down by file39 Overview of data collected for Indonesian learner English41 Overview of data collected42 Annotation scheme for the category ‘phonology’44 Annotation scheme for the category ‘morphology’44 Annotation scheme for the category ‘syntax’44 Overview of phonological features49 Overview of reduced consonant clusters50 Ratios of reduced realisation for word-final consonant clusters51 Overview of non-standard realisation of final plosives in isolation54 Count of cases of monophthongisation, grouped by diphthong affected56 Percentages of non-standard realisations of the diphthongs /əʊ/ and /eɪ/57 Overview of non-standard realisations of /θ/58 Overview of non-standard realizations of /ð/58 Percentages of non-standard realisations of /θ/ and /ð/ for three most frequently affected types respectively60 Overview of non-standard realisations of /ʃ/60 Overview of non-standard realisations of /f/, /v/, and /s/61 Overview of cases of devoicing, grouped by position within a word62 Overview of observed types of devoicing63 Overview of non-standard stress patterns64 Overview of audibly discernible vowel shortenings65 Overview of non-standard sandhi alternation for the indefinite article ‘a/an’65 Overview of non-standard realisations of /r/66 Overview of observed phonological features67 Overview of observed morphological features67 Overview of types of plural marking69 Overview of types of past tense marking72 Frequencies of adverbial marking and contextual marking strategies in cases of missing inflectional past tense marking75 Types of non-standard third person singular present tense marking80 Overview of word class and verb form substitutions84

xvi World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.25 Table 6.26 Table 6.27 Table 6.28 Table 6.29 Table 6.30 Table 6.31 Table 6.32 Table 6.33 Table 6.34 Table 6.35 Table 6.36 Table 6.37 Table 6.38 Table 6.39 Table 6.40 Table 6.41 Table 6.42 Table 6.43 Table 6.44 Table 6.45 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3

Overview of observed morphological features88 Overview of observed syntactic features89 Elements affected by deletion90 Tokens of subject deletion by subject type92 Overview of types of verb deletion94 Overview of deleted prepositions96 Tokens of object deletion by object type.98 Overview on non-standard word choices grouped by word class100 Overview of non-standard preposition choices103 Overview of types of non-standard auxiliary choice106 Types of non-standard determiner choice107 Overview of redundant items109 Overview of cases of non-standard word order110 Overview of invariant question tags113 Overview of non-standard cases of inversion use114 Overview of observed syntactic features115 Overview of discourse particles118 Overview of the number of features attested for each variety, grouped by category123 List of features not attested in all varieties123 Comparison of the range of realizations/affected elements for applicable features125 Count of significant differences observed between varieties with regard to frequencies and ranges of realisations/elements affected126 Examples of non-standard word choices displaying similarities to Malay syntax150 Overview of non-standard preposition choice in tokens with regard to correspondence to Malay prepositions152 Overview of rapidity of speech (ROS) measures in words per minute175

Acknowledgements

The present monograph, based on my research undertaken at the University of Freiburg, would not have been possible without the help of many people. Although I fear I cannot express my due gratitude to every single person from whom I have received assistance, I will nonetheless try. First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Christian Mair, for his guidance, input and suggestions, which were always of great benefit. My gratitude also goes to the Hermann Paul School of Language Sciences. I am thankful not only for their funding, which allowed me to focus entirely on the present project for a period of three years, but also for the vast range of courses and workshops offered, which provided me ample opportunity for me to present my work at various intermediate stages and receive valuable feedback. My thanks go to the School’s representatives, Stefan Pfänder and Daniel Jacob, as well as the successive coordinators, Oliver Ehmer, Thiemo Breyer, Henrik Voß and Monika Schulz. In the course of the various presentations I have given at intermediate stages of my work, as well as in many conversations, I have received many helpful comments and suggestions. In this respect, I would like to thank (in alphabetical order): Dagmar Deuber, Nicole Höhn, Paul Kerswill, Véronique Lacoste, Jakob Leimgruber, Kerstin Lunkenheimer, Christian Mair, Salikoko Mufwene, Stefan Pfänder, Patrick Roesler, Edgar W. Schneider, Verena Schröter, Jeff Siegel, Sarah Thomason, Hildegard Tristram and Dirk Vetter. I sincerely apologise if this list is incomplete. My fieldwork on the Riau Islands was made possible with the help of a multitude of people. My travel expenses were covered thanks to a grant from the International Graduate Academy of the University of Freiburg. My gratitude is also extended to the University Library’s New Media Center for trusting me with recording equipment. On the Riau Islands, I would like to express my thanks, first and foremost, to all the students, teachers and pupils who took the time to be interviewed. In addition, my thanks go to staff at the International University of Batam, in particular Vergilio Garrido, Dirk Reichardt, Condra Antoni and Agustina Fitrianingrum for their help in organising rooms and suggesting respondents. For their hospitality during my stay on Batam, I am extremely grateful to Zainal Abidin, Marhamah Abid and their three children. My gratitude also goes to Pak Raja, aka Mr. King,

xviii World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

for his dedication and professionalism as my taxi driver of choice on the island of Batam. I would like to thank Bebby Antari for organising the recording session in Tanjung Pinang on the island of Bintan, as well as her family for their hospitality. Never will I be able to thank Evi Nurfidianti enough for her assistance during the entire period of my fieldwork. This project would not have been possible without available corpora of Singapore English and Malaysian English. I would like to express my appreciation to Lisa Lim for allowing me to use her GSSEC corpus, as well as to David Deterding and Low Ee Ling for making the NIECSSE corpus generally accessible. I am also very grateful to Hajar Abdul Rahim and Su’ad Awab of the ICE-Malaysia team for providing files from their corpus prior to its general release. I have received invaluable feedback from the following native speakers of Malay/Indonesian regarding grammaticality judgements, the Malay phoneme inventory and Malay prepositions. For this help, I am indebted to Piter Wang, Tangguh Adi Raharjo and Evi Nurfidianti, and I also appreciate Lydia Lee’s patience while explaining Chinese relative clauses. Needless to say, I am responsible for any blunders with regard to Malay and Chinese grammar. For letting me use their photographs, I would like to thank Dimas Soeharko and Evi Nurfidianti, as well as the Nederlands Fotomuseum. I am grateful to Stephanie Hackert, editor of the book series Varieties of English Around the World, as well as to the anonymous reviewer(s) for their input that is vital to the publication of my work in its current form. Many thanks also go to Kathleen Rabl for proofreading my revised manuscript. I would also like to thank Kees Vaes and Susan Hendriks of John Benjamins Publishing Company for their assistance in the final stages of the publication process. Finally, but most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, Doris and Jean, and Evi, my wife, for their boundless love, patience and support. It is to them that I dedicate the present book.

chapter 1

Introduction

Due to its complex colonial history, Southeast Asia is comprised of countries and territories that use English as a second language as well as countries where English is a foreign language. The first category includes the former British colonies Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Myanmar (Burma) and Hong Kong (a borderline case), as well as the Philippines, which experienced a period under US American influence. The countries where English fulfils a role as a foreign language are the former French colonies Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the former Dutch colony Indonesia, as well as Thailand, which remained free from colonial rule. This diverse constellation of nations with different colonial backgrounds allows for a comparative analysis of English in neighbouring English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts. In addition to providing insights into the differences between ESL and EFL forms of English, this type of analysis can shed light on the genesis of postcolonial varieties of English. This is particularly the case for countries sharing a substrate language but which have different colonial backgrounds. An example of such a substrate language spoken in countries with different colonial backgrounds is Malay. Its geographical distribution extends to Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, and southern Thailand (Tadmor 2009: 686–687; Ricklefs et al. 2010: 2). This study will focus on Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, a triadic constellation that covers two diverging postcolonial varieties of English as well as a learner variety. Malaysia and Singapore, which became separate political entities less than a decade after the end of British rule (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 332–338), both have an ESL status, although they have been following different trajectories of development during their postcolonial history: while Malaysia has promoted Malay at the expense of English, Singapore has encouraged the use of English. Thus, while today many Singaporeans acquire English as a first language, the role of English as a second language in Malaysia has decreased over the years (Bautista & Gonzalez 2006: 131). English in Indonesia shall serve as a comparable learner variety due to the common substrate language it shares with the other two varieties. In order to facilitate the comparison of English in the three countries, the emphasis will be placed on the Malay-speaking regions or portions of the population in each country.

2

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

It should be noted that Malaysia and Indonesia have different standardised varieties of Malay as their official language. The term Malay (bahasa Melayu in Malay) will refer to the language in general, especially when it is not possible to distinguish between the two varieties from a historical perspective. For the standard Malay used in Malaysia, the term Malaysian (bahasa Malaysia in Malay) will be used, while the term for the standard Malay used in Indonesia will be Indonesian (bahasa Indonesia in Malay). The variety used in Singapore is locally referred to as Malay (bahasa Melayu) and is very similar to Malaysian (Tadmor 2009: 687). 1.1

Aims of the study

By presenting a comparative analysis of two postcolonial varieties of English and a neighbouring variety of learner English, this monograph aims to achieve the following goals: 1. To provide insights into the genesis of the features of postcolonial Englishes by contrasting them with a neighbouring region that shares a substrate language but had no history of British rule. The analysis will be particularly concerned with the question of the extent of substrate influence, general SLA strategies and colonial history on the features of postcolonial Englishes. Furthermore, the possible correlation between a higher ratio of substrate features and an EFL status as well as a lower ratio of substrate features and the nativisation process will be examined. 2. To question the current ESL/EFL distinction in the light of structural differences by undertaking a thorough empirical analysis. Does the label “ESL”, which is usually based on extralinguistic criteria, i.e. the historical background of a British/American colonial heritage, imply structural differences with regard to learner varieties? 3. To investigate postcolonial developments in the case of English. In the course of the second half of the twentieth century, English has followed different trajectories of development in the three countries under examination. It has been observed that English has been shifting towards first language status in Singapore, while in Malaysia it has been supplanted by the national language, Bahasa Malaysia. Indonesia has entirely discarded Dutch, the former colonial language, and immediately after independence readily adopted English as the language of international communication, science and technology. A recently noted revival of English in Malaysia with functions typical of an EFL status begs the question as to whether the continuation of its former status as an excolonial second language is a sign of the more recent integration of the country into global economic, cultural and linguistic currents.



Chapter 1.  Introduction

Features of postcolonial varieties of English and learner errors may be caused by the same mechanism of substrate influence when both share a common substrate language (cf. Williams 1987: 162–163).1 Features of postcolonial varieties of English can therefore be thought of as learner errors which have been passed on over generations of speakers and thus become part of language use in the said variety. As such, the following working hypothesis can be formulated. The distinction between ESL and EFL is clear in historical terms but blurred when considering the existence of shared linguistic features. The research programme derived from this is (1) to determine the precise degrees of overlap in the specific case I am investigating and (2) to find out to what extent the ESL/ EFL distinction might be useful at other levels (sociolinguistic status and norms, language attitudes etc.). These two points have to be verified empirically by comparing features of postcolonial varieties of English with errors found in learner English with the same substrate language. The comparative analysis aims at providing answers to the following questions: – Do the features of the postcolonial variety of English correspond to the learner errors? – Can the features/errors be explained by substrate influence? – Can the said features/errors also be explained by general SLA strategies that are independent of the typological characteristics of the shared substrate language, including hypercorrection? – Are certain types of learner errors (e.g. phonological, grammatical, lexical ­errors) more prone to be maintained as features in ESL usage than other types of errors that may disappear with increased usage or proficiency? The answers to these questions must involve both quantitative (comparison of frequencies of features/errors in both types of varieties) as well as qualitative (explanation of substrate influence) forms of analysis. A desirable goal would be to be able to determine whether a colonial legacy translates into structural differences (phonology and grammar) in comparison to learner English, or whether the differences are restricted mostly to lexical items, language attitudes and proficiency.

1. The distinction between feature and error lies in the fact that the former is deemed acceptable within a speech community (cf. Gut 2011: 120 and Section 5.5.2 in the present book).

3

4

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

1.2

Structure of the study

This introductory chapter is followed by a historical overview of the three countries under discussion. It ranges from the pre-colonial period to the present day, and lists the various waves of foreign influence, both European and non-European, along with the corresponding linguistic and cultural impact. Following the historical overview, Chapter 3 examines the current linguistic ecologies of Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia, and reviews existing descriptive accounts of English as a variety in the three countries. The analysis of linguistic ecologies focuses on the roles played by Malay and English in each country. Chapter 4 begins by discussing the various models for classifying non-native varieties of English, along with the status of English in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia within these models. Following this discussion, avenues for a comparative analysis of second-language and learner varieties of English are explored. Chapter 5 provides overviews of the data collection process, and of the methodology used for the transcription, annotation, and querying of the data. A comparative feature inventory is presented in Chapter 6, where features observed in the three varieties under investigation are described, illustrated with examples from the data, and contrasted quantitatively. In Chapter 7, the features detailed in the preceding chapter are first analysed with respect to their potential substrate influence. Subsequently, the influence of factors such as register, first language, and learner proficiency is investigated. The findings obtained in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 are interpreted in Chapter 8 in order to provide answers to the research questions formulated in the introductory chapter, specifically regarding the genesis of postcolonial Englishes, the ESL/ EFL distinction, and the diverging postcolonial developments in the countries under investigation. Chapter 9 ends the book by providing a conclusion as well as an outlook on potential further research.

chapter 2

Historical overview

The present chapter offers a summary of the history of Southeast Asia, focussing on Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. After a brief account of the pre-colonial period, the chapter delves into the colonial period itself and describes how the region came to be divided into British and Dutch spheres of influence. Finally, the events leading to independence in the three nations are outlined. 2.1

Pre-colonial period

The relevant pre-colonial history of Southeast Asia can be roughly divided into two main periods: early states and ‘classical’ states. Starting prior to the early states period and lasting up to the ‘classical’ states period, a process of ‘Indianization’ took place. The ‘Indianization’ of Southeast Asia refers to the spread of cultural elements from India, ranging from new religious beliefs such as Hinduism and Buddhism to the introduction of Sanskrit as a language of ritual and literature, while the local languages remained for vernacular use. This process is estimated to have begun approximately at the beginning of the Common Era. The endpoint cannot be determined with certainty, but by the end of the first millennium direct influences from India had waned significantly (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 20–21). The linguistic legacy of Indianization on Malay manifests itself in the form of numerous loan words of Sanskrit origin, including common words such as everyday nouns, e.g. kepala ‘head’ (< kapāla ‘cup, skull’), cahaya ‘light’ (< chāya ‘reflection, light’), nama ‘name’ (< nāma(n) ‘name’), kerja ‘work’ (< kārya ‘duty, work’) (Tadmor 2009: 689), as well as function words, e.g. semua ‘all’ (< samūha ‘multitude’), saya ‘I’ (< sahaya ‘companion’), the complementiser bahwa (< bhāva ‘being, state’), bila ‘when, if ’ (< velā ‘time’) and karena ‘because’ (< kāraṇa ‘cause’), which likely underwent grammaticalisation from nouns to function words either during or after the borrowing process (Tadmor 2009: 700). Furthermore, the importance attributed to Sanskrit to this day can be attested by the Sanskrit name of the official state philosophy of the Republic of Indonesia, Pancasila (< pañca sīla ‘five principles’). The early states phase, roughly spanning the first millennium of the Common Era, refers to a period in which Southeast Asia was occupied by various political entities. The major locations mentioned in this historical overview are shown

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

on Map 2.1. As the pre-colonial states did not have fixed borders in the modern sense, only their centres of power are displayed. The borders of today’s modern states are marked for easier orientation. THAILAND

South China Sea

Banda Aceh

Penang Terengganu

St ra

its

of

M

BRUNEI

MALAYSIA

ala

cc a

Sabah/ North Borneo

Kuala Lumpur Sarawak

Malacca Johor Lama

SINGAPORE

Sumatra

Borneo

Riau Islands

Riau

Jambi

INDONESIA

Kalimantan

Palembang

Java Sea Banten

Batavia/Jakarta

nd

aS

tra

its

Indian Ocean

Su

6

Java

Madura Bali

Map 2.1  Map of Malaysia, Singapore and western Indonesia marking the major locations mentioned in the historical overview

With regard to Malaysia, Singapore and Malay-speaking regions of Indonesia, the relevant early polity of this period was Srivijaya, whose zone of influence extended across the Malay peninsula, including the south of modern-day Thailand, and Sumatra, and therefore controlled the Straits of Malacca (Melaka), favoured by the trade patterns of the time. The polity was above all a maritime trading polity, whose centre is presumed to have initially been Palembang in Southeast Sumatra (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 29–30). The ‘classical’ states period, dated between 800 and 1300, was characterised by generally larger, longer-lasting polities than in the early states period, with more stable political centres (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 36). Srivijaya occupied centre stage in maritime Southeast Asia for most of the ‘classical’ period. The 1400s saw a new kingdom prosper in Malacca, whose foundation and rise was linked to Palembang. By that time, the centre of the Malay world had clearly shifted from Palembang to Malacca, which can be seen as an heir to its predecessor (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 61–62). The ‘classical’ states laid the foundations for the states in the early modern period,



Chapter 2.  Historical overview

which were those encountered by Western powers upon their arrival in the region (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 68). The ‘classical’ period was also marked by new religions and associated practices appearing in Southeast Asia, notably Theravada Buddhism and Islam. The introduction of Islam to the region had several linguistic consequences. First of all, the Malay language began to be written in Arabic script (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 81). A further consequence was an abundance of loanwords from Arabic (sometimes as loanwords via Persian), e.g. dunia ‘world’ (< dunyā ‘world’), badan ‘body’ (”) tags save for the sentence index tag. This results in a much more readable version of the data, which can be important for looking at features in their context.



Chapter 5.  Data & Methodology

The only annotation information left over in this format consists of the final consonants written in parentheses when not realised as expected in a standard variety, as already mentioned in Section 5.5.3. The presence of final consonants with and without parentheses in the unannotated version of the data makes it possible to search for cases of standard realisation of final consonant clusters and final stops. Thus, ratios of non-standard realisation can be estimated and compared across the varieties under examination. 5.6.3 R data frames The features annotated in the data were separated from the corpus text and listed in the CSV format for importation as a data frame in R. This allows for quick crosstabulations of several factors using the xtabs() function (Baayen 2008: 13–14). In addition to cross-tabulations, the existence of the data as data frames in R facilitates statistical testing, e.g. Pearson’s Chi-squared test (with Yates’ continuity correction when applicable, cf. Baayen 2008: 113). The tests were performed using observed frequencies rather than normalised frequencies. The following α-levels are used: p < 0.001, marked with ***, p < 0.01, marked with **, p < 0.05, marked with *. p-values above 0.05 are considered not statistically significant and marked with the abbreviation ‘n.s.’. As α-levels are somewhat arbitrary cutoff points (Baayen 2008: 68–69), the actual p-value is given, except when it is so low that it cannot be written without resorting to scientific notation. In these cases, it is simply given as p < 0.001. In cases of low expected frequencies (< 5) for which the χ2 approximation may be incorrect, combined with a p-value close to the significance/insignificance threshold, the p-value was estimated using Fisher’s Exact Test instead (cf. Baayen 2008: 113). In Section 7.4, analyses involving Indonesian learners’ time spent learning English as a factor are performed using correlation tests (cf. Baayen 2008: 90–91). R2-values (cf. Baayen 2008: 88) are also estimated when relevant.

47

chapter 6

A comparative feature inventory

The present chapter provides an enumeration of features observed across the three varieties. The features are grouped into phonological (cf. Section 6.1), morphological (cf. Section 6.2), syntactic (cf. Section 6.3), and discourse categories (cf. Section 6.4). Alongside the description of features, normalised and relative frequencies are provided. A detailed analysis of the data with respect to substrate influence, register variation, speech communities and learner proficiency is given in the following chapter. 6.1

Phonological features

The most common phonological feature found in all varieties is the non-standard realisation of final plosives, both in consonant clusters and in isolation. Table 6.1 gives an overview of the types observed.5 The observed phonological features are described in detail below, illustrated with examples. Table 6.1  Overview of phonological features Feature Consonant cluster Devoicing Vowel length Monophthongisation Other phonemes Plosive in isolation Sandhi Spelling pronunciation Stress

Tokens

Normalised

SgE

MalE

IndonE

SgE

MalE

IndonE

341 19 1 135 82 431 1 0 52

597 28 2 373 302 1,102 6 5 43

1,470 189 4 43 863 905 8 57 49

2,611 145 8 1,034 628 3,300 8 0 398

2,837 133 10 1,773 1,435 5,237 29 24 204

3,064 394 8 90 1,799 1,886 17 119 102

5. Normalised values are per 100,000 words, rounded to the nearest integer. Subsequent tables will feature normalised values only, unless specified otherwise.

50

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

It should be noted that for the features ‘consonant clusters’ and ‘isolated final plosives’ (Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 respectively), care was taken to exclude instances of plosives followed by a homorganic sound, as it cannot be determined how such word-final plosives are realised, as shown in Example (1), where the status of the consonant cluster in statement as either full or reduced cannot be established due to the following homorganic sound in together. The exclusion criteria also cover cases in which the following sound is homorganic due to a non-standard feature, as showcased in Example (2), where the realisation of /θ/ as [t] (cf. Section 6.1.4) in three leads to uncertainty regarding the realisation of the final /t/ in it.

(1) Bu(t), bu(t) what we don’t do is, er, you know, Malay and English in one statement together lah. 



(2) Was it three

to four? 

6.1.1 Consonant clusters Consonant cluster reduction must not necessarily be considered a deviation from native varieties of English since it can occur in fast speech, but the phenomenon is found to be extremely frequent, not to say pervasive, in the data analysed. By far the most dominant form of consonant cluster reduction encountered is word final consonant cluster reduction (97.9% of reduced clusters in the Singaporean data are in word-final position, 98.3% in the Malaysian data and 98.1% in the Indonesian data). The most frequent cases are presented in Table 6.2. Table 6.2  Overview of reduced consonant clusters Cluster reduction st → s nd → n nt → n ŋk → ŋ ft → f ld → l lt → l rd → r rt → r sk → s ks → k ks → s kt → k other Total

SgE 697 467 796 222 15 54 15 0 8 38 0 23 61 215 2,611

MalE 965 575 803 214 14 162 5 0 0 19 0 0 10 71 2,837

IndonE 871 727 629 463 19 54 106 13 21 23 8 6 40 83 3,064



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

The normalised comparison of different reduced clusters shows that certain cases share relatively homogenous frequencies across the three varieties, e.g. the consonant cluster /ft/ reduced to /f/, in word-final position as in left [lɛf], gift [gɪf], or in wordinternal position (only in the word software [sɒfwɛə]). In contrast, certain consonant clusters are reduced more frequently in one variety than in the other two, e.g. /lt/ to /l/, as in difficult [dɪfɪkəl], which is more frequent in Indonesian learner English, or /ld/ to /l/, as in cold [kəʊl], which occurs more often in Malaysian English. When looking at the words in which the former is reduced, it becomes apparent that in all cases but one they occur in the word difficult. Considering this, the higher rate of reduction for this particular cluster may be due to a higher frequency of lexical items containing said consonant cluster. The word difficult has a normalised frequency of 217 occurrences per 100,000 words in the Indonesian data, while this figure drops to 23 occurrences per 100,000 words for the Singaporean data and five occurrences per 100,000 words for the Malaysian data. A similar point can be made for the words most affected by the reduction from /ld/ to /l/, i.e. old, world, told and cold, which, taken together, have a normalised frequency of 266 occurrences per 100,000 words in the Malaysian data, 138 occurrences per 100,000 words in the Indonesian data and 84 occurrences per 100,000 words in the Singaporean data. In order to avoid the description of this phonological feature being based on the frequencies of lexical items, it is necessary to incorporate cases in which consonant clusters are not reduced in order to obtain ratios of reduced versus unreduced consonant clusters that can be compared across varieties. Table 6.3 shows the ratios of non-standard realisation for word-final consonant clusters, determined as n[reduced] / (n[reduced] + n[full]), values rounded to two decimals. Table 6.3  Ratios of reduced realisation for word-final consonant clusters Cluster

SgE

MalE

IndonE

/mp/ /sp/ /ft/ /kt/ /lt/ /nt/ /pt/ /st/ /lk/ /ŋk/ /sk/ /ld/ /nd/ Total

0.82 – 0.67 0.48 0.4 0.74 1 0.51 – 0.52 0.56 0.41 0.24 0.46

0.5 0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.82 0.75 0.69 0 0.62 0.24 0.57 0.22 0.49

0 – 0.18 0.5 0.5 0.71 0 0.54 0.5 0.61 0.22 0.38 0.32 0.48

51

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Final consonant clusters occur in full realisation in a marginal majority of cases. The deviation of overall ratios between the three varieties is minimal. The ratios displayed in Table 6.3 include cases that are relatively homogenous across the three varieties, e.g. /nd/ with ratio differences ranging up to 0.1, as well as cases showing stark contrasts, e.g. /mp/ with a difference of 0.82 between the Singaporean and the Indonesian data. However, token numbers for each cluster vary greatly, ranging from 1,829 for /nd/ to only 1 for /sp/ in the entire data. Final consonant clusters with very low token counts, some of which reveal the greatest contrasts, cannot be regarded as relevant. Therefore, consonant clusters with normalised frequencies under 100 occurrences per 100,000 words in any variety are grouped together in the category ‘other’ in Figure 6.1, which gives a visual comparison of normalised frequencies for full versus reduced realisations of final consonant clusters across the three varieties. As final consonant clusters have different frequencies in the three varieties (IndonE > MalE > SgE), Figure 6.2 gives a visual comparison using ratios for better comparison, whereby combined values for ‘full’ and ‘reduced’ add up to one for each variety. IndonE (r) IndonE (f )

nd st nt ŋk ld

SgE (f )

MalE (r)

MalE (f )

other

SgE (r)

52

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Figure 6.1  Overview of normalised frequencies for full (f) versus reduced (r) realisations of final consonant clusters



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

IndonE (r) IndonE (f )

nd st nt ŋk

ld

SgE (r)

SgE (f )

MalE (r)

MalE (f )

other

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Figure 6.2  Overview of ratios for full (f) versus reduced (r) realisations of final consonant clusters

The main differences that can be observed in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2 are a higher rate of standard realisation of final /nd/ in Malaysian English, which also coincides with a higher rate of non-standard realisation of the same consonant cluster in Indonesian learner English, as well as a higher rate of non-standard realisation of final /st/ in Malaysian English. In addition, Indonesian learner English displays a lower rate of reduction of final /nt/ than the two ESL varieties. Comparisons between the frequencies for standard realisations (χ2 = 70.0414, df = 10, p < 0.001***) and non-standard realisations (χ2 = 91.283, df = 10, p < 0.001***) reveal that the differences between the three varieties are statistically significant. 6.1.2 Isolated final plosives Generally speaking, non-standard realisation of final plosives in isolation (i.e. not part of a consonant cluster) occurs in two different forms: realisation as a glottal stop [ʔ] and realisation as the unreleased equivalent of the original plosive, [p̚],

53

54

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

[t ̚], [k̚], [b̚], [d ̚], or [g̚]. Cases of total consonant deletion, i.e. with no audible realisation whatsoever, were rare in comparison. Table 6.4 gives an overview of the different types of non-standard realisation. Table 6.4  Overview of non-standard realisation of final plosives in isolation Realisation /p/ → [ʔ] /p/ → [p̚] /t/ → [ʔ] /t/ → [t ̚] /t/ → ∅ /k/ → [ʔ] /k/ → [k̚] /k/ → ∅ /b/ → [ʔ] /b/ → [b̚] /d/ → [ʔ] /d/ → [d ̚] /d/ → ∅ /g/ → [ʔ] /g/ → [g̚] Total

SgE 46 77 1,210 972 23 161 314 0 0 0 276 199 8 0 0 3,284

MalE 33 95 1,521 1,649 0 509 708 0 5 10 461 147 0 52 38 5,228

IndonE 0 42 467 713 13 110 283 10 2 17 69 144 0 6 6 1,882

The non-standard realisation as a glottal stop [ʔ] appears to be preferred over the unreleased alternative for /t/ and /d/ in Singapore English and for /d/ and /g/ in Malaysian English, while Indonesian learner English generally favours the unreleased realisation. The addition of all cases of non-standard realisation of final plosives across the three varieties reveals that the phenomenon is approximately 2.8 times more frequent in Malaysian English than in Indonesian learner English, and approximately 1.7 times more frequent in Singapore English than in Indonesian learner English. The higher frequencies observed in ESL varieties do not necessarily imply a greater propensity for this feature, as the variation noticed may also be due to different frequencies of lexemes ending with final plosives across the three varieties. For this reason, a juxtaposition of ratios for full, glottal stop and unreleased realisations is necessary for a clearer comparison. The overview given in Figure 6.36 reveals differences between the ESL varieties and the learner variety. Firstly, the ratios of standard versus non-standard

6. Cases of deletion (→ ∅) are not shown because they are not discernible, but are included in the total count.



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

full glottal stop unreleased IndonE

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.3  Overview of ratios for full, glottal stop, and unreleased realisations of final plosives

realisations vary, ranging from approximately one third of cases of final isolated plosives occurring in non-standard realisation in Malaysian English, approximately a quarter in Singapore English, to less than a sixth in Indonesian learner English. The second characteristic that appears to differentiate ESL varieties and Indonesian learner English is the proportion of the two main types of non-standard realisations: while the cases of non-standard realisation are roughly halved into glottal stops [ʔ] and unreleased consonants for Singapore and Malaysian English, unreleased plosives are almost twice as frequent as glottal stops in Indonesian learner English. The observed differences are significant between Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English (χ2 = 490.0434, df = 3, p < 0.001***), between Singapore English and Indonesian learner English (χ2 = 137.9408, df = 3, p < 0.001***) as well as between the two ESL varieties (χ2 = 47.7611, df = 2, p < 0.001***). The data also reveal six cases in which isolated plosives in word-internal position occur in non-standard realisation, five of which are realised as glottal stops. Each variety exhibits two cases. Examples include football [fʊʔbɔː ɬ], interested [ɪntəɹɛsʔɪd ̚] and whatever [wɒʔɛvə].

55

56

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

6.1.3 Monophthongisation Monophthongisation affects the diphthongs /əʊ/ and /eɪ/ in all three varieties, and occasionally /aɪ/ and /aʊ/ in Indonesian learner English. The normalised frequencies of cases of monophthongisation, grouped by diphthong affected, are given in Table 6.5. Table 6.5  Count of cases of monophthongisation, grouped by diphthong affected Diphthong affected

SgE

MalE

IndonE

/əʊ/ /eɪ/ /aɪ/ /aʊ/

367 666 0 0

737 1,036 0 0

33 35 15 6

Monophthongisation appears to occur far more frequently in the ESL varieties than in Indonesian learner English, whereas the lower frequency of the phenomenon in the learner frequency coincides with a wider range of affected diphthongs. The frequencies also vary among the ESL varieties, with Malaysian English being more prone to monophthongisation. χ2-tests performed between Singapore and Malaysian English (χ2 = 1.2475, df = 1, p = 0.2640, n.s.) on the one hand and Singapore English and Indonesian learner English (χ2  = 34.8835, df  = 3, p < 0.001***) on the other hand reveal a level of unity among the ESL varieties as well as significant differences from the learner variety. In addition to the different frequencies of monophthongisation (and additional diphthongs affected for Indonesian learner English), the varieties also show variation with regard to the resulting sounds produced. Table 6.6 shows the different realisations observed for the two diphthongs affected in all varieties and provides the percentages (rounded to two decimals) for each specific realisation in relation to the overall number of cases of monophthongisation of a given diphthong. Two major tendencies separating the ESL varieties and Indonesian learner English can be observed in Table 6.6. Firstly, the two types of varieties differ in the range of sounds to which the diphthongs /əʊ/ and /eɪ/ are monophthongised. The ESL varieties realise /əʊ/ as either [o] or [ɔ] (with only one exceptional case of [õ] in Singapore English) and /eɪ/ as [e] (with a single exceptional case of [i] in Singapore English). Examples of words occurring in these non-standard realisations include only [onli], know [no] and phone [fon] for /əʊ/ to [o]; won’t [wõn] as the single case of /əʊ/ to [õ]; home [hɔm], gold [gɔɬ] and know [nɔ] for cases of /əʊ/ to [ɔ]; okay [əʊke], paper [pepə] and say [se] for /eɪ/ to [e]; and eight [iʔ] as the single case of /eɪ/ to [i]. In contrast, Indonesian learner English displays a wider range of sounds to which diphthongs are monophthongised, with /əʊ/ realised as



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Table 6.6  Percentages of non-standard realisations of the diphthongs /əʊ/ and /eɪ/ Diphthong

Realisation

SgE

MalE

IndonE

/əʊ/

[o] [õ] [ɔ] [ɒ] [ʊ] [e] [ɛ] [i] [ɪ] [ɜ] [ɑ]

79.17% 2.08% 18.75% – – 98.85% – 1.15% – – –

95.48% – 4.52% – – 100.00% – – – – –

62.50% – 12.50% 12.50% 12.50% 5.88% 58.82% – 23.53% 5.88% 5.88%

/eɪ/

[o], [ɔ], [ɒ] or [ʊ], and /eɪ/ realised as [ɛ], [ɪ], [e], [ɜ] or [ɑ]. Examples of words occurring in realisations unique to Indonesian learner English include no [nɒ] for /əʊ/ to [ɒ], chosen [tʃʊzən] for /əʊ/ to [ʊ], case [kɛs] for /eɪ/ to [ɛ], steak [stɪk̚] for /eɪ/ to [ɪ], waste [wɜs] for /eɪ/ to [ɜ] and native [nɑtɪv] for /eɪ/ for [ɑ]. Secondly, there is variation with regard to preferred realisations. The diphthong /əʊ/ is realised as [o] in a majority of cases in all varieties, but these majorities differ greatly. The rate of realisation as [o] is above 95% in Malaysian English, above the three quarters mark in Singapore English and below the two thirds mark in Indonesian learner English. With regard to the distribution of non-standard realisations of /əʊ/, the differences between Singapore English and Malaysian English (χ2 = 13.7152, df = 2, p = 0.001051**) on the one hand and Singapore English and Indonesian learner English (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.01272*) on the other hand are both statistically significant, although to different α-levels. The diphthong /eɪ/ reveals a starker contrast between the ESL varieties and Indonesian learner English. The monophthongisation of /eɪ/ in Singapore and Malaysian English occurs consistently as [e] with a single exception in Singapore English, while the preferred realisation in Indonesian learner English appears to be [ɛ], followed by [ɪ]. [e] proves to be one of the less preferred options, together with [ɜ] and [ɑ]. Unlike /əʊ/, the distribution of non-standard realisations of /eɪ/ reveals a significant difference between the ESL varieties and the learner variety, as the differences between Malaysian English and Singapore English are not statistically significant (χ2 = 0.227, df = 1, p = 0.6338, n.s.), while the opposite is true for a comparison between Singapore English and Indonesian learner English (χ2 = 96.771, df = 5, p < 0.001***).

57

58

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

6.1.4 Fricatives Among the cases annotated as “other phonemes” in the data, the non-standard realisation of fricatives stands out in particular. The main fricatives affected are /θ/ and /ð/, generally realised as [t] and [d] respectively. Table 6.7 and Table 6.8 show the various non-standard realisations for each of the aforementioned phonemes. Table 6.7  Overview of non-standard realisations of /θ/ Realisation

SgE

MalE

IndonE

[t] [tʰ] [t̚] [d] [d ̚] [ʔ] [ɾ] [f] [s] [ʃ] [ts] ∅ Total

61 – – – – – – – – – – – 61

181 – – – – – – –   5   5 – – 190

148 35 6 2 10 13 4 4 8 – 2 6 240

Table 6.8  Overview of non-standard realizations of /ð/ Realisation

SgE

MalE

IndonE

[d] [d ̚] [t] [ɾ] [ʔ] [s] [v] [z] Total

505 – – – – – – – 505

1,069 – – – –    5 – – 1,074

786 6 2 4 2 2 4 4 811

The non-standard realisations of /θ/ and /ð/ display differences in terms of overall frequencies and the range of sounds realised. Both phenomena appear to be least frequent in Singapore English, while non-standard realisations of /θ/ are most frequent in Indonesian learner English and those of /ð/ most frequent in Malaysian English. In analogy to the observations made for monophthongisation, Indonesian learner English exhibits a wider range of non-standard realisations of a given phoneme.



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

For the non-standard realisation of /θ/, Singapore English is restricted to [t], as for example in three [tɹiː]. Malaysian English has the additional realisations [s] and [ʃ], for example thirteen [sɜːtʰiːn] and thrown [ʃɹəʊn]. Indonesian learner English features [t] and [s] as well, and also has [tʰ] (think [tʰɪŋ]), [t̚] (fourth [fɔt̚]), [d] (both [bəʊd]), [d ̚] (Perth [pɜːd]), [ʔ] (with [wɪʔ]), [ɾ] (both of them [bəʊɾɒfðɛm]), [f] (everything [ɛvɹɪfɪŋ]) and [ts] (think [tsɪŋ]) as well as deletion (month [mʌn]). The distribution of non-standard realisations of /θ/ does not reveal any statistically significant differences between Singapore English and Malaysian English (χ2 = 0.4174, df = 2, p = 0.8166, n.s.), while such differences can be found when comparing Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.01414*). In a similar manner, the non-standard realisation of /ð/ is restricted to [d] in Singapore English, for example the [də], with the addition of [s] in Malaysian English, as in that one [sætwʌn]. Indonesian learner English features a wide range of observed realisations, which besides [d] and [s] consists of [d ̚] (with [wɪd ̚]), [t] (other [ʌtə]), [ɾ] (brother [bɹʌɾə]), [ʔ], [v] (the [və]) and [z] (the [zə]). In spite of the vastly different ranges of observed realisations between the ESL varieties and the learner variety, the proportion of /ð/ as [d] is extremely high in all varieties (100% for Singapore English, 99.6% for Malaysian English, 96.9% for Indonesian learner English). It is therefore not surprising to find no statistically significant difference when testing the distribution of non-standard realisations of /ð/ across the three varieties (χ2 = 8.7679, df = 14, p = 0.8456, n.s.). Certain realisations, such as /θ/ to [t̚], /ð/ to [d ̚], as well as /θ/ to [ʔ], suggest that several phonological features may be at play simultaneously in Indonesian learner English. It appears plausible that /θ/ and /ð/ are first shifted to [t] and [d] respectively. The resulting sound is then subjected to the processes described for plosives in isolation (Section 6.1.2), which result in a glottal stop or an unreleased realisation. Such a combination of features is not attested for the ESL varieties. The measures previously given are not enough to assert that the phenomena are more prone to occur in one variety than in another, due to the fact that the varying frequencies observed may be caused in part by different frequencies of lexical items containing /θ/ or /ð/ in the three varieties. A comparison of non-standard versus standard realisations would make it possible to compare ratios across varieties. As it is not feasible to perform an automatic count of each instance of /θ/ and /ð/ in standard realisation, ratios of non-standard realisation will be estimated for the three types most frequently featuring non-standard realisation for each phoneme, namely think, three and thing for /θ/, and the, they and this for /ð/. The observed ratios of non-standard versus standard realisation for these six types are shown in Table 6.9.

59

60 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.9  Percentages of non-standard realisations of /θ/ and /ð/ for three most frequently affected types respectively Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

think three thing the they this

0.00% 23.53% 0.00% 11.04% 12.31% 1.56%

7.69% 61.54% 15.63% 19.50% 14.38% 15.38%

15.41% 30.00% 15.00% 13.71% 9.91% 16.56%

The ratios of non-standard realisation of the three types most frequently displaying non-standard realisation of /θ/ show a contrast between Singapore English and the two other varieties. Only three occurs in non-standard realisation in Singapore English, whereas think and thing do not. In Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English, the three lexemes display cases of non-standard realisation, although with different ratios: the rate of non-standard realisation for the type think is approximately twice as high in Indonesian learner English, while the opposite is true for three. The rates for three are higher than those of the other types in all varieties, and in Malaysian English three is pronounced with initial [t] in a majority of cases. The rates for thing are roughly similar for Malaysian and Indonesian learner English. The differences between the observed frequencies of standard and non-standard realisations in all varieties are statistically significant (χ2 = 89.138, df = 10, p < 0.001***). For the three most frequent types the, they and this, the frequencies of standard and non-standard realisation of /ð/ also display significant differences across the three varieties (χ2 = 66.5773, df = 10, p < 0.001***). For the first two types, Malaysian English displays the highest rates of non-standard realisation. The most striking differences can be observed for the type this, for which Singapore English shows a clearly lower rate of non-standard realisation in comparison to the other two varieties. A further fricative that is affected by non-standard realisation is /ʃ/, generally realised as [s]. However, this phenomenon appears to be almost exclusive to Indonesian learner English, as shown in Table 6.10. Table 6.10  Overview of non-standard realisations of /ʃ/ Realisation

SgE

MalE

IndonE

[s] [z] Total

8 – 8

– – 0

448   6 454



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

The normalised and rounded frequency of eight for /ʃ/ realised as [s] in Singapore English actually corresponds to a single token, namely English pronounced as [ɪŋlɪs], which suggests a performance slip by a single speaker. Therefore, the phenomenon can be regarded as limited to Indonesian learner English. In the learner variety, /ʃ/ is also occasionally realised as [z], e.g. finish [fɪnɪz]. Out of the 215 tokens where /ʃ/ is realised as [s] in the Indonesian data, the lexeme English is the most frequent word affected with 140 tokens (over 65% of overall tokens). The count of the word English with standard realisation of /ʃ/ yields 147 results. Using the most frequently affected word as an approximation, the resulting rate of 48.78% suggests that /ʃ/ realised as [s] is common in Indonesian learner English. Further fricatives, /f/, /v/ and /s/, occur in non-standard realisation, but with low frequencies and are usually restricted to Indonesian learner English (cf. Table 6.11). The fricative that is affected in Indonesian learner English only is /f/, which displays two types of non-standard realisation with four tokens each, namely voicing as [v] as in prefer [pɹɪvɜː] or film [vɪlm], as well as the realisation as [p], as in after [ɑptʰə] or foreigner [pɒɹənə]. The former type also includes two cases where /f/ is realised as [p̚] (enough [ɪnʌp̚]) or [ʔ] (of course [ɒʔkɔːs]). These cases can be regarded as an interplay of two different phonological features, as previously described for /θ/ and /ð/ realised as [t], [d] or [ʔ] (earlier in this section). The phoneme /f/ is first shifted to [p], which in turn is affected by the non-standard realisation of plosives in isolation (cf. Section 6.1.2) as either an unreleased variant or a glottal stop. The fricative /v/ occurs in non-standard realisation in the three varieties, mainly in the form of devoicing to [f], which is described separately in Section 6.1.5 below. Realisations other than devoicing to [f] occur mostly in Indonesian learner English, with only a single instance found in Malaysian English. The word have is Table 6.11  Overview of non-standard realisations of /f/, /v/, and /s/ Phoneme

Realisation

SgE

MalE

IndonE

/f/

[v] [ʔ] [p] [p̚]

– – – –

– – – –

17 2 6 2

/v/

[p] [p̚] [s] [w]

– – – –

– – – 5

6 10 4 –

/s/

[ʃ] [z] [x] [ʔ]

– 8 – –

– – – –

6 4 2 2

61

62

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

pronounced [hæp] on 3 occasions and [hæp̚] on five occasions. The pronunciation as [hæp̚] may be due to the interaction of three phonological features: the devoicing of /v/ to [f], the realisation of /f/ as [p], and the unreleased realisation of isolated plosives. Indonesian learner English features two other counts of non-standard realisation of /v/, namely the word expensive pronounced [ɪkspɛnsɪs]. The only case attested for Malaysian English is /v/ realised as [w] in varies [wɛəɹiz]. In a reversal of /ʃ/ realised as [s] mentioned above, Indonesian learner English displays three cases of /s/ realised as [ʃ], e.g. necklace [nɛkləʃ]. A further non-standard realisation of /s/ is the voicing to [z] with two tokens in the Indonesian data, e.g. listen [lɪzn], and a single token in Singapore English, also [ɔːɬzɔː]. Indonesian learner English also displays the realisations of /s/ as [x] and [ʔ], each with a single token, i.e. is [ɪx] and practice [pɹæktɪʔ]. 6.1.5 Devoicing Devoicing can be observed in the three varieties, although only in final position in the ESL varieties, e.g. because [bɪkɒs], five [faɪf], big [bɪk]. Indonesian learner English also occasionally displays word-internal devoicing (e.g. novel [nɒfl], hardest [hɑːtəs]), as well as a single token of word-initial devoicing (vote [fəʊt̚]). Table 6.12 lists the normalised frequencies for the three varieties. Table 6.12  Overview of cases of devoicing, grouped by position within a word Position

SgE

MalE

IndonE

Final Internal Initial Total

145 – – 145

133 – – 133

365  27   2 394

The ESL varieties differ from the learner variety not only in terms of final devoicing versus other positions, but also in terms of frequencies. Devoicing appears to be far more frequent in Indonesian learner English than in Singapore English and only slightly more frequent in Singapore English than in Malaysian English. For every voiced sound or sound combination in Table 6.13, there is one devoiced equivalent, with the exception of /dʒ/, which can be realised as [tʃ] in all varieties, but also as [ts] in Indonesian learner English, e.g. language [læŋgwɪts]. In analogy to the observation made in Section 6.1.4 concerning /θ/ and /ð/ realised as [t ̚], [d ̚] or [ʔ], the realisation of /dʒ/ as [ts] may be due to the interplay of two features. Voiced /dʒ/ is first devoiced to [tʃ], and its [ʃ] sound is then realised as [s], as is often the case in Indonesian learner English (feature previously described in



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Table 6.13  Overview of observed types of devoicing Standard

Realisation

SgE

MalE

IndonE

b d ð dz dʒ

p t θ ts tʃ ts k ks f s

– 8 – 8 15 – – – 31 84

– 33 – 5 5 – 19 5 57 10

2 40 2 17 33 19 8 2 117 154

g gz v z

Section 6.1.4). As with the previous instance, this type of feature combination is not attested in the ESL varieties. The range of voiced sounds affected varies for each variety, with Indonesian learner English having the widest range and Singapore English the lowest. Indonesian learner English generally displays higher frequencies of devoicing, with the exception of sounds involving /g/, which are devoiced more frequently in Malaysian English. A cross-comparison of types of devoicing grouped by original voiced sounds (meaning that /dʒ/ to [tʃ] and /dʒ/ to [ts] are grouped together) reveals that the differences are not significant between Singapore English and Indonesian learner English (χ2 = 3.1792, df = 8, p = 0.9226, n.s.), which is not the case for a comparison between Singapore and Malaysian English (χ2 = 19.0388, df = 6, p = 0.004099**) as well as between Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English (χ2 = 27.5092, df = 8, p = 0.0005772***). 6.1.6 Stress Non-standard stress patterns are attested in the three varieties. An overview of the different patterns observed, including examples and normalised frequencies, is given in Table 6.14. This overview shows two major tendencies. Firstly, Indonesian learner English exhibits a greater variety of patterns. However, non-standard stress patterns are more frequent in ESL varieties than in the learner variety. Singapore English shows the highest frequency, almost twice as high as that of Malaysian English and almost four times as high as that of Indonesian learner English. A cross-comparison of non-standard stress patterns grouped by the standard stress pattern that they modify reveals differences between Singapore English and Malaysian English that

63

64 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.14  Overview of non-standard stress patterns Standard pattern

Observed pattern

Example

SgE

MalE

ˈxx ˈxxˈx ˈxxˈxx ˈxxx

xˈx xˈxx xxxˈx xˈxx xxˈx

money [ˈmʌni] → [mʌˈni] one of four [ˈwʌnəvˈfɔː] → [wʌnˈɒvfɔː] kilometres [ˈkɪləˈmiːtʰəz] → [kɪləmɪˈtʰɛəz] foreigner [ˈfɒrɪnə] → [fɒˈrɛɪnə] badminton [ˈbædmɪntən] → [badmɪnˈtʌn] naturally [ˈnætʃɹli] → [natʃəɹəˈlɪ] criticising [ˈkrɪtɪsaɪzɪŋ] → [krɪtɪˈsaɪzɪŋ] machine [məˈʃiːn] → [ˈmɑʃin] semester [sɪˈmɛstʰə] → [sɪməsˈtɛə] accessories [əkˈsɛsəɹiz] → [əksəsəˈɹiːz] Japanese [dʒæpəˈniːz] → [dʒaˈpaniz] encyclopedia [ɛnˌsʌɪkləˈpiːdɪə] → [ɛnsʌɪklopeˈdɪa]

337 – – – 46

185 – – – 14

56 2 4 13 6

– 8 – 8 – – –

– – – 5 – – –

2 – 4 6 2 4 2

398

204

102

ˈxxxx xˈx xˈxx xˈxxx xxˈx xxxˈxx

xxxˈx xxˈxx ˈxx xxˈx xxxˈx xˈxx xxxxˈx

Total

IndonE

are not statistically significant (χ2 = 1.4617, df = 3, p = 0.6911, n.s.), whereas the differences between Indonesian learner English and Singapore English (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.01539*) on the one hand and Indonesian learner English and Malaysian English (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.01064*) on the other hand are significant. 6.1.7 Spelling pronunciation Spelling pronunciation occurs mostly in Indonesian learner English, occasionally in Malaysian English, but is not attested in Singapore English. The normalised and rounded frequency is 119 occurrences per 100,000 words in Indonesian learner English, while it is only 24 occurrences per 100,000 words for Malaysian English. The cases observed in Malaysian English amount to five tokens, all instances of the word tulip with the initial syllable pronounced as [tuː] rather than [tjuː]. These cases may not even be due to spelling pronunciation, as yod-dropping similar to that found in General American or the Malay pronunciation of the word tulip represent possible alternative explanations. In contrast, Indonesian learner English features a wide variety of cases, ranging from: – diphthongs pronounced as the grapheme they are represented by, e.g. as [ɪ] rather than [aɪ] as in license [lɪsəns],



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

– the pronunciation of graphemes that remain silent in standard pronunciation, e.g. eighteen [ɛɪgtʰiːn], sword [swɔːd] and muscle [mʌskəɬ], – affricates pronounced as their grapheme, e.g. as [g] rather than [dʒ] in technology [tɛknɒləgi], – two-letter graphemes representing a different phoneme pronounced ‘as written’, e.g. as [pʰ] rather than [f] in orphans [ɔːpʰənz], – two monophthongs pronounced as diphthongs when their grapheme consists of two letters, e.g. as [aʊ] instead of [ʌ] in country [kaʊntɹi]. 6.1.8 Vowel length Observed cases of non-standard vowel length always occur in the form of vowel shortening. Only few instances are salient enough to be audibly discernible. The different types, their examples as well as normalised frequencies are shown in Table 6.15. Table 6.15  Overview of audibly discernible vowel shortenings Type

Example

SgE

MalE

IndonE

iː → i ɑː → ɑ ɔː → ɔ Total

needs [nits] card [kɑd] talk [tʰɔk]

– 8 – 8

 5 –  5 10

8 – – 8

6.1.9 Sandhi Non-standard cases of sandhi, specifically the alternation between the forms a and an of the indefinite article a, are observed in the three varieties. The form a occurring before a following vowel, e.g. a English class, a African American girl, a old granny, are found in all varieties, while an followed by a consonant is only attested in Indonesian learner English, e.g. an scholarship. The phenomenon is relatively rare, as can be seen in Table 6.16. The differences observed are not significant (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.367, n.s.). Table 6.16  Overview of non-standard sandhi alternation for the indefinite article ‘a/an’ Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

an → a a → an Total

8 – 8

29 – 29

10  6 17

65

66 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

6.1.10  Other cases Two further types of non-standard realisation deserve mentioning, the first of which is the realisation of /r/. Generally speaking, /r/ in non-standard realisation is pronounced as the alveolar trill [r] rather than the alveolar approximant [ɹ], e.g. very [vɛri]. In two instances, /r/ is realised as [l] and [ɬ], namely roller coaster [ləʊɬəkəʊstə] in Malaysian English and work [wɜːɬk]. The frequencies of the phenomenon in the three varieties are shown in Table 6.17. Table 6.17  Overview of non-standard realisations of /r/ Realisation

SgE

MalE

IndonE

[r] [l], [ɬ] Total

15 – 15

43  5 48

46  2 48

The frequencies displayed in Table 6.17 reveal a contrast between Singapore English and the other varieties in terms of overall normalised frequencies, though the prevalence of [r] over [l] and [ɬ] in all varieties renders the differences not statistically significant (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.5748, n.s.). The other non-standard realisation worth mentioning is /ʌ/ realised as [œ], which occurs exclusively in the word us in Malaysian English. With fifteen tokens, it affects 57.7% of all instances of the word us in the Malaysian data. 6.1.11  Summary of observed phonological features An overview of the non-standard features just described will provide a clearer comparison of phonological features across the three varieties. Several generalisations can be made on the basis of the overview given in Table 6.18. The majority of features observed occur in all three varieties. The features that are not attested in all varieties are found in Indonesian learner English (with the exception of /ʌ/ → [œ]). With regard to the significance of differences observed, the general trends (with only two exceptions) are either differences between all varieties or differences between ESL varieties on the one hand and the learner variety on the other hand.



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Table 6.18  Overview of observed phonological features Feature

Observed in

Significant differences between

Consonant cluster reduction Final isolated plosive reduction Monophthongisation

SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE

/θ/ → [t] /ð/ → [d] /ʃ/ → [s] /f/ → [v] /f/ → [p] Devoicing Stress Spelling pronunciation Vowel length Sandhi /r/ → [r] /ʌ/ → [œ]

SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE IndonE IndonE IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE MalE

SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE /əʊ/: SgE, MalE, IndonE /eɪ/: ESL varieties, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE – ESL varieties, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE MalE, other varieties MalE, IndonE SgE, other varieties – – – MalE, other varieties

6.2 Morphological features The most frequently observed morphological features relate to plural marking, past tense marking and third person singular present tense -s. Table 6.19 gives an overview of the features observed. The frequencies shown relate to non-standard or missing marking when marking is expected in a standard variety. Cases of morphological marking where none is expected are also attested. These will be given in the following individual feature descriptions. Table 6.19  Overview of observed morphological features Feature

SgE

MalE

IndonE

Plural Past tense Third person -s Word class Comparative Case Progressive Perfect

322 145 107 69 8 0 0 0

238 665 413 166 10 10 0 0

736 473 313 604 52 8 4 13

67

68 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

6.2.1 Plural marking Non-standard plural marking includes cases of missing marking as well as the marking of forms where no marker is expected in standard English. Examples of missing marking are given in sentences (3) to (6), instances of unexpected marking in sentences (7) to (10).

(3) Sometimes I use chopstick if I want to [???] or noodles, yeah noodles, i- if you have you use chopstick.  7



(4) The only problem is, after certain hour of the night, ATM machines only dispenses one hundred ringgit note. 



(5) Uh, I also dunno la. Uh, depends on where, where you kena lo, like, the last three number or, dunno, all the number, um, first prize, second prize, third prize.



(6) S.[name abbreviated], you know how special it is to me, and A.[name abbreviated], you know, another one of my best friend. 



(7) Er sometimes I just uh searching for the informations about Korea and about their- their gossip, artists. 



(8) I like the fairy tales because I like to make one, I like to write the fairy tales just for the childrens because childrens nowadays read novels and they- just some of them do the things that they should do when in their childhood times.  (9) Betul. I have one, uh, cousin that have cats as a pets. The cats is female.  (10) I like Philippines because I like the food there. Hmm … they had a lot of chickens … it … it’s nice. 

Examples (3) to (10) are meant to give a brief overview of the different types of non-standard plural usage observed. In two of the four examples of missing plural marking, plurality has to be inferred logically or from the context, while the plural is marked otherwise in the two remaining sentences. In sentence (3), the plurality of chopstick can be deduced from the fact that chopsticks are used in pairs, while in sentence (4), the plurality of ringgit note is assumed in the context of ATM machines, which dispense more than a single banknote. In sentence (5), the plurality of number is marked first with the cardinal number three and then with the quantifier all. Sentence (6) sees the word friend used in combination with a partitive, which implies either a mass noun or a count noun in plural form. The two strategies employed are therefore implicit plurality and analytically marked plurality. 7. [???] marks indecipherable passages.



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Sentences (7) to (10) represent cases where plural marking is used where none is expected in standard English. Sentence (7) features plural marking on the mass noun information, which in standard usage does not have a plural form. In sentence (8), plural marking is appended to the already existing plural form children, so that the word child has two plural markings in the form childrens. In sentence (9), plural forms are used for singular constituents, which becomes clear only through the use of the indefinite article in a pets and the singular verb form in the cats is female. Sentence (10) presents a more ambiguous case. While the phrase a lot of chickens does not constitute a non-standard plural form as such, the context in which it is produced, namely while talking about food, suggests that the speaker does not refer to live animals but rather to chicken meat, which in standard usage should be treated as a mass noun and hence has no plural form. Sentences (3) to (10) also feature cases of standard plural marking, i.e. noodles, ATM machines, artists, fairy tales, novels, things and times. Table 6.20 lists normalised the frequencies for missing, unexpected and standard plural marking across the three varieties. Table 6.20  Overview of types of plural marking Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

missing unexpected standard

322 31 1,309

238 62 1,725

736 156 244

The frequencies shown in Table 6.20 indicate that non-standard plural marking is more frequent in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties, while the opposite is true for standard marking. In spite of the relative similarities between the ESL varieties when contrasted with the learner variety, the observed differences between Singapore English and Malaysian English are significant (χ2 = 7.336, df = 2, p = 0.02553*), with Malaysian English using standard marking more frequently. As the difference frequencies observed may be partly due to varying rates of plural contexts in the three varieties, relative frequencies of missing, unexpected and standard plural markings are shown in Figure 6.4. The relative values shown in Figure 6.4 indicate that Malaysian English is the variety with the highest rate of standard plural-marking. This rate is also high in Singapore English, with more than three quarters of plural contexts displaying standard marking. With regard to non-standard marking, Singapore English has a higher rate of missing plural marking than Malaysian English. Unexpected marking is low in both varieties, with the rate in Malaysian English being slightly higher. Indonesian learner English, on the other hand, presents an entirely different picture. Plural marking is missing in almost two thirds of all cases. While unexpected

69

70 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

missing unexpected standard IndonE

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.4  Relative frequencies of plural marking types

marking is less frequent than standard marking, it is noticeably higher than in the ESL varieties. Standard marking constitutes less than a quarter of all cases. As has been noted for the example sentences (3) to (6), missing inflectional plural marking relies on either implicit plurality or analytically marked plurality. The presence or absence of analytic marking is specified in the annotation scheme with the parameter ‘marker=yes’ or ‘marker=no’ respectively (cf. Table 5.6 in Section 5.5.2). It is therefore possible to determine the rates of analytic marking in cases of missing inflectional plural marking across the three varieties, shown in Figure 6.5. The relative frequencies presented in Figure 6.5 indicate an obvious contrast between Singapore English and the other varieties. While Singapore English clearly favours analytical marking, the proportions of analytical marking and implicit plurality are almost tied in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English. However, Malaysian English still opts for analytical marking in a majority of cases, while Indonesian learner English features implicit plurality in a narrow majority of cases. Nevertheless, the differences between Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English are not significant (χ2 = 0.5428, df = 1, p = 0.4613, n.s.), which cannot be said for comparisons between Singapore English and Malaysian English (χ2 = 5.3816, df = 1, p = 0.02035*) as well as Indonesian learner English (χ2 = 13.849, df = 1, p = 0.0001981***).



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

analytic implicit IndonE

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.5  Relative frequencies of analytically marked and implicit plurality in cases of missing inflectional plural marking

6.2.2 Past tense marking Non-standard past tense marking generally manifests itself in the form of missing marking on the verb, or occasionally as a marked auxiliary verb inserted in front of the lexical verb. Examples illustrating these different types are given in sentences (11) to (15). (11) Uh I already go to Singapore just once. 

(12) A.[name abbreviated] took, right? Yea. Uh, I rush back, like, I sat on the, you know, the chair outside the d…, uh, bilik tutorial? Then I realize as far as I remember accurate right, he was saying about the [???]. 

(13) A: BBDC, August ah. I check August. B: August. A: FTT. B: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I check also.

(14) Yes yes er at a time mh is just like, what is it called, lecture, teacher lecture centre, means that OK the teacher is just speak, telling us about the pronunciation eh bababababababa ah but, er we were rarely practice it then s- now I think my pronunciation is not really good. 

(15) Star got come out or not? 

71

72

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Sentences (11) to (13) represent cases where no marking is present on the verb. However, in two of the three sentences, the past tense setting is indicated by other means. In sentence (11), it is marked by the adverbials already and just once, thereby signalling that in this instance, go does not refer to a prototypical present tense function, e.g. a habitual action, but to a past action. Sentence (12) uses a different strategy, whereby the unmarked verbs occur in the proximity of marked verbs so that the past tense context is already established. In Example (13), no such marking is present. A past tense setting is implied, as both speakers already know the information relevant to the conversation, i.e. the month in which a certain driving theory test is to take place. As such, the action of checking on that information has already been performed. Sentences (14) and (15) serve as examples of cases in which the past tense is marked with the insertion of a marked auxiliary. In sentence (14), the verb to be is placed in its past tense form before the lexical verb, resulting in we were rarely practice it rather than we rarely practiced it. A similar strategy is used in the Malaysian English sentence (15), although with a different auxiliary, namely got, which yields got come out rather than came out. Cases of missing past tense marking such as those given in sentences (11) to (13) are by far more frequent than marked auxiliary insertions as in sentences (14) and (15). Sentence (12) also features verbs with standard past tense marking, i.e. took, sat and was saying. The normalised frequencies are shown in Table 6.21. Table 6.21  Overview of types of past tense marking Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

missing inflectional marking marked auxiliary standard marking Total

130 15 1,631 1,776

651 14 1,706 2,371

469 4 398 871

The frequencies shown in Table 6.21 reveal that ESL varieties use standard past tense marking more often than non-standard marking, while the opposite is true for Indonesian learner English. However, Singapore English and Malaysian English differ as missing inflectional marking is more frequent in Malaysian English than in Singapore English, as well as in Indonesian learner English. The differences between the observed frequencies across the three varieties are significant (χ2 = 158.1963, df = 4, p < 0.001***). As the total frequencies of past tense contexts vary across the varieties, a comparison of relative frequencies, shown in Figure 6.6, makes it possible to obtain a clearer picture of standard and non-standard past tense marking in each variety. The relative frequencies given in Figure 6.6 show that the rate of standard past tense marking in Malaysian English lies somewhat in between the rates of Singapore



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

missing standard auxiliary IndonE

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.6  Relative frequencies of past tense marking types

English and Indonesian learner English. While the rate of standard past tense marking is above 90% in Singapore English, Indonesian learner English uses standard marking in less than half of all cases. At 71.9%, the rate of standard marking in Malaysian English is closer to that of Singapore English than that of the learner variety, but only slightly so. With regard to missing inflection, Singapore English omits marking in less than 10% of all cases, while this figure rises to more than half of all cases for Indonesian learner English. The percentage for Malaysian English lies slightly above a quarter of all cases. What the three varieties have in common is a very low rate of inserted marked auxiliary. Sentences (11) and (12) represent types of missing inflectional past tense marking where the past tense context is expressed by different means. In the case of sentence (11), the past tense setting is made clear with the use of adverbials of time, in this particular case with the adverb already. Examples (16) and (17) provide two further instances in which an adverbial is used to mark a past setting, each illustrating a different case. (16) Actually if you ask, no if you, I mean like, how many times I watch the movie? I think a few times but, but, you know, just one, just one day before that test I watch, like the whole movie. So, so it’s like I watch a few times but not the whole movie, like, maybe some part, some segment of the movie, but just for that one night before the test day, I watch the whole movie ah. 

73

74

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

(17) You know at kindergarten I don’t like to study because we just singing, er, singing ap- er, playing, and, I- I bore, bore, boring so I ask my parent to allow me to enter elementary school, that’s why I always young, er high school, secondary high school, I always the youngest. 

In Examples (16) and (17), unmarked verbs (in bold) are set in a past context by adverbials (in italics). In sentence (16), this is done through the time adverbials just one day before that test and just for that one night before the test day. In sentence (17), at kindergarten is strictly speaking an adverbial of place rather than an adverbial of time. However, considering the age of the speaker (seventeen years old at the time of recording), one can safely assume that at kindergarten fulfils the same function as an adverbial of time in marking a past setting. The other type of missing inflectional past tense marking, presented in Example (12), consists of co-occurring verbs in standard marked form and unmarked verbs. The marked forms set the past tense context within which the other verbs can remain unmarked. Example (18) gives a passage in which this strategy is used extensively. (18) Yes, because many people, like at my village, they crash, by bicycle crash. Crash and then he got, er, blood at his head, and then I take him to hospital, then the hospital ask me who is responsible for this man. I thought it was simple to him, ga? So, you should pay little money, pada terima u … pada terima u… The hospital … apa? … officer want me to pay little money and then he can, and then, I don’t have money, so I ask him, “who is”, apa deh? … tele telephone number for his parent, but he he something no, apa, tidak sadar uh, unconscious, so, how is the, I don’t know. For a long time I negotiate for to, mh, hospital officer, and then he, he want to, but, it’s too late, and then he passed away. 

The passage shown in Example (18) features mainly unmarked verb forms (in bold) interspersed with marked ones (in italic). The speaker begins with a general statement about accidents, and then begins retelling a specific example that he witnessed. The transition from generic to specific happens at he got, thereby not only singling out a specific individual he as opposed to the general population many people and they, but also switching from habitual crash to a particular report with he got. This narrative frame is closed at the end of the speaker’s account with he passed away. Within the narrative, the speaker uses marked forms on one occasion: I thought it was simple to him. This appears to be necessary in order to maintain a distinction between the speaker as a narrator and as an actor in the narrative, since I think it is simple could be understood as spoken from the narrator’s present point



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

of view, rather than that of the actor in the narrative. An alternative explanation is that the speaker reasserts the past tense narrative frame in a long passage. The two strategies for indicating past tense contexts when inflectional marking on the verb is lacking are specified in the annotation scheme with the parameters ‘adv=yes’ or ‘adv=no’ for the presence or absence of adverbial past tense marking, and ‘context=yes’ or ‘context=no’ for the presence or absence of marking past tense with standard past tense marked verbs in the immediate context (cf. Table 5.6 in Section 5.5.2). Table 6.22 gives the normalised frequencies, using the following abbreviations: a = adverbial marking, c = contextual marking, y = yes, n = no. Table 6.22  Frequencies of adverbial marking and contextual marking strategies in cases of missing inflectional past tense marking Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

a=y, c=n a=y, c=y a=n, c=y a=n, c=n Total a Total c TOTAL

8 15 77 46 23 92 145

143 100 361 62 242 461 665

131 33 192 117 165 225 473

The normalised frequencies shown in Table 6.22 reveal that contextual marking is the preferred non-standard past tense marking strategy in the three varieties. The simultaneous use of both strategies is less frequent than the independent use of either strategy in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English, while the use of adverbial marking alone is less frequent than combined usage of both strategies in Singapore English. The cases where neither strategy is used, i.e. deducible past tense settings as exemplified in sentence (13), have different levels of prevalence in each variety. While it is the second-most used option in Singapore English and the least preferred one in Malaysian English, Indonesian learner English uses only simultaneous adverbial and contextual marking less frequently. The differences observed between the three varieties are significant (χ2 = 25.6386, df = 6, p = 0.0002599***). However, as past tense settings are most frequent in Malaysian English (cf. Table 6.22) and the rates of omitted inflectional markings vary across the three varieties (cf. Figure 6.6), the comparison of non-standard past tense marking strategies is better served by relative frequencies. Figure 6.7 shows the relative frequencies of these two strategies in cases of missing inflectional marking.

75

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition SgE

no < adverbial marking > yes

0.6 adverbial marking no contextual marking

adverbial marking contextual marking

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

no adverbial marking 0.6 no contextual marking 0.6

0.4

no adverbial marking contextual marking 0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.6

no < contextual marking > yes MalE 0.6 adverbial marking no contextual marking

no < adverbial marking > yes

76

adverbial marking contextual marking

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

no adverbial marking 0.6 no contextual marking 0.6

0.4

no adverbial marking contextual marking 0.2

0

0.2

no < contextual marking > yes

0.4

0.6

0.6



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory IndonE

no < adverbial marking > yes

0.6 adverbial marking no contextual marking

adverbial marking contextual marking

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.4

no adverbial marking 0.6 no contextual marking 0.6

0.4

no adverbial marking contextual marking 0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.6

no < contextual marking > yes

Figure 6.7  Relative frequencies of adverbial marking and contextual marking strategies in cases of missing inflectional past tense marking

The relative frequencies presented in Figure 6.7 are not to be read by surface areas of the squares, but by the length of their sides. This allows for a four-way crosscomparison of the various possible combinations of absence/presence of adverbial and contextual marking on the horizontal and vertical axes. The overview shows that the ESL varieties display very similar rates for using contextual marking only, namely 53% for Singapore English and 54% for Malaysian English. When considering all cases of contextual marking, i.e. by adding those where adverbial marking is used simultaneously, the two varieties exhibit greater (but not striking) differences, with Singapore English having a rate of 64% and Malaysian English a rate of 69%. In contrast, the rate of Indonesian learner English stays below 50%, even when considering all cases of contextual marking. While the ESL varieties indicate a relative unity for contextual marking, the opposite appears to hold true for adverbial marking, where Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English exhibit greater similarities. Their rates of adverbial marking differ only slightly, while the addition of all cases of adverbial markings reveals comparable rates. Singapore English displays the greatest share of deducible past tense settings with almost a third of all cases of omitted inflectional marking, while this rate drops to a quarter in Indonesian learner English and falls under 10% in Malaysian English.

77

78

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The annotation scheme marks the verb affected by non-standard past tense marking with the parameter ‘verb={lemma}’ (cf. Table 5.6 in Section 5.5.2). When looking at the verbs most frequently lacking inflectional past tense marking, it becomes clear that the verb to be is the one most affected in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English, with 33 and 28 tokens respectively. Singapore English, however, does not feature any verb being clearly affected more frequently than others. In total, thirteen different verbs occur without inflectional past tense marking in Singapore English, with their counts ranging between one and three tokens. This stands in contrast to the 54 different verbs affected in Malaysian English and the 67 different verbs affected in Indonesian learner English. It should be noted that these differences may be due to the differences in corpus sizes (cf. Table 5.4 in Section 5.4) as well as the significantly lower rate of inflectional past tense marking omission in Singapore English (cf. Figure 6.6). One question that can be addressed, however, concerns the type of verbs affected, i.e. whether irregular verbs are more prone to lack inflectional past tense marking than regular verbs, and if so, whether this tendency can be observed in the three varieties. Figure 6.8 shows the relative frequencies of regular and irregular verbs for cases of missing inflectional past tense marking. regular irregular IndonE

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.8  Relative frequencies of regular and irregular verbs for cases of missing inflectional past tense marking



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Singapore English and Malaysian English appear to be almost mirror-inversions with regard to the relative frequencies presented in Figure 6.8. While approximately two thirds of all the verbs lacking inflectional past tense marking in Malaysian English are irregular verbs, slightly more than two thirds are regular verbs in Singapore English. Indonesian learner English resembles Malaysian English in that non-standard past tense marking also affects irregular verbs in a majority of cases, however, with a rate of 54% this majority is smaller than the two thirds majority observed for Malaysian English. As such, the proportions described for Indonesian learner English lie between those of the two ESL varieties. However, the differences between Indonesian learner English and Malaysian English are significant (χ2 = 5.3683, df = 1, p = 0.02051*), while those between Indonesian learner English and Singapore English are not (χ2 = 2.9699, df = 1, p = 0.08483, n.s.). Besides cases of missing inflectional marking in past tense settings, there are instances of past tense marking where none is expected in standard English. These cases include environments where a verb’s infinitive or base form is expected as well as temporal settings other than past tense. Some examples are given in sentences (19) to (21). (19) May- maybe is more- is more er more easy to make a satellite if we make a- a cable on the sea- under the sea is very more to broke, yes is more easy to broke if you have a satellite is more good to- not easy to broke the satellite.  (20) Er … the zoo. The … what do you called it … the safari, is it? The night safari.  (21) A: It’s quite fun la. So we should go. There you must be daring enough to try the rides la. B: Oh, I wanted to try. The only worry I have is my glasses fell down… 

Example (19) features the verb to break used in the form to broke three times, combining the preposition to of the infinitive form with the past tense form, in cases where the infinitive form is expected in standard English. Example (20) shows a similar case where a verb’s base form is expected rather than the past tense form. Even if the sentence were uttered in a past tense setting, the interrogative auxiliary do would have been marked for past tense in standard English rather than the lexical verb, resulting in what did you call it rather than what do you called it. In Example (21), speaker B uses a past tense form in I wanted to try. The previous utterance by speaker A however makes it clear that the temporal setting is not a past tense one, but rather a present tense setting (wish to visit an amusement park). Unexpected past tense markings are more frequent in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties, with 33 tokens in Indonesian learner English, only 4 tokens in Malaysian English and just a single token in Singapore English, given in Example (20).

79

80 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

6.2.3 Third person singular present tense marking Non-standard third person singular present tense verb forms are observed in the three varieties.8 Cases include missing marking as well as alternative strategies. The different types observed are exemplified in sentences (22) to (24). (22) It mean one person take one.

(23) But er because I experience TOEIC and TOEFL test, when my TOEIC test is just decrease, then my TOEFL is decrease. 

(24) I’m not sure about that but it’s looks like that.

Example (22) contains two verb forms in the third person singular present tense for which the -s inflectional morpheme is deleted. In sentence (23), the -s morpheme is also missing on the verb form on two occasions, however, the third person singular present tense is marked externally with a conjugated auxiliary inserted prior to the lexical verb. The same external marking is used in (24), albeit in conjunction with the standard -s marking, resulting in the double marking it’s looks. The normalised frequencies for the three observed types are given in Table 6.23. Table 6.23  Types of non-standard third person singular present tense marking Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

missing analytic double Total

100 8 0 107

390 24 0 413

236 69 8 313

The normalised frequencies in Table 6.23 show that double marking is only attested in the learner variety and that the external analytical marking via an inserted conjugated auxiliary is more frequent in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties combined. In spite of this, non-standard third person singular present tense marking is most frequent in Malaysian English due a greater frequency of missing marking, while it is least frequent in Singapore English. Despite these differences in frequencies, the ESL varieties exhibit no statistically significant differences (χ2 = 0.1633, df = 1, p = 0.6862, n.s.) due to their comparable ratios of missing marking versus analytical marking and a common lack of double marking. Indonesian 8. The verb to be is excluded from this analysis due to its suppletive paradigm, which makes the difference between the third person and other persons more salient than with an -s affix and explains the complete absence from the data of non-standard forms for the verb to be when it comes to the third person singular. As the verb to be is a special case, it is excluded from the annotation process for third person singular present -s, for the tagging of both standard and non-standard forms.



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

learner English is not significantly different from Singapore English (χ2 = 2.2485, df = 2, p = 0.3249, n.s.) but is significantly different from Malaysian English (χ2 = 13.7872, df = 2, p = 0.001014**). In order to get a better picture of the prevalence of non-standard marking in the three varieties, a comparison of the three types described with the number of third person singular present tense verb forms in standard marking is necessary. Figure 6.9 shows the relative frequencies of nonstandard and standard marking. missing analytic double IndonE

standard

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.9  Relative frequencies of types of third person singular present tense marking

In Figure 6.9, Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English display similar rates of missing third person singular present tense marking, with Malaysian English lying just under 50% and Indonesian learner English just above that mark. However, the other rates show greater variation, as the proportions of third person singular present tense marking in Malaysian English are almost neatly divided into missing and standard marking, with only a comparatively minuscule portion of analytical marking, while in Indonesian learner English the rate of standard marking lies below a third. Besides a greater rate of analytical marking, the learner variety also possesses a small share (approximately 2%) of double marking. Singapore English differs from the other varieties in that standard marking clearly constitutes a majority of cases with a share equal to three quarters. Missing marking, which makes up roughly half of all cases in the other two varieties, amounts to less than a quarter of all cases in Singapore English. Only the rate of analytical marking is

81

82

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

comparable between the ESL varieties. The differences observed between the three varieties are all statistically significant (χ2 = 57.8915, df = 6, p < 0.001**). Similarly to the observations previously made for past tense marking, instances of the third person singular present tense -s are encountered in contexts in which they are not expected in standard English. Some examples are shown in sentences (25) to (28). (25) I speaks Malay with my family, my friends also, ya, sometimes with English [???] have to practice more because I haven’t get any lessons of English, I learned by myself. 

(26) Er in Batam there are one- if I not wrong in a Batam centre or where there are some restaurant that sell Japanese food, but I doesn’t have time to go there because my time in this campus is very full. 

(27) Crap, that would sucks. 

(28) Could be, yeah … especially if..if..er … all the shops closes at … nine … eh no, at five. 

Sentence (25) shows a third person singular present -s marking on a verb whose subject is the first person singular personal pronoun I. Sentence (26) presents a similar case, except that the unexpected marking occurs in a negation auxiliary rather than on the lexical verb. Unexpected marking is not restricted to persons other than the third person however, as shown in sentences (27) and (28). Sentence (27) has a third person singular subject and an -s marking on the lexical verb, which on an isolated lexical verb would result in a standard form. However, the lexical verb does not stand on its own, it uses a modal, which would shift the -s inflection to the auxiliary. But in this particular case, the auxiliary is a modal auxiliary, which means that an -s inflection on either verb would yield a non-standard form. Sentence (28) also possesses a third person subject, however it is a plural subject and as such there should be no -s inflection on the verb in standard usage. Observed frequencies of unexpected marking are relatively comparable across the three varieties, with 23 occurrences per 100,000 words in Singapore English, 38 occurrences per 100,000 words in Malaysian English and 35 occurrences per 100,000 words in Indonesian learner English. 6.2.4 Word class and verb forms The data feature cases in which a lexical item fits the semantic content of a given sentence, yet occurs in a word class other than the one expected in standard English. This extends also to verbs that, although remaining in the word class ‘verb’, appear in an unexpected verb form. Some examples are given in sentences (29) to (33).



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

(29) Prefer Holly[wood] movies ya, because it- it isn’t low budget, Indonesia men always produce low budget film, I don’t like, it’s not maximum for me.  (30) Yeah, for me Indonesia is the second language and English is the third language. 

(31) One, so two more to go for your transcribe. (32) Ah. OK. This theory class ah, this theory class usually for those people who haven’t take BBDC, apa? Basic and final theory right? 

(33) Then if not, she’ll open a bit, off all the lights then on the study light only. 

In Example (29), the subject of the clause Indonesia men always produce low budget film is made up of two nouns, Indonesia men, rather than a noun head and a premodifying adjective, Indonesian men. Example (30) also features the noun Indonesia where the form Indonesian would be expected in standard usage. However this case is different as the expected form is also a noun, denoting a language, based on the adjectival form. In Example (31), the verb transcribe is used in a context where the corresponding noun transcription is expected. Example (32) sees no change in word class, but instead of the past participle form taken, the lexical verb occurs in its base form take. In Example (33), the prepositions off and on are used in the function of verbs. The actual verb of the phrasal verbs turn off and turn on is omitted, leaving only the particle to fulfil the verbal function. Types other than those shown in Examples  (29) to (33) are also attested. Table 6.24 gives an overview of the different types observed as well as their normalised frequencies. The overview in Table 6.24 presents a very heterogeneous picture, as only one type of substitution, namely an expected adjective replaced by a noun, is attested in all varieties. Furthermore, the overall frequency observed for Indonesian learner English is by far greater than those of the ESL varieties. In addition to a higher frequency, the learner variety also displays a greater variety of substitution types, with only two cases attested in an ESL variety, but not in Indonesian learner English. The range of substitution types observed in Indonesian learner English is in fact greater than can be shown in Table 6.24, as a number of miscellaneous cases unique to the learner variety attest (grouped in the category ‘expected: other’). Differences do not exist between Indonesian learner English and the ESL varieties only, as types attested for one ESL variety are absent in the other, with the single exception of adjectives being replaced by nouns, attested for both Singapore English and Malaysian English.

83

84

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.24  Overview of word class and verb form substitutions Expected

Observed

SgE

MalE

adjective

adverb noun verb (past participle)

0 15 0

0 19 5

21 135 4

adverb

adjective other

8 0

0 0

33 6

noun

adjective verb (base form) verb (present participle) other

0 0 0 8

0 10 0 0

102 25 8 2

verb (base form)

adjective noun preposition verb (past participle) verb (present participle)

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 10 0 5

4 4 0 2 0

verb (past participle)

verb (base form) verb (present participle) other

38 0 0

0 0 0

94 8 2

verb (present participle)

verb (base form)

0

105

54

verb (past participle) other

0 0

14 0

13 6

other Total

other

IndonE

0

0

79

69

166

604

6.2.5 Comparative In standard usage, the comparative may be formed using either of two strategies, a synthetic and an analytic one. The synthetic strategy appends the inflectional suffix -er to the adjective (and also changes the root morpheme in suppletive forms such as good – better), while the analytic one places the particle more in front of the adjective. The form of non-standard comparative marking observed in the data consists in using both strategies simultaneously, i.e. by placing the particle more in front of the adjective and attaching the suffix -er to the adjective. Examples are given in sentences (34) and (35). (34) Oh, so, it’s be, like, more nicer than Cameron Highland.  (35) Enough sleep yes, have a fresh mind to study is more better. 



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Examples (34) and (35) both feature a comparative form with double marking, the difference being that sentence (35) combines the particle more with a suppletive comparative form. The double comparative is more frequent in Indonesian learner English (55 occurrences per 100,000 words) than in Malaysian English (ten occurrences per 100,000 words) and Singapore English (eight occurrences per 100,000 words). 6.2.6 Case In rare cases, personal pronouns occur in a case other than that expected in standard usage. The different types encountered are shown in Examples (36) to (39). (36) But K.[name abbreviated] is funny. You should see he and A.[name abbreviated] Two of them like small kids like that. 

(37) I- I should find out who is him before I- I elec- I choose him.  (38) I make some investigation first, search for some informations, how they work, what’s they- prestasti apa? 

(39) Yeah, they cook for theirself. 

In Example (36), the subject case is used for a personal pronoun fulfilling the object function, resulting in You should see he and A. rather than You should see him and A. Example (37) presents the opposite case, where a pronoun that serves as the subject of an object clause occurs in the object case, resulting in who is him rather than who he is (non-standard inversion, also featured in this object clause, is discussed in Section 6.3.8). In Example (38), the speaker uses the personal pronoun they in its subject case rather than the possessive form their. The following words, prestasi apa?, mean ‘what is performance?’ in Indonesian. The speaker switches to Indonesian when struggling to find the English word performance (code-switching and code-mixing are discussed in Section 6.4). The clause in standard English would therefore be what their performance is. Example (39) contains a non-standard form of the reflexive pronoun themselves. Instead of being formed as object case pronoun + -self, it appears in the form possessive case pronoun + -self. Furthermore, the -self suffix is not pluralised to -selves. Non-standard case assignment on personal pronouns is attested in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English, and is absent in Singapore English. Malaysian English has only two tokens (~ten occurrences per 100,000 words), both of the type ‘subject case’ instead of ‘object case’, while Indonesian learner English has four tokens (~eight occurrences per 100,000 words), one token for each of the types shown in Examples (36) to (39).

85

86 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

6.2.7 Progressive aspect Indonesian learner English features two cases in which the progressive aspect is not used in contexts where it is expected in standard usage. One of the two cases is given in Example (40). (40) I: OK, so they need to speak English for their work. S: Er I guess so but we still learn it, you know.  [I = interviewer, S = speaker]

In Example (40), the speaker describes an ongoing process, namely that of her and her family learning English, a context which requires the progressive in standard English. Cases of missing progressive aspect are not observed for the ESL varieties. A non-standard use of the progressive found in all varieties however is the presence of the progressive aspect where it is not expected in standard usage. Two examples are given in (41) and (42). (41) So usually I do- I do my laundry, I’m cleaning my room, cleaning all the things that is been messed up for been, doing ironing, and then if I still have spare time maybe usually I- me and my- a few of my friend go seeing movie, just go, maybe dinner, out sometime, just like that, regular lah, nothing special.  (42) Yeah, yeah yeah. I’m meaning that because I’m…

Example (41) features progressive forms in a habitual setting, clearly marked with the adverb usually. The second instance in the example passage, in addition to being used in a habitual setting marked with usually, occurs in a non-standard form of the progressive, where instead of using the auxiliary to be and setting the first lexical verb in the present participle form, no auxiliary is used and the second lexical verb is set in the present participle form, resulting in go seeing instead of are going to see for the standard progressive from, or rather go to see for the habitual context at hand. Sentence (42) differs in that the verb does not refer to a habitual action, but instead to the moment of the utterance. However the verb to mean does not usually occur in the progressive aspect in standard English, at least when used in the sense in the example at hand. Unexpected progressive aspect is observed in the three varieties, with 27 tokens (~56 occurrences per 100,000 words) in Indonesian learner English, six tokens (~46 occurrences per 100,000 words) in Singapore English and three tokens (fourteen occurrences per 100,000 words) in Malaysian English. Figure 6.10 shows the relative frequencies of missing, unexpected and standard-usage progressive aspect in the three varieties. The relative frequencies in Figure 6.10 indicate that Malaysian English displays the highest proportion of the progressive aspect in standard usage with a rate



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

missing unexpected standard IndonE

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.10  Relative frequencies of missing, unexpected and standard progressive aspect

of approximately 94%. The remaining 6% are cases of unexpected use. Singapore English features the same types, but in different proportions, with standard usage making up a little more than two thirds of all cases, and the remaining 32% of cases belonging to unexpected usage. The usage of the progressive aspect in Indonesian learner English appears to be entirely different from that in the ESL varieties. No cases of standard usage have been attested, and the vast majority of cases, 93%, are concerned with unexpected marking, while the remaining 7% describe the missing progressive aspect. The ESL varieties differ greatly from the learner variety in that they use the progressive aspect mainly as expected in standard usage, while Indonesian learner English uses the progressive aspect mainly in unexpected contexts. In spite of the relative unity the ESL varieties display when contrasted to the learner variety, their differences are significant (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.01054*). Consequently, a comparison of Indonesian learner and either ESL variety results in greater significance (Fisher’s Exact Test: p < 0.001*** in both cases). 6.2.8 Perfect Non-standard use of the perfect is relatively rare, with only 6 cases of missing perfect in Indonesian learner English, as shown in Example (43), and a single instance of unexpected perfect in Malaysian English given in Example (44).

87

88

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

(43) He’s there for long since er he’s very young.

(44) B: You give some, you give to someone? A: Um, no. It’s either they died or they had run away. 

Example (43) describes an action that began in the past and lasts until the moment of the utterance, which in standard usage requires the present perfect. In Example (44), speaker A retells the fate of a batch of kittens, and uses the Simple Past in they died and the Past Perfect in they had run away. Using the Past Perfect normally implies anteriority to another past tense action in standard English, which does not seem to be the case in this example. As this is an isolated case, unexpected use of the perfect should not be regarded as a feature of Malaysian English based on the data analysed. 6.2.9 Summary of observed morphological features Table 6.25 gives an overview of the non-standard features just described; it will provide a clearer comparison of morphological features across the three varieties. Most of the morphological features observed occur in the three varieties, with the exception of two features that are unique to the learner variety, i.e. missing progressive and missing perfect marking, and a feature attested in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English but not in Singapore English, i.e. non-standard case marking. On two occasions, significant differences are observed between Singapore English and the two other varieties, but not between Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English. These differences relate to the ratios of alternative marking strategies for cases of missing inflectional markings, which are generally lowest in Singapore English, as well as non-standard case marking, which is absent in the Singaporean data but observed for the other varieties. Table 6.25  Overview of observed morphological features Feature

Observed in

Significant differences observed between

Missing or unexpected plural marking

SgE, MalE, IndonE

SgE, MalE, IndonE (overall)

Missing inflectional past tense marking

SgE, MalE, IndonE

SgE, other varieties (analytically marked vs. implicit plurality in cases of missing inflectional plural marking) SgE, MalE, IndonE (overall) MalE, other varieties (regular vs. irregular verbs affected)



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Table 6.25  (continued) Feature

Observed in

Significant differences observed between

Missing, analytical or double third person singular present tense -s marking Word class and verb forms Comparative Case Progressive – missing – unexpected Missing perfect

SgE, MalE, IndonE

MalE, IndonE

SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE MalE, IndonE

– – SgE, other varieties

IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE IndonE

ESL, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE

6.3

Syntactic features

The most frequently observed syntactic feature in the three varieties is deletion. Table 6.26 gives an overview of the features observed. Table 6.26  Overview of observed syntactic features Feature

SgE

MalE

IndonE

Deletion Word choice Redundant items Order One relative clause Invariant question tag Passive Inversion

1,018 23 15 8 23 77 0 8

1,046 128 52 52 233 67 19 10

2,093 454 423 79 13 0 6 23

6.3.1 Deletion Deletion affects a range of different elements, from various word classes to entire phrases.9 The different types of elements affected are shown in Table 6.27. Examples of each of the deletion types featured in Table 6.27 are given in sentences (45) to (56).

9. The classification used in this section is based on Biber et al. (1999: 47–569).

89

90 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.27  Elements affected by deletion Type adjective adverb article conjunction noun object particle preposition pronoun (except personal & relative) relative pronoun subject verb Total

SgE 0 0 145 0 0 84 8 145 0 0 398 237 1,018

MalE 5 0 247 5 5 52 5 124 0 29 304 271 1,046

IndonE 13 38 390 15 77 129 2 215 29 35 717 434 2,093

(45) Also another one but I don’t know the name. Is a more ∅ games, ya.  (46) If we use the English-English dictionary it will help us to- to study English much ∅ than use the er English-Indonesian. 

(47) So today how many people are coming for ∅ meeting?  (48) Mh, I will try to go, even ∅ I can’t. 



(49) For national ∅ yes, but for local ∅, last year, I voted too.  (50) Ah? No, no. I don’t find ∅ difficult. 

(51) So when I- when I don’t have any classes yet I- they come to pick me ∅ to get at the hall. 

(52) B: Vegas also now ∅ recession. A: No money. Go ∅ Macau.

(53) The first time is so boring, I mean er press this this this and this, it’s so bore, but I force ∅ to do it, right now I can do it, yeah.

(54) You know when the waitress or waiter, uh, send the, uh, the, the food to us, we are the first table ∅ will finish it. 

(55) ∅ Is very good so our- our er if we just have to waste our time to playing games or what, ∅ is more useful if we waste our time to make a n- a software at our free time. 

(56) The beach ∅ so far away from here, ya, so I ∅ on the road, using the road. 



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

When considering the totals for each variety, deletion appears to be approximately twice as frequent in Indonesian learner English as in each of the ESL varieties, which have comparable overall deletion frequencies. Deletion also affects a wider range of elements in Indonesian learner English. The ESL varieties do not display significant differences (χ2 = 13.743, df = 9, p = 0.1318, n.s.). Including the learner variety in the comparison renders the observed differences significant (χ2 = 43.0104, df = 22, p = 0.004705**). As the total frequency of deletion is higher in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties, a comparison between the proportions of different deletion types is not directly feasible. An overview of relative frequencies of the different deletion types, given in Figure 6.11, makes such a comparison easier. adjective

SgE MalE IndonE

adverb article conjunction noun object particle preposition pronoun relative subject verb 

.

.

.

.

Figure 6.11  Relative frequencies of deletion types

A comparison of the relative frequencies given in Figure 6.11 reveals that the three varieties share four major deletion types with the same ranks of importance, namely subject deletion as the most frequent type of deletion in the three varieties, followed by verb deletion, article deletion and preposition deletion. The overall differences in proportional distribution of deletion types across the three varieties are not statistically significant (χ2 = 22.3924, df = 22, p = 0.4367, n.s.). Certain types of deletion can be divided into subtypes, as Example (56) demonstrates. The first deletion of this sentence, The beach ∅ so far away, is a case of

91

92

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

copular verb deletion, while the second deletion, so I ∅ on the road, is a case of lexical verb deletion. The deletion types that contain subcategories are: – subject deletion, which covers noun phrases, personal pronouns and existential there; – verb deletion, which covers lexical verbs, auxiliaries, copulas and modals; – object deletion, which covers noun phrases and personal pronouns; – pronoun deletion, which covers possessive and reflexive pronouns; – adjective deletion, which also includes the deletion of comparative forms; – particle deletion, which also includes the deletion of negation particles. Some of the main types of deletion are discussed in further detail below, including their subcategories. Subject deletion. Subject deletion is the most frequent type of deletion observed in the three varieties. The subjects deleted can be divided into three subtypes, namely those that can be realised as personal pronouns, those that require an entire noun phrase and the deletion of existential there. These first and second subtypes can also be categorised from a discourse point of view, with those subjects realisable as personal pronouns belonging to the category ‘given information’, while those required to occur as noun phrases represent new information to the discourse. As deleting a discourse-new subject may compromise intelligibility, it is not at all surprising to find personal pronoun subjects deleted far more frequently than noun phrase subjects, as shown in Table 6.28. Table 6.28  Tokens of subject deletion by subject type Deleted subject type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

personal pronoun noun phrase existential there

52  0  0

52  0 12

324   4   2

Noun phrase subject deletion only occurs in the learner variety on four occasions. These four tokens represent two different cases, exemplified in sentences (57) and (58). (57) I listen to random bands, so, so much band, but ∅ I like most is Muse.  (58) Because I think ∅ will lag, the game will lag.

In Example (57), the noun phrase supposed to be modified by the relative clause I like most is deleted. Standard usage requires a noun phrase to precede the relative clause, e.g. the band I like most. However, as band has previously been introduced



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

to the discourse, the form the one I like most is also possible. The factors ‘given’ versus ‘new’ information are therefore not defining in determining whether the deleted subject has to be a prototypical noun phrase rather than a personal pronoun. Instead, the rules governing relative clauses restrict the modified noun phrase from occurring as a personal pronoun. Example (58) contains a noun phrase subject deletion, but the clause is reiterated immediately with the previously omitted subject. An example of a deleted personal pronoun subject is already given in sentence (55). As can be seen in Table 6.28, the deletion of existential there is attested only for Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English. This type of deletion appears to be far more frequent in the ESL variety than in the learner variety, particularly when looking at normalised frequencies, which have rounded values of 57 occurrences per 100,000 words in Malaysian English and four occurrences per 100,000 words in Indonesian learner English. In addition to different frequencies, deletion of existential there takes different forms in the two varieties, as can be seen in Examples (59) to (61). (59) ∅ Is- is not er any [???] in our country.

(60) Aa, remember the one that day, um, in newspaper, Chinese one, like, in Gurney area ∅ got a girl, like, terjatuh bangunan? 

(61) B: I think ∅ got la people like that, there right, like waiting for people to ask them to cash. A: ∅ Got- got people who ask you to help cash out one. 

Example (59) shows that the deletion of existential there in Indonesian learner English consists of simply omitting the word there while retaining the same copula is used in standard English. Examples (60) and (61), which represent the deletion of existential there in Malaysian English, show that in addition to deleting there, the copula changes to got. The different contexts presented in the two examples demonstrate how this copula is invariable, both with regard to tense and number. While Example (60) has a past tense and singular person setting, which would yield there was a girl in standard usage, Example (61) has a present tense and plural person setting, which would result in there are people in standard usage. Due to the invariant nature of the copula got, the Malaysian English strategy of existential there deletion leads to the same form got in both cases. Verb deletion. The deletion of verbs affects different types of verbs, namely lexical verbs, auxiliaries, modal auxiliaries and copulas. Examples of lexical verb and copula deletion are already given in Example (56). Examples of the remaining types are given in sentences (62) to (64).

93

94 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

(62) B: When ∅ they close it? A: Yesterday.

(63) I: Where would you go? S: Er, I ∅ like to go to Japan.

(64) For first, for the first time of job is not, I just want my experience, I don’t ∅ money I just want to improve my experience only. 

Example (62) shows the deletion of an interrogative auxiliary. In Example (63), the modal auxiliary would is deleted. Without the context of the preceding question, the sentence could be understood to refer to the speaker’s habitual trips to Japan, when in fact the speaker expresses a wish to visit Japan. Example (64) contains a case of lexical verb deletion that is somewhat different from the previous example given in sentence (56). In this particular case, the lexical verb, presumably want, is deleted while the negating auxiliary remains. The normalised frequencies for the different subtypes of verb deletion listed above are given in Table 6.29. Table 6.29  Overview of types of verb deletion Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

auxiliary copula lexical modal Total

107 107 23 0 237

67 185 19 0 271

96 254 69 15 434

The overview of normalised frequencies reveals the distribution of types of verb varies across varieties. While the overall frequency of verb deletion is almost twice as high in Indonesian learner English as in Singapore English, auxiliary deletion is more frequent in Singapore English than in the learner variety. The remaining types are more frequent in the learner variety, and modal deletion is unique to Indonesian learner English. The differences observed across the three varieties narrowly miss statistical significance (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.06021, n.s.). Relative frequencies, which facilitate a comparison of ratios across the three varieties, are given in Figure 6.12. As can be seen in Figure 6.12, copula and auxiliary deletion are the most frequent subtypes of verb deletion in the three varieties, although copula deletion covers the majority of verb deletion in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English while copula and auxiliary deletion consist of equal chunks at 45% each. The proportion of auxiliary deletion is therefore greater in Singapore English than in the other varieties, where auxiliary deletion makes up for a quarter of the cases in Malaysian English and slightly less in Indonesian learner English. Lexical verb



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

auxiliary copula lexical IndonE

modal

MalE

SgE



.

.

.

.



Figure 6.12  Relative frequencies of verbal deletion subtypes

deletions appear to play a more important part in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties. As observed previously, modal auxiliary deletion is only attested for Indonesian learner English. Preposition deletion. Preposition deletion affects a range of twelve different prepositions across all varieties, as shown in Table 6.30. The number of prepositions affected varies from variety to variety, with Singapore English displaying deletion for three prepositions, Malaysian English having six different prepositions affected and Indonesian learner English exhibiting deletion for twelve different prepositions. Examples of deletions of different prepositions are given in sentences (65) to (69). (65) And I don’t like ∅ [to] read but I just look ∅ [at] the coding so I can do the er to get the sample from the book so I can make the program from the books.  (66) Last time I went ∅ [to] KL also right? I mandi ∅ [in] the hot water also right. 

(67) Everybody er afraid ∅ [of] that fine, five hundred dollar if you er throw thethrow something. 

(68) Ei, how come… I heard you are not going ∅ [on] holiday wah.  (69) B: Got. I got short hair and dye the colour one, the brown, light brown um … A: I don’t remember you ∅ [with] brown hair.

95

96 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.30  Overview of deleted prepositions Deleted preposition

SgE

MalE

IndonE

about as at during for from in like of on to with Total

0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 130 0 145

5 0 10 0 0 0 29 0 10 0 67 5 124

2 2 4 2 19 6 63 2 31 2 75 6 215

The preposition to is the most frequently deleted preposition in the three varieties.10 Examples (65) and (66) show two different uses of the deleted item. In (65), the infinitive form of the verb to read is reduced to just read, while in (66) the adverbial indicating a direction, which normally takes the form of a prepositional phrase, e.g. to KL [KL = Kuala Lumpur], occurs without any preposition. The preposition in is also deleted frequently in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English, less so in Singapore English. In Example (66), the clause I mandi the hot water could be understood as containing a subject, a Malay verb and a direct object noun phrase. Due to the syntactic structure of the clause, the verb could be thought to describe an action performed on the direct object the hot water. However, the semantic content of the Malay verb mandi, which means ‘to bathe’, clearly points to an intransitive use of the verb, with the hot water being an adverbial of place with a deleted preposition. The remaining examples show cases of deletions of other prepositions. A cross-comparison of the prepositions affected by deletion reveals that differences between Malaysian English and Singapore English narrowly miss statistical significance (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.0632, n.s.). Not significant as well are the observed differences between Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English (χ2 = 10.3462, df = 11, p = 0.4995, n.s.), while the differences between 10. To as used is Example (65) is strictly speaking not a preposition, but an infinitive marker (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 67–68, Biber et al. 1999: 77, Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 84). It is nevertheless included in this section, as a separate discussion of the deletion of this marker is not justified given its status as the sole element of its category, and the additional effort necessary to separate various instances of to according to their function.



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

Singapore English and Indonesian learner English are significant (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.01088*). As the overall number of preposition deletions varies across the three varieties, the comparison of the deletion of different prepositions in the three varieties is done with the help of relative frequencies, shown in Figure 6.13. about

SgE MalE IndonE

as at during for from in like of on to with 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Figure 6.13  Relative values of deleted prepositions

The main difference observable in Figure 6.13 concerns the preposition to, whose deletion accounts for a vast majority of cases of preposition deletion in the Singaporean data, a narrow majority in Malaysian English and slightly more than a third of cases in Indonesian learner English. The preposition in ranks second in Malaysian English, with slightly above a quarter of all cases of deletion, and in Indonesian learner English, with slightly less than a quarter. In Singapore English, in and on each account for approximately 5% of all cases of deletion. Object deletion. In the three varieties, object deletion is a far less frequent phenomenon than subject deletion. What the two phenomena have in common is that the deleted element can be retrieved as a personal pronoun or a prototypical noun phrase. For reasons similar to those mentioned in the previous discussion of subject deletion, objects can be retrieved as personal pronouns in a vast majority of cases, as shown in Table 6.31.

97

98 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.31  Tokens of object deletion by object type Deleted object type

 SgE

 MalE

IndonE

personal pronoun noun phrase Rate of personal pronoun

  11   0 100%

 9  2 81.82%

59  3 95.16%

With regard to the ratio of personal pronoun object versus noun phrase object deletion, Malaysian English appears to be the odd one out. However, given the low token counts in the ESL varieties, this deviation should be treated with caution. Instances of the different types of object deletion are given in Examples (70) to (72). (70) Indonesian we have ∅ called KPK who- who [???] investigate the corruptor and trap them, make them come into the trap and we can find them, like that.  (71) B: Oh, they, they took ∅ under, under, Doctor, uh, A. [name abbreviated]. A: Uh, they like to do the advertisement stuff. B: Yea, advertisement stuff and a lot of people are interested to do ∅ under Doctor H.[name abbreviated] but…

(72) So later we’re going to watch that “Money No Enough”. Eh, you’ll find ∅ very funny. 

Examples (70) and (71) contain cases of object deletion for which the deleted object has to occur as a full noun phrase rather than a personal pronoun. In (70), the deleted object must be a noun phrase such as a commission or similar (NB: KPK stands for Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, which translates to ‘Corruption Eradication Commission’). In Example (71), the deleted objects are presumably noun phrases such as a course or a class, based on the context. In Example (72), the deleted object can be retrieved as it, as the object has previously been mentioned in the form of a film title. Relative pronoun deletion. Although it is not among the most frequent types of deletion, relative pronoun deletion is discussed separately because it leads to a non-standard form of relative clause. In standard English usage, object-relative clauses may have their relative pronoun deleted to form a zero-relative clause, e.g. the person (that) I met. Such cases were not taken into consideration, as they are part of standard usage. The cases under discussion here are subject-relative clauses with a deleted relative pronoun, also known as subject-zero-relative clauses. Examples are shown in sentences (73) and (74). (73) So maybe in one group if there is someone ∅ is er more skilled at this he will teach us, er if in one group there is nobody can we ask another group, if another group cannot, we ask teacher. 



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

(74) We have, we don’t have nasi goreng all that. We have, I mean, one thing that, uh, every menu is finish, are finish but one, uh, one, uh, menu ∅ is not finish is shark fin soup. 

In the two examples above, the deletion of the relative pronoun results in a subjectzero-relative clause. In Example (73) the two clauses there is someone and someone is more skilled share the element someone, which serves as the subject of the second clause, which is the defining relative clause. Instead of introducing the relative clause with the relative pronoun who or that as required in standard English, the observed sentence features two consecutive verb phrases. Example (74) contains a similar case. The noun menu is subject to two clauses, namely menu is not finish and menu is shark fin soup. In this instance, the first clause is the defining relative clause, and as such needs to be introduced by a relative pronoun in standard English, e.g. that. As in the previous example, the deletion of the relative pronoun results in a subject-zero-relative clause. The consequence is a sentence with a subject followed by two consecutive verb phrases referring to the same subject. Relative pronoun deletion that results in a subject-zero-relative clause is observed for Malaysian English on seven counts (~33 occurrences per 100,000 words) and for Indonesian learner English on eighteen counts (~38 occurrences per 100,000 words). In spite of the similar normalised frequencies observed for these two varieties, the feature is not attested in the Singaporean data. 6.3.2 Word choice Unlike the previously discussed morphological feature concerned with non-standard word class (cf. Section 6.2.4), cases included in this category occur in the standard word class, but present a non-standard choice within the expected word class. Examples to illustrate the feature are given in sentences (75) to (79). (75) When he visit us er me at- at Batam so sometimes we talk or communicate each other with English. 

(76) And also I’m become member of some kind of developer- developer company like Square Ending or Atlas.

(77) But I think is they give us so much exercise, so much assignments, I’ll, it, it left me wondering how, in the world are they gonna mark all that stuff?  (78) No, there is no winter season too. 

(79) Ya something like- ya have to economic skill, we must er earn money from the farming. We farm what and sell it. 

99

100 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Example (75) illustrates non-standard choices of prepositions. The prepositional phrase at Batam, an adverbial of place, requires the preposition in or on in standard usage, since Batam is a geographical location rather than a specific place, such as in at home or at the office. The second prepositional phrase, with English, is expected to contain the preposition in in standard usage. Example (76) illustrates a nonstandard choice of auxiliary, as the user chooses the auxiliary to be rather than to have to form the present perfect, leading to I’m become member rather than I’ve become a member. In Example (77), the speaker uses the determiner much with the plural count noun assignments. In standard usage, much is used with mass nouns, while count nouns take other determiners, such as many or a lot of. In Example (78), the speaker uses the adverb too in a negated clause, while standard usage expects the adverb either in such a context. Example (79) sees the use of what as a pronoun. In standard usage, what can function as an interrogative pronoun or a relative pronoun. The normalised frequencies of the feature, including a division into subclasses grouped by word class affected, are given in Table 6.32. Table 6.32  Overview on non-standard word choices grouped by word class Word class

SgE

MalE

IndonE

adjective adverb auxiliary determiner noun preposition pronoun lexical verb Total

8 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 23

0 5 24 5 0 62 14 19 128

6 42 54 44 10 248 33 17 454

The first observation that can be made in the overview given in Table 6.32 concerns the differences in overall frequencies between the three varieties. Non-standard word choice appears to be far more frequent in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties. Differences within the group of ESL varieties can also be observed, as the phenomenon is found to be more frequent in Malaysian English than in Singapore English. The differences in overall frequencies also correspond to the range of affected word classes in each variety. Singapore English, which displays the lowest overall frequency, features non-standard word choices in only two word classes. In Malaysian English, the range of word classes affected rises to six. In Indonesian learner English, which has the highest overall frequency, nine different word classes are affected by non-standard word choice, out of which one, namely the word class ‘noun’, is unique to the learner variety. Differences with regard to the most affected

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 101



word classes can also be discerned, as non-standard preposition choice, which is the most frequent type of non-standard word choice observed in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English, is not attested in Singapore English. Relative frequencies are given in Figure 6.14 for a visualisation of the major word classes affected by non-standard word choice. adjective

SgE MalE IndonE

adverb auxiliary determiner noun preposition pronoun lexical verb 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.7

Figure 6.14  Relative frequencies of non-standard word choice by affected word class

The relative frequencies shown in Figure 6.14 reveal that non-standard preposition choice makes up more than half of all cases of non-standard word choice in Indonesian learner English. In Malaysian English, non-standard preposition choice constitutes sightly less than half of all cases of non-standard word choice. As already mentioned, non-standard preposition choice is not attested for Singapore English. In this variety, non-standard word choice consists of non-standard determiner choice and non-standard adjective choice with a ratio of 2 : 1. However, not too much importance should be attached to this ratio, as it corresponds to only three tokens observed in the Singaporean data. Therefore, the comparison between varieties should focus on Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English only in this particular instance. Due to the fact that they display certain similarities, such as both having non-standard preposition choice as their major type of nonstandard word choice, their differences are not significant (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.2452, n.s.). The main types of non-standard word choice are described in further detail below.

102 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Preposition choice. As the most frequent type of non-standard word choice in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English, non-standard preposition choice affects different prepositions expected in standard English by replacing them with other prepositions. The most frequently observed cases are shown in Examples (80) to (85). (80) Mh, first time my family I have- give me tuition to study at Jakarta at the Binus University but I can’t because at Jakarta I have other family so I go to Batam because at Batam I haven’t family so I can freedom. <  IndonE-PW:294> (81) Is very good so our- our er if we just have to waste our time to playing games or what, is more useful if we waste our time to make a n- a software at our free time. 

(82) I watch er tennis in TV.  (83) No, never, download in my phone. (84) I’m from Bintan island, same with him. 



(85) I, for me it’s okay, it’s nice because, I mean, the, the soup is different with our soup but, uh, the rest, can, uh, they don’t really like it. 

Examples (80) and (81) show how at is used where in would be expected in standard English. Example (80) contains three adverbials of place where this is the case, specifically adverbials of place denoting cities (NB: Batam can refer to the island as well as the urban centre on that island). The example also features an adverbial of place in which the preposition at is used as expected in standard usage, namely at the Binus University. The speakers appear to use the preposition at for all locations, regardless of whether the location in question is a geographical place or a building/institution. As such, the example contains two successive adverbials of place beginning with the prepositions at, namely at Jakarta at the Binus University, rather than in Jakarta at Binus University as expected in standard usage, where a difference is made between the specific university and the city in which it is located. Example (81) suggests that the use of at rather than in applies to adverbials of time as well. Examples (82) and (83) each highlight a case in which the preposition in is used rather than another preposition. In Example (82), the phrase in TV is used rather than on TV. In Example (83), the adverbial in my phone is used although the verb to download denotes a process of transferring data from one device to another, as such its prepositional phrase is expected to mark a transfer direction rather than a static location in standard usage. Examples (84) and (85) show the expression of similarities and differences. In standard usage, the preposition as is expected in the construction same as X, while the preposition from is expected in the construction different from X. The observed usage is one where the same preposition, with, is used for the expression of both similarities and differences, resulting in same with him and different with our soup.

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 103



The different types of non-standard preposition choice, of which only a fraction is shown in Examples (80) to (85), are listed in Table 6.33, along with their normalised frequencies. Table 6.33  Overview of non-standard preposition choices Observed preposition

Replaces standard

about

against between in on to with up as at from on to with by for in than to with at for from of on to with to about as at for from in at for out until

at

back for

from

in

into of

on over

since

MalE – – – – – 5 – – – – – – – – – – – – 5 – – – – 5 – – – – – 5 5 – – – – 5 –

IndonE 2 2 71 6 2 – 2 2 2 4 6 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 – 4 6 2 2 23 6 2 2 4 2 – – 2 6 2 2 – 2

104 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.33  (continued) Observed preposition

Replaces standard

MalE

IndonE

to

for in of for with to on top as by for from in

10 – 10 – – 5 – – – – 10 –

8 4 2 – 2 – 2 13 4 2 17 6

until upstairs with

What immediately becomes apparent from the comparison given in Table 6.33 is that Indonesian learner English displays a longer list of non-standard preposition choices, 42 in total, while Malaysian English features far fewer types, ten in total. Of these, sixteen types are attested with only one token in the learner variety (i.e. those with a normalised and rounded frequency of two), while seven types have only one token in Malaysian English (i.e. those with a normalised and rounded frequency of five). In other words, 26 types of non-standard preposition choice are attested on more than two counts in Indonesian learner English, while this figure shrinks to three in Malaysian English. Beyond the different ranges of preposition choice, the varieties are also distinct with regard to the number of standard prepositions a non-standard preposition choice can replace. In Malaysian English, only the prepositions of and to are shown to stand in for more than one standard-usage preposition, namely at and for in the case of of and for, and of in the case of to. In the learner variety, this figure rises to six. Among these prepositions, three can stand in for five or more standard-usage prepositions. The most frequent non-standard preposition choice encountered in the Indonesian learner data, namely the use of at rather than in as shown in Examples (77) and (78), is not attested in Malaysian English. The non-standard preposition choice shown in Example (82), i.e. the use of with rather than from to express differences, is attested on more than one occasion in both varieties. However, the parallel non-standard usage of with rather than as to express similarities is only attested in the learner variety. Auxiliary choice. The second-most frequently observed type of non-standard word choice is also not attested in Singapore English, but found in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English. A few examples of non-standard auxiliary choices, including modal auxiliaries, are given in sentences (86) to (92).

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 105



(86) I don’t interested in politics I just am… 

(87) S.[name abbreviated], do, are you still remember about the cat?  (88) Sometime yes, because for us Indonesian maybe, if you eating without spicy like er chilli or something it’s not feel like eating. 

(89) L.[name abbreviated] is gone mad.  (90) I: S: I: S:

Have you heard about the $100 laptop? Ya, I didn’t. The one that they plan to- They have a very cheap laptop that they sell to governments so that they can be given to the children in the classroom. No, no, I didn’t heard it.

(91) I: Would you also travel there, if you had the chance, if you had enough money? S: Yes, I will like it.

(92) I think it er Indonesian people is very very potential in technology but that is er haven’t pledged to upraise it about it so er they work their potential by individual, not one company. 

The examples listed in (86) to (91) exhibit different cases of non-standard auxiliary choice. In Example (86), the verb to do is employed as a copula rather than the verb to be as expected in standard usage, resulting in I don’t interested rather than I’m not interested. The opposite choice occurs in Examples (87) and (88), in which an expected do-periphrasis is replaced by a be-periphrasis. This occurs in the formation of an interrogative clause in Example (87), resulting in are you still remember rather than the expected do you still remember. In Example (88), the verb to feel is negated as it’s not feel like eating rather than the standard form it doesn’t feel like eating. Examples (89) and (90) feature cases in which the perfect is formed using an auxiliary other than to have. Example (89) uses to be, resulting in L. is gone mad as opposed to the expected form L. has gone mad, while Example (90) uses to do, resulting in I didn’t heard it rather than I haven’t heard it. Example (91) shows the use of the modal auxiliary will to express a conditional, resulting in I will like it rather I would like it. The clause I will like it on its own does not constitute non-standard usage, as its function could be future tense or epistemic modality. However, the context of the utterance, as can be seen from the preceding utterance by the interviewer, clearly indicates a conditional meaning. Example (92) is different from the previous examples as the expected verb have functions in its lexical sense rather than in its auxiliary function. The clause Indonesian people have a lot of potential that one might expect in standard English is uttered as Indonesian people is very very potential. An alternative explanation exists due to the fact that in addition to the use of to be rather than to have, the speaker also substitutes the determiner for mass

106 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

nouns a lot of with very, which suggests that the speaker treats the noun potential as an adjective. Resulting from this, the use of to be could be seen as a copular use. The non-standard choices of auxiliaries are listed in Table 6.34, grouped by their function, along with their normalised frequencies. Table 6.34  Overview of types of non-standard auxiliary choice Function, standard auxiliary

Observed auxiliary

MalE

IndonE

copular, be interrogative, do negation, do

do be be have be do do will could be

5 14 – – 5 – – – – – – 24

8 2 4 4 17 2 2 6 2 2 4 54

perfect, have future, will conditional, would deontic, can lexical, have other Total

As can be seen in Table 6.34, non-standard auxiliary choice appears to be more than twice as frequent in Indonesian learner English as in Malaysian English. What Table 6.34 also indicates is that there are more types of non-standard auxiliary choice in Indonesian learner English than in Malaysian English. The three types attested in Malaysian English are also found in the learner variety. Out of these three types, two are more frequent in the learner variety, while the third, the use of to be to form the interrogative, is more frequent in the ESL variety. The overall differences observed between the two varieties are not significant (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.01903, n.s.) Determiner choice. In contrast to the two previously described features, non-standard determiner choice is attested in all three varieties. Examples of the different types encountered are given in sentences (93) to (98). (93) He, very young, got apa, ga tau, had many many blood. 

(94) And in business we can say, in business view, business view, if we are- we- we must make one game that not only our people like, but many people like it so we can get as many profit as we can. 

(95) Mh, not really because there much worker from Indonesia work there, so it seems like just in Indonesia because the worker can speak Indonesia. 

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 107



(96) And I can work and earn much money to them, and so they- they don’t ever work for me again.

(97) Is fantasy, so on this … yes … this … land … uh ..away from … um earth … which is known as Mundania because it’s mundane … er where … every citizens possessed … um … a single … talent which is a magic magical gift to them … yeah which is quite interesting. 

(98) That’s I think very difficult for the student like me, sorry sir. 

Examples (93) to (95) present cases of non-standard determiner choice with regard to the count and mass noun distinction. In Example (93), the noun phrase many blood represents non-standard usage since the noun blood is a mass noun and the determiner many is restricted to count nouns. Example (94) presents a similar case, with the only difference being the determiner expected in standard English: a lot of in Example (93), the quantifier used for mass nouns in statements, and much in Example (94) as part of the construction as much X as Y. Example (95) represents the opposite case, where a quantifier restricted to mass nouns is used in combination with a count noun. The fact that the noun worker lacks plural marking makes an alternative explanation possible. Rather than making a non-standard quantifier choice, the speaker may treat worker as a mass noun. In Example (96), the speaker uses a quantifier for mass nouns with a mass noun; however, much is used mainly in questions and negative sentences in standard usage, so that a lot of would be expected. Example (97) features the use of the determiner every with the plural noun citizens. In standard usage, every must be used with a single noun, as in every citizen. Alternatively, the plural noun must be used with the determiner all as in all citizens. Whether the present example constitutes a non-standard choice of determiner or an unexpected case of plural marking is difficult to assess. Example (98) shows a case of non-standard choice of article, where the definite article the is used rather than the expected indefinite a. The different types of non-standard determiner choice are shown in Table 6.35 along with their normalised frequencies. Table 6.35  Types of non-standard determiner choice Distinction

SgE

MalE

IndonE

count/mass noun statement/interr./neg. singular/plural definite/indefinite article other Total

– – 15 – – 15

5 – – – – 5

23  6 –  6  8 44

108 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.35 shows that non-standard determiner choice is more frequent in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties. There are also more types encountered in the learner variety, while the ESL varieties display just one type each. It is noteworthy that the single type encountered in Singapore English is not attested in the learner variety, while the same cannot be said of the single type found in Malaysian English. The normalised frequency for Malaysian English corresponds to a single token, while the one for Singapore English represents two tokens. However, these two tokens are produced by the same speaker in two consecutive sentences. As such, non-standard determiner choice can be regarded as virtually unique to the learner variety. 6.3.3 Redundant items Redundant items are attested in the three varieties, and refer to words present in the data that are not expected in standard English. The phenomenon applies to several word classes. Examples are given in sentences (99) to (104). (99) And, uh, one, uh, previously I go to, uh, went to his house and I so, I saw he has two cats as a pets. 

(100) No, I already go to Singapore just twice and once to the Malaysia.  (101) Er no I rent someone to- to drive me to here.

(102) Er sometime she is join with me er to watching horror movie.  (103) And there’s many foreigner student there, actually I meet with some of, er, Japanese student, some of like, Germany also had a few, Switzerland, and I think I like Perth but because is my home country is Indonesia so I better be in Indonesia though, yeah? 

(104) Because er Indonesia is er also a traditional country, there are- they’re cannot use fine. 

Examples (99) and (100) represent cases of redundant determiners. In Example (99), the indefinite article a is used with the plural noun pets, which in standard usage can only take this article when in the singular form. A case of unexpected plural marking can be excluded based on the preceding plural noun phrase two cats. In Example (100), the definite article the is unexpected because it occurs with the country name Malaysia. In standard usage, country names only take the definite article when they are a plural form, e.g. the Philippines, the United States, the United Arab Emirates. Only in exceptional cases does a country name in a singular form

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 109



take the, e.g. the Gambia. The name Malaysia, however, does not belong to this category. Examples (101) and (102) showcase the unexpected use of prepositions. In Example (101), the speaker produces the phrase to here, while the expected form in standard usage would simply be here. The preposition to is expected before noun phrases, e.g. drive me to university or drive me to the airport, but not before adverbs. In Example (102), the preposition with in join with me is regarded as redundant in standard usage due to the fact that the semantic content of the verb join already includes that of the preposition. Therefore, the expected form would be she joins me. Examples (103) and (104) cover the redundant use of copulas. In Example (103), the speaker places a copula before the subject as well as one between the subject and the subject complement, thereby forming a non-standard VSVCS pattern as in is my home country is Indonesia rather than the standard SVCS pattern as in my home country is Indonesia. In Example (104), the clause they’re cannot use fine contains two predicates, while only one predicate per clause is permitted in standard usage, which would require the clause to be formed as they cannot use fines. The three types represented in Examples (99) to (104) are the most frequently encountered, but by no means the only ones. Table 6.36 gives a complete list along with normalised frequencies. Table 6.36  Overview of redundant items Redundant item

SgE

MalE

IndonE

adjective adverb auxiliary verb conjunction copular verb determiner lexical verb noun pronoun preposition Total

– – – – – – – – 8 8 15

– – – – – 19 14 5 5 10 52

2 10 19 8 77 165 8 19 19 96 423

The overview in Table 6.36 shows the by now familiar pattern of higher normalised frequencies as well as a wider range of affected types for the learner variety. Also, Malaysian English displays a higher frequency as well as a wider range of types than Singapore English. The phenomenon is only marginally represented in Singapore English. The overall differences observed between the three varieties are significant (Fisher’s Exact Test: p = 0.03231*).

110 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

6.3.4 Word order Non-standard word order is attested for the three varieties and covers a range of different cases. Examples are given in sentences (105) to (109). (105) Yes but I more like Indonesian food. 

(106) That’s only one example and the second one I told to the my student there, er I’m accepted here not because of my certificate graduate because I’m from English er department, it’s not the point, but the point is that when I come to the interview and er when the interviewer ask me to speak English I just speak English.

(107) Er they can have er they will have experience er about English, EnglishEnglish have- English er will er give them er what is it call ya, value added can be, and- ya value added and advantages. 

(108) No, we from Genting come down go KL.

(109) A lot of people there I saw. 

Example (105) presents a case of non-standard adverb position, in which more occurs before the verb rather than at the end of the clause, where it is expected in standard usage. Example (106) features non-standard word order within a compound. Rather than using the modifier-head order, graduate certificate, the speaker uses a head-modifier order, certificate graduate. In Example (107), a similar nonstandard order is observed within a noun phrase. In the standard noun phrase structure, an adjective serves as a pre-modifier to a noun phrase head, e.g. added value. In the noun phrase produced twice by the speaker, the adjective post-modifies the noun, resulting in value added. Examples (108) and (109) represent cases of non-standard constituent ordering. In Example (108), the adverbial from Genting occurs between the subject and the verb rather than clause-finally or clause-initially. In Example (109), subject and verb occur clause-finally after the object and adverbial, resulting in OASV rather than the standard pattern SVOA, as in I saw a lot of people there. The different types of non-standard word order illustrated in Examples (105) to (109) are listed in Table 6.37, along with their normalised frequencies. Table 6.37  Overview of cases of non-standard word order Type

SgE

MalE

IndonE

adverb compound constituent noun phrase other Total

– – 8 – – 8

19 – 33 – – 52

35  8 13 15  8 79



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory

The overview given in Table 6.37 indicates that non-standard word order is more frequent in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties, but the difference is not as stark as for the previously described features. A further difference is that nonstandard constituent order appears to be more frequent in Malaysian English than in Indonesian learner English. What remains similar to previous features is the learner variety’s propensity for a wider range of affected types, while the feature affects fewer types in Malaysian English and fewer still in Singapore English. The token count in Singapore English is also extremely low. 6.3.5 “One relative clauses” The one relative clause is a type of non-standard relative clause observed in the data and also previously documented for Singapore English and Malaysian English. Its structure is best described as “the invariant relative pronoun one [being] preceded by the modifying constituents” (Schneider 2011: 164). The feature is illustrated in Examples (110) to (112). (110) Oh, you know that gi… lady is the one found that Jessie one ah, say the one the daughter got murdered by her boyfriend one? Near your area one.  (111) That is the- I mean the smart way, maybe I don’t want to go to Jakarta, is quite complicated one. 

(112) So later we’re going to watch that Money No Enough. Eh, you’ll find very funny. You laugh all the way. I suggest ah all those people ah never go and watch one ah, go and watch. 

Examples (110) to (112) present a case of one relative clause for each variety under examination. Example (110), taken from the Malaysian data, contains three one relative clauses, namely the one found that Jessie one, the daughter got murdered by her boyfriend one and near your area one. These three relative clauses use one as a relative pronoun after the modifying constituents, rather than before as in typical standard English relative clauses. The position of the relative pronoun is not the only defining feature of this type of clause. While this may be the case for the relative clause near your area one, which in standard usage might be rendered as the one near your area, the other two clauses require a different relative pronoun, e.g. that, as in the one that found that Jessie and the daughter that got murdered by her boyfriend. While the three clauses in Example (110) are defining clauses, Example (111) from the learner variety is a case of a non-defining one relative clause. The clause Jakarta, is quite complicated one would take a form such as Jakarta, which is quite complicated in standard English usage. The Singaporean Example (112) shows how one relative clauses may sometimes be difficult to identify. The word one can at first be thought of as the object to the verb watch. However, when looking at the sentence

111

112 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

in its entirety, it becomes clear that one is the relative pronoun to a relative clause that modifies the subject those people, which in standard usage can be rendered as those people who never go and watch. One relative clauses are attested in the three varieties, but are far more frequent in Malaysian English than in the other varieties. While the normalised frequencies for Indonesian learner English and Singapore English are thirteen occurrences per 100,000 words and 23 occurrences per 100,000 words respectively, one relative clauses have a normalised frequency of 233 occurrences per 100,000 words in Malaysian English. As such, this type of relative clause can be regarded as characteristic of Malaysian English and as existent, though relatively rare, in the other varieties. 6.3.6 Invariant question tags In standard English usage, questions tags agree with the clause they follow in terms of person, tense and verb used. In addition, a negated clause takes a non-negated question tag and vice versa. Invariant question tags do not follow all (or any) of these rules, as Examples (113) to (115) indicate. (113) So you are not watching the movie, is it? 

(114) The boyfriend kill himself is it? 

(115) Star got come out or not? 

Examples (113) and (114) show the use of the question tag is it in contexts for which a different question tag would be expected in a standard variety of English. In Example (113), the question tag is it does not agree with the subject you and the verb form are watching of its preceding clause. In standard usage, a question tag that agrees with these two elements would be are you. Only with respect to negation does the encountered question tag agree with the preceding clause, as the clause’s verb is negated while the question tag is not. However, this may be coincidental due to the tag’s invariant nature. In Example (114), the same question tag is it does not agree with its preceding clause in terms of subject, verb, tense and negation. Since the subjects of both the clause and the tag are in the third person singular, the tag’s subject should be he as in the clause in standard usage. The verb kill, as a lexical verb, is expected to be represented by the auxiliary to do in the question tag. With regard to tense, the semantic content of the clause clearly points to a past tense action, and as such the question tag would be expected to occur in that tense. Since the verb in the clause is not marked for past tense, a lack of tense agreement between clause and question tag cannot be confirmed. However, it is safe to assume that the question tag would have remained is it as opposed to was it had the verb of

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 113



the clause been marked for past tense. The last element of agreement that is lacking lies in the fact that the clause is an affirmative statement, and as such the question tag is expected to be negated in standard usage. Taking all these points into consideration, the question tag expected in standard English usage would be didn’t he. Example (115) introduces a different kind of question tag, namely the verbless and subjectless or not. Rather than reiterating a subject and verb in agreement with the preceding clause as well as a negation status contrary to that found in the clause, this question tag simply consists of an affirmative statement followed by or not. The two invariant question tags just described are attested only in the ESL varieties. The normalised frequencies are given in Table 6.38. Table 6.38  Overview of invariant question tags Question tag

SgE

MalE

is it or not Total

54 23 77

43 24 67

The normalised frequencies shown in Table 6.38 suggest that the differences between the two varieties are minimal, with the is it question tag being used slightly more frequently in Singapore English and the frequencies of the or not question tag being virtually identical in the two varieties. Indeed, the slight differences observed are not statistically significant (χ2 = 0.0214, df = 1, p = 0.8836, n.s.). This indicates that the use of invariant question tags is a feature shared by the ESL varieties and at the same time distances them from the learner variety. 6.3.7 Passive voice Non-standard use of the passive voice appears in two different manifestations in the data. One is its absence when expected in standard usage, the other is a nonstandard form. Examples to illustrate these two types are given in sentences (116) and (117). (116) Actually, for books I prefer read Indonesian, er, maksudnya, my local books, because, I don’t know, when, er, one of, er, like English language translate into a book, sometimes I still cannot understand what, what they mean, the words mean, but when they speak it’s different you know.  (117) The Middle Easterns, all kena stop. But J.[name abbreviated] walk in, no problem. 

114 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Example (116) presents a case of absent passive voice in Indonesian learner English. In Example (116), the verb translate occurs in the active voice, while the context points to books in English being translated into another language. The expected passive voice clause might be rendered as when the English language is translated in a book. Example (117) showcases a non-standard passive form encountered in the Malaysian data. The so-called kena-passive uses the Malay particle kena (meaning ‘get’) before a verb to express the passive voice. This passive is not attested in the Singaporean data, but otherwise documented for the variety (cf. Schneider 2011: 161–163). The kena-passive is attested only in Malaysian English with four tokens (~nineteen occurrences per 100,000 words). Absent passive voice as shown in Example (116) is found only in Indonesian learner English on two occasions (~four occurrences per 100,000 words). 6.3.8 Inversion Non-standard inversion covers two different cases, namely the lack of inversion where it is expected in standard usage, and the use of inversion where it is not expected. Examples illustrating these two types are given in sentences (118) and (119). (118) When it is? When it was? 

(119) Sometimes when they speak or when they type a word I don’t understand I can search from dictionary what is the meaning of this word, yeah. 

Example (118) presents the only instances of absent inversion observed in the data. In each of the interrogatives, inversion is expected in standard usage to yield the forms is it or was it rather than the observed forms it is and it was. Example (119) contains a case of inversion where none is expected in standard usage. The form what is the meaning of this word would constitute correct usage of inversion if it were an interrogative, but in the context of sentence (119) it is an object clause for the verb phrase can search, and as such the form without inversion what the meaning of this word is is expected. An overview of the two types of non-standard use of inversion is given in Table 6.39, along with normalised frequencies. Table 6.39  Overview of non-standard cases of inversion use Inversion status

SgE

MalE

IndonE

absent unexpected

– 8

10 –

– 23

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 115



Table 6.39 shows that while unexpected inversion occurs in both Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, the absence of inversion is attested in Malaysian English only. The token counts are very low in the ESL varieties, with one token counted in Singapore English and two tokens found in Malaysian English. The tokens found in the Malaysian data, as shown in Example (118), occur one after the other, even suggesting that the second utterance is part of a repair strategy to add the absent past tense marking in the first utterance, but not the absent inversion. As such, the cases observed in the ESL varieties can be regarded as exceptions. Consequently, non-standard use of inversion, more specifically its unexpected use, can be regarded as virtually unique in the learner variety. 6.3.9 Summary of observed syntactic features Table 6.40 gives an overview of the non-standard features just described; it provides a clearer comparison of syntactic features across the three varieties. Table 6.40  Overview of observed syntactic features Feature

Observed in

Significant differences observed between

Deletion Word choice Redundant items Word order One relative clause Invariant question tags Passive

SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE IndonE (absent) MalE (kena) MalE (absent) SgE, IndonE (unexpected)

– – SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE – ESL varieties, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE MalE, other varieties MalE, other varieties MalE, other varieties

Inversion

6.4 Discourse features Two discourse features are investigated in the present study, namely the use of discourse particles borrowed from local languages on the one hand and code-mixing/ code-switching to a local language on the other hand. Discourse particles are only counted as such when they do not occur within a code-switching context. The difference is illustrated in Examples (120) and (121). (120) Er seaweed ya, OK seaweed deh. 

116 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

(121) Sometimes they win when they beat apa… what, apa deh, tim yang… the low team, the weak team, like … eh, Bahrain. 

In Example (120), the discourse particle deh (whose function is explained in the following section) is counted as such because it occurs within an English utterance. In contrast, the same discourse particle in Example (121) occurs within a code-switch to the speaker’s L1, i.e. Malay. As such, it is a Malay discourse particle used in the Malay utterance apa deh, tim yang… (roughly translated as ‘What is it? The team that…’) rather than a Malay discourse particle occurring in the learner’s English production. 6.4.1 Discourse particles Across the three varieties, the following discourse particles have been identified: – ah: particle indicating the speaker’s mood or attitude, like strengthening a statement, softening a negative reaction as well as marking solidarity with the interlocutor (Schneider 2011: 162); – dah: short form of the Malay word sudah, meaning ‘already’; – deh: particle used to render a suggestion more convincing in Malay; – eh: particle indicating hesitation on the part of the speaker in Malay; – kan: short form of the Malay word bukan, which in Malay is used as either a particle to negate nouns or as a negated question tag at the end of a statement – only the latter function applies when used in English; – lah (variant form la): same functions as ah (cf. Schneider 2011: 162); – loh (variant form lo): Malay particle indicating an even stronger level of conviction than deh; – mah (variant form meh): particle of Cantonese origin (Lim 2007: 463) indicating skepticism (Wee 2004: 121; Leimgruber 2009: 56); – ni: short form of the Malay word ini, literally meaning ‘this’ or ‘this one’, indicating that something is happening at the very moment of the utterance; – saja (variant forms aja and aje): Malay particle meaning ‘only’ or ‘just’; – wah: particle expressing amazement in Malay; – wor: variant form of the particle what/wat,11 which contradicts a preceding utterance and implies obviousness (Leimgruber 2009: 57; Wee 2004: 125). The use of the discourse particles is shown in Examples (122) to (132). An example for deh is not included as it has already been given in sentence (120). 11. Information on wor being a variant of what/wat provided by Jakob Leimbgruber (personal communication).



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 117

(122) Ah, then they show you tape. OK, OK ah, you see this ah newspaper ah, the accident. OK, why is happen? Ah because the driver pain to this one ah.  (123) It’s like dah la where got time to do. 

(124) Yea. Actually Macau is very nice eh. 

(125) We have the- this er harbour with er restaurant, surrounded kan?  (126) We usually take up a topic lah. We have the responsibility lah.  (127) But, yea la, ‘cause being a non-Muslim lecturer is very hard, your dress code has to be, like, either pantsuite or skirt. But skirt also must be office wear style lo, easy. 

(128) I bleach, the moment, ‘cause the guy put the cap then he pulled the hair one mah. 

(129) But there’s one shop in Prangin Mall that sells like high-end second-hand phones, for very cheap ni. 

(130) Yes if er yes is very interesting but I think I can do it alone I need some friends we are some group so we have some group we can go to the island and and er talk about how we can make an internet connection aja and we can talk to the government too at that island so we can talk, so how about we take the internet connection to this island. 

(131) Ei, how come… I heard you are not going holiday wah. 

(132) Cannot, or can. But they go in wor. I saw. But they cannot cash out only. 

The distribution of these discourse particles across the three varieties is shown in Table 6.41. Table 6.41 indicates a clear difference between the ESL varieties and the learner variety. ESL varieties use discourse particles frequently, while their use is limited in Indonesian learner English. Significant differences also exist between the two ESL varieties (Fisher’s Exact Test, p < 0.0001***), as Singapore English makes use of discourse particles approximately 2.5 times as often as Malaysian English. With regard to individual discourse particles, the ESL varieties have their two most frequent particles in common, lah and ah. Lah is also the most common discourse particle used in Indonesian learner English, whereas ah is not attested. The particles attested in only one variety are generally attested with a single token, with the exception of wah in Singapore English. In contrast to the overall trend observed, two discourse particles shared between the two ESL varieties, loh and mah, are used more frequently in Malaysian English than in Singapore English.

118 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.41  Overview of discourse particles Particle ah dah deh eh kan lah/la loh/lo mah/meh ni saja/aja/aje wah wor Total

SgE

MalE

IndonE

796 – – – – 865 46 8 – 8 31 – 1,753

143 5 – 5 – 323 81 128 5 5 – 5 699

– – 2 – 2 40 – – – 4 – – 48

6.4.2 Code-mixing and code-switching Code-mixing using words from local languages and code-switching to a local language are encountered in the three varieties. The cases observed range from single words to entire sentences, as highlighted in Examples (133) to (140). (133) Your kepala [=head] down, your kaki [=foot/leg] up…  (134) Crap, she terjatuh [=fall down], no foul play la.

(135) Hahaha, you’re damn lucu [=cute/funny]. (136) What am I going to do today. After this, I’m going to go home, balik rumah, tidur sekejap lepas tu [=go back home, sleep for a short time], 8 o’clock, 9 o’clock. (137) Uh huh, my- what is it called, mh I forget, I miss the word, my er skripsi [=thesis], ya skripsi is like a thesis for Bachelor degree is about the poem.  (138) I want to see the white- istana [=palace], er gedung putih apa ya? [=what’s ‘white building’?] Gedung putih. White House. 

(139) You come here, and you are foreigner, the real foreigner, rather than Pak [=father/Mr.] V.[name abbreviated], because Pak V. is er just speak Indonesian lah, fluently, and er I come to you just to show the student just practice your English with the native, that’s why.



Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 119

(140) A: That’s why ah. I dare not take you as my supervisor ah, too intelligent already. Wait after that you start arguing with me about systemic functional grammar. B: Bu gan dang [=you flatter me/I don’t deserve your praise].

Examples (133) to (135) present cases of single Malay words being used in an English sentence. In Example (133), the two nouns kepala and kaki are used. As kaki can refer to both a single foot/leg or a person’s pair of feet/legs without any marking for number, the Malay words are best translated as Your head down, your feet/legs up. In Example (134), the Malay verb terjatuh is used. As Malay verbs are not marked for tense, the clause is best translated as she fell down. Example (135) contains the Malay adjective lucu. Example (136) differs from the three previous examples in that it does not simply use single Malay words, but two phrases in Malay: balik rumah and tidur sekejap lepas tu. Examples (137) and (138) present a different case of code-mixing/code-switching in which the speakers struggle to find a certain English word or expression and fall back on their L1. In Example (137), the speaker tries to find the English equivalent to the word skripsi, which in Indonesia refers specifically to a BA thesis (MA and PhD dissertations are referred to as tesis and disertasi respectively). While struggling to find the desired word, she reflects on the difficulty encountered: what is it called, mh I forget, I miss the word. In Example (138), the speaker falls back on Malay not just to cite the word whose English translation eludes him, but also to reflect on the difficulty experienced. Example (139) features the use of the title Pak, short form of Bapak, literally meaning father in Malay, which is comparable to the English title Mr. In Example (140), the speaker uses the Chinese fixed expression bu gan dang (traditional Chinese:12 不敢當), which expresses humility and can be translated as you flatter me or I don’t deserve your praise. The prevalence of code-mixing/code-switching differs between the three varieties. Malaysian English displays a rounded normalised frequency of 917 occurrences per 100,000 words, while this figure falls to 352 occurrences per 100,000 words in Singapore English and 277 occurrences per 100,000 words in Indonesian learner English. The varieties also differ on how often they use code-switching as a fallback strategy. In many cases, this involves the use of the word apa, as shown 12. In this context, traditional Chinese stands in opposition to simplified Chinese and refers to the Chinese character set that excludes the new characters introduced in the People’s Republic of China in the 1950s.

120 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

in Example (138). Apa is a Malay interrogative pronoun comparable to English what. Using this word as a measure, it appears that approximately 32% of all cases of code-mixing/code-switching in the Indonesian learner data are cases of fallback, while this figure shrinks to 13% in Singapore English and 4% in Malaysian English. With the highest frequency of code-mixing/code-switching as well as the lowest rate of fallback to Malay, Malaysian English appears to be the variety most prone to use code-mixing/code-switching out of choice rather than out of necessity. While choice also outweighs necessity in the learner variety, by a ratio of approximately 2 : 1, the rate comes nowhere close to those found in the ESL varieties. 6.5

Overall summary

The present chapter has so far described the features observed in the data by grouping them into four sub-categories: phonological features, morphological features, syntactic features and discourse features. The present section provides an overall comparison of the features described in the three varieties, along with the major trends observed. 6.5.1 Frequencies of features An overall comparison of the features encountered in each of the categories just mentioned makes it possible to find out whether any of the categories display more discrepancies or similarities between varieties than others. Such a comparison is given in Figure 6.15, which contrasts normalised frequencies of nonstandard features in the three varieties grouped by category. The frequencies of non-standard features given include deleted forms, non-standard forms and unexpected usage. The following observations can be made from the comparative overview shown in Figure 6.15. First of all, Indonesian learner English exhibits the highest number of non-standard features in the categories morphology and syntax, while the opposite appears to be true for the categories phonology and discourse. The learner variety displays the lowest frequency of phonological features but this value is relatively close to that observed for Singapore English. In contrast, the frequency of discourse features in the learner variety represents only a small fraction of those observed for the ESL varieties. Malaysian English generally lies between the frequencies observed for Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, with the notable exception of the category phonology, for which it has by far the highest frequency of all varieties. Singapore English displays the lowest frequencies for the categories morphology and syntax as well as the highest frequency for the category

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 121



12000

SgE MalE IndonE

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

phonology

morphology

syntax

discourse

Figure 6.15  Overall comparison of non-standard features by category

discourse. In the category phonology, its frequency exceeds that of the learner variety but is considerably lower than that observed for Malaysian English. The ESL varieties display a certain degree of uniformity in the categories syntax and discourse when compared to the frequencies observed for the learner variety. This observation cannot be made for the category morphology, as the frequency observed for Malaysian English lies almost right between those observed for Singapore English and Indonesian learner English. The category phonology is an entirely different situation, as Singapore English and Indonesian learner English are relatively uniform, particularly when contrasted to the much higher frequency observed for Malaysian English. The fact that the ESL varieties exhibit vast differences in the frequencies of phonological features while displaying a relative uniformity in the frequencies of syntactic features is in accordance with the “common knowledge in variation studies that ‘accent divides, and syntax unites’” (Mair 2007: 97). While this holds true for ESL varieties, the comparison of the ESL varieties and the learner variety appears to result in a reversal of this “long-established truism” (Mair 2007: 84). The ESL varieties on the one hand, and the learner variety on the other hand, are divided with regard to syntax, while on the level of phonology Singapore English and Indonesian learner English are united. Of course, the notable difference of frequencies for

122 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

phonological features between Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English prevents the summarisation of the ESL/EFL distinction with the maxim “accent unites, syntax divides”. Nevertheless, the truism “accent divides, and syntax unites” that holds true for variation studies of ENL and ESL varieties cannot be applied to a comparison of ESL and EFL varieties that share a substrate language. Its reversal “accent unites, and syntax divides” can be applied to a comparison of Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, while only “syntax divides” is valid for a comparison of Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English. The fact that phonological features are far more frequent in Malaysian English than in the other varieties suggests that this variety has the most marked accent. One factor that may play a role in the differences observed, but that has not been included so far, concerns the varying degrees of formality existing across the various data sets. All the data consist exclusively of spoken language, but the available Malaysian data are made up entirely of informal speech, while the Singaporean data contain formal as well as informal speech, and the Indonesian learner data consist only of formal speech. In the current context, ‘formal’ does not refer to the level of formality one might expect from say a university lecture, yet the recording performed by a foreign interviewer in a university setting represents a higher degree of formality than recorded conversations between peers. As the Singaporean data combine material from two corpora, each covering one of these degrees of formality, it is possible to compare the normalised frequencies of informal and formal Singaporean English with the values featured in Figure 6.15. The comparison of informal Singaporean English and Malaysian English should make it possible to verify, among other things, whether the higher frequency of phonological features in the Malaysian data is indeed a sign of a more strongly marked accent in Malaysian English, or instead due to the exclusively informal nature of the Malaysian data in comparison to the data obtained for other varieties. Such an analysis is performed in the following chapter, more specifically in Section 7.2. 6.5.2 Major trends observed In addition to the previous consideration of the overall frequencies of non-standard features grouped by categories, a feature-by-feature examination can yield a more fine-grained picture of the differences and similarities observed among the three varieties. By combining the summaries of phonological, morphological and syntactic features, i.e. Table 6.18 (Section 6.1.11), Table 6.25 (Section 6.2.9), and Table 6.40 (Section 6.3.9), it becomes evident that out of a total of 34 features, 21 features occur in all varieties, four features are attested in two of the three varieties and nine features are attested in only one variety. The variety with the highest number of unique features is Indonesian learner English, for which 6 features are not attested

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 123



in the ESL varieties, while three features are unique to Malaysian English. Out of the four features shared by only two varieties, two are shared between Malaysian and Indonesian learner English, one between the two ESL varieties and one between Singapore and Indonesian learner English. An overview of the number of features for each variety is given in Table 6.42, whereby the percentage values are in relation to the total number of features per category and rounded to the nearest integer. Table 6.42  Overview of the number of features attested for each variety, grouped by category Category

SgE

SgE %

MalE

MalE %

IndonE

IndonE %

Phonology Morphology Syntax Total

10  6  7 23

67% 67% 70% 68%

12  7  8 27

80% 78% 80% 79%

14  9  7 30

 93% 100%  70%  88%

The overview presented in Table 6.42 indicates that the learner variety has overall the greatest number of features. This is also the case for the categories phonology and morphology, but in the domain of syntax, Malaysian English displays the highest number of features. Syntax is also the category in which three observed features are not attested in the learner variety, while one such feature exists in the category phonology and none in the category morphology. The features that are not attested for all varieties are shown in Table 6.43. Table 6.43  List of features not attested in all varieties Category

Feature

Attested in

Phonology

/ʃ/ → [s] /f/ → [v] /f/ → [p] Spelling pronunciation /ʌ/ → [œ] Non-standard case Absent progressive Absent perfect Invariant question tags Absent passive kena-passive Absent inversion

IndonE IndonE IndonE MalE, IndonE MalE MalE, IndonE IndonE IndonE MalE, SgE IndonE MalE MalE

Morphology

Syntax

The list given in Table 6.43 shows that most features unique to the learner variety appear in the category phonology, while most features unique to Malaysian English belong to syntax. It is worth noting that the features unique to Indonesian learner

124 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

English are either cases of non-standard phoneme realisations for phonological features, or absent marking for morphosyntactic features. There appear to be no observed features unique to Singapore English. The only feature not attested in all varieties, but found in Singapore English, concerns invariant question tags, a feature shared between the two ESL varieties. Although a majority (~62%) of features occur in all varieties, these features display differences with regard to their frequencies as well as their range of realisations. For example, the monophthongisation of /eɪ/ indicates significant differences between the three varieties with regard to normalised frequencies (cf. Table 6.5 in Section 6.1.3), but unity among the ESL varieties in contrast to the learner variety when it comes to the possible sounds as to which the diphthong /eɪ/ can be realised (cf. Table 6.6 in Section 6.1.3). While the ESL varieties generally realise /eɪ/ as [e] (with exceptional [i] in Singapore English), the learner variety displays five different sounds to which /eɪ/ can be monophthongised. Differences in range not only affect the possible realisations of a given phoneme, but also the range of elements affected by a given feature. As an example for the category of morphology, the feature ‘unexpected word class and word forms’ (cf. Table 6.24 in Section 6.2.4) affects a range of four elements in Singapore English, seven in Malaysian English and eighteen in Indonesian learner English (not counting the category ‘other’, which contains more elements). A similar observation can be made for the syntactic feature concerning redundant items (cf. Table 6.36 in Section 6.3.3), which affects two elements in Singapore English, five elements in Malaysian English and ten in Indonesian learner English. Comparing all the features that result in different realisations or affect different elements makes it possible to verify whether the tendency of the learner variety to display a greater number of realisations/affected elements is systematic. Such a comparison is given in Table 6.44, with average values rounded to one decimal. The list of ranges of realisations/affected elements given in Table 6.44 indicates a trend that is valid for phonological, morphological as well as syntactic features. Generally speaking, Indonesian learner English displays the widest range, while the opposite applies to Singapore English. In certain cases, the ranges are equal in several varieties, or the range observed in Singapore English is greater than the one in Malaysian English, but the average values point to a clear SgE < MalE < IndonE ranking, which applies to the overall comparison as well as to the individual categories. As such, the range average of Malaysian English lies between those of the other varieties, but the differences between the ESL varieties are smaller than those between Malaysian and Indonesian learner English for all categories. Possible explanations for these ordered differences, as well as their implications, are discussed in Chapter 8, specifically in Section 8.1.

Chapter 6.  A comparative feature inventory 125



Table 6.44  Comparison of the range of realizations/affected elements for applicable features Category

Feature

SgE

MalE

IndonE

Phonology

Plosive reduction Monophthongisation Realisation of /θ/ Realisation of /ð/ Devoicing Stress Sandhi Realisation of /r/

10 5 1 1 5 4 1 1

12 3 3 2 7 3 1 2

13 11 11 8 10 11 2 2

Morphology

Past Third person {-s} Word class Progressive

2 2 4 1

2 2 7 1

2 3 18 2

Syntax

Deletion Word choice Redundant items Word order Inversion

6 2 2 1 1

10 6 5 2 1

12 8 10 5 1

Mean phonology

3.5

4.1

8.5

Mean morphology

2.3

3

6.3

Mean syntax

2.4

4.8

7.2

Total mean

2.9

4.1

7.6

It should also be noted that a wider range of realisations/affected elements does not correlate with higher frequencies. A case in point is the feature concerning non-standard stress patterns (cf. Table 6.14 in Section 6.1.6), for which Indonesian displays a range of eleven non-standard stress patterns against four patterns in Singapore English and three patterns in Malaysian English, while the normalised frequency of that feature in the learner variety is half of that in Malaysian English and approximately a quarter of that in Singapore English. A further point to consider is the question of whether the significant differences observed suggest a relative level of unity among the ESL varieties when contrasted with the learner variety. Table 6.45 counts the number of significant differences observed between varieties. The category ‘other’ comprises cases in which one ESL variety displays significant differences compared to the other two varieties, i.e. SgE versus others, and MalE versus others.

126 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 6.45  Count of significant differences observed between varieties with regard to frequencies and ranges of realisations/elements affected Category Phonology Morphology Syntax Total

Significant differences observed between all varieties

ESL vs. IndonE

other

3 3 2 8

 6  2  2 10

 4  4  3 11

Two main observations can be made from the count given in Table 6.45, the first being that differences that distinguish ESL varieties from the learner variety are attested more often than differences observed among all the varieties. The second observation is that the number of features that display unity among the ESL varieties are almost as numerous as the differences that pit one ESL variety against the remaining varieties. As a consequence, observed significant differences do not suggest any special level of unity, be it among the ESL varieties or between Indonesian learner English and one of the ESL varieties. Unity among the ESL varieties has been attested otherwise, i.e. with regard to ranges of realisations/affected elements as well as overall frequencies of features; this applies to syntax in particular.

chapter 7

Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency

The feature description offered in Chapter 6 raises a number of questions which are addressed in the present chapter. The first of them deals with the origin of features, with the question of whether a given feature can be attributed to substrate transfer or to other SLA strategies. For each feature, a possible substrate explanation is considered; the total amount of potential substrate features in each variety is then calculated. However, as many features can also be explained by alternative SLA processes, it is more effective to identify features for which a substrate explanation can be excluded, and consequently compare the rates of non-substrate and potential substrate features across varieties. The second question is that raised in Section 6.5.1, i.e. the differences in formality across the data and the influence these may have had. To recapitulate, the data obtained from the partially completed ICE-Malaysia corpus consist of informal conversations between peers, while data from Indonesian learners of English were recorded as scheduled conversations with a foreign interviewer. While neither conversation type can be said to be strictly formal, the context in which the Indonesian data were recorded resulted in a higher degree of formality than the peer-group conversations of the Malaysian data. The Singaporean data from the GSSEC were recorded in settings similar to those of the Malaysian data, while the NIECSSE bears a resemblance to the data collection for Indonesian learner English. This makes it possible to investigate two subsets of Singaporean English, one informal, the other (comparatively) formal, and to compare these to the levels of formality in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English. The main points of interest in this comparison are: (1) whether informal Singaporean English displays greater similarities to the observations hitherto made for Malaysian English, and (2) whether the more formal subset of the Singaporean data exhibits greater similarities to the learner variety. A further point in need of analysis is the influence of speakers’ L1. More specifically, the point of interest is whether Malay L1 and Chinese L1 speakers of English display significant differences in their speech. Thus, the existence of a unifying effect (Schneider 2007: 146), i.e. a significant reduction of differences based on speakers’

128 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

L1, can be tested for the ESL varieties. Furthermore, the unifying effect as a product of nativisation can be tested by verifying whether it applies only to the ESL varieties or also extends to the learner variety. It should be noted that this analysis specifically investigates L1 as a factor rather than ethnicity. This distinction is necessary since ethnic Chinese Indonesians do not always have Chinese as their L1 (if they speak Chinese at all). A case in point is the speaker PW, who is ethnically Chinese but whose L1 is Indonesian Malay rather than Chinese. The last topic to be investigated is the significance of learner proficiency. Does the speech of more proficient Indonesian learners resemble the ESL varieties? In addition to their L1, the Indonesian respondents were also asked about the number of years they had been learning English, which is a better measure of proficiency than a speaker’s age. However, this criterion alone does not guarantee an accurate estimate of proficiency, as it does not give any details on the learning conditions, the exposure to the target language, time spent in an English-speaking country, etc. Nevertheless, the analysis of this factor may yield insights into whether the English language production of Indonesian learners comes closer to the ESL varieties with increasing periods of language learning, which can serve as an approximation of proficiency. Gender as a factor is not investigated due to the fact that all respondents in the available Malaysian data are female. 7.1

Origin of features

The features described in Chapter 6 will now be examined in terms of possible substrate explanations. Alternative SLA explanations will also be given whenever applicable. 7.1.1 Origin of phonological features Consonant cluster reduction. Consonant cluster reduction, and more specifically final cluster reduction, was described in Section 6.5.1. A substrate explanation for this feature is available, as Malay does not allow final consonant clusters, which is illustrated by the following list of Malay words: presiden (‘president’), apartemen (‘apartment’), departemen (‘department’) tes (‘test’), protes (‘protest’) proyek (‘project’), abstrak (‘abstract’) bank /baŋ/ (‘bank’) bangkrut (‘bankrupt’) paspor {Indonesian}/pasport {Malaysian} (‘passport’)



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 129

These Malay words, all loans of European origin with a final consonant cluster in their original form, indicate that final consonant cluster reduction is common in Malay and is even reflected in the spelling. The Malay word for passport, spelled pasport in Malaysian and paspor in Indonesian, presents a special case. The different spellings used in the two varieties of Malay indicate that Malaysians and Indonesians have varying perceptions of clusters with as the penultimate item. Indonesian speakers view the sequence as a consonant cluster and reduce it to , whereas Malaysians, “perhaps very much influenced by British pronunciation, wrote and pronounced those words with the , without the ; hence ” (Asmah 1989: 12). The aspect of British pronunciation that Asmah refers to is undoubtedly its non-rhotic character, meaning that is not realised as /rt/, and therefore no consonant cluster reduction takes place. Asmah further writes: “In their quest for uniformity, the Malaysians and the Indonesians decided to neutralise their differences by putting back both and in those words. Hence, in the new spelling the words are spelt as , , ” (Asmah 1989: 12). It should be noted that since Asmah’s account, Indonesian has reverted to spelling these words as pronounced in Indonesian, i.e. with final only, as in , , , while Malaysian spelling has retained the spelling. In spite of this clear substrate explanation, one has to take into account the fact that final consonant cluster reduction is “ubiquitous in English and found in all regional, social and idiolectal varieties” and constitutes a “universal feature of spoken English” (Schreier 2005: 199). Given that the feature also occurs in ENL varieties such as British and North American Englishes, substrate influence does not suffice to explain the origin of the feature. Rather, consonant cluster reduction can be better explained as a case of articulatory simplification. Contact with substrate languages that do not permit consonant clusters therefore does not explain the origin of the feature, but nevertheless appears to play a role, as varieties for which such a contact can be attested display a higher rate of cluster reduction (cf. Schreier 2005: 200). Isolated final plosives. The non-standard realisation of isolated plosives is described in Section 6.1.2, and generally results in a glottal stop or the unreleased realisation of the plosive. In some rare cases, the final plosive is deleted. The substrate explanation for this feature is relatively straightforward, as plosives in Malay are either unreleased or realised as glottal stops in the final position. A few examples are given below: final /p/: asap [asap̚]/[asaʔ] (‘smoke’) mirip [mirip̚]/[miriʔ] (‘similar’) tutup [tutup̚]/[tutuʔ] (‘lid’, ‘closed’)

130 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

final /t/: empat [(ə)mpat̚]/[(ə)mpaʔ] (‘four’) riset [risɛt̚]/[risɛʔ] (‘research’) bangkit [baŋkit̚]/[baŋkiʔ] (‘to stand up’)



final /k/:



final /b/:



final /d/:

anak [anak̚]/[anaʔ] (‘child’) kretek [krɛtɛk̚]/[krɛtɛʔ] (‘clove cigarette’) cantik [tʃantik̚]/[tʃantiʔ] (‘pretty’) sebab [səbab̚]/[səbaʔ] (‘reason’, ‘because’) nasib [nasib̚]/[nasiʔ] (‘destiny’) abad [abad ̚]/[abaʔ] (‘era’, ‘century’) maksud [maksud ̚]/[maksuʔ] (‘intention’)

For certain words, the final plosive can be deleted altogether. This is particularly the case for the negation particle tidak, which can be realised as [tidak̚], [tidaʔ] or [tida]. Its informal variant enggak features the same three final realisations and is often pronounced [ga] and spelled accordingly as ga. Other words for which deletion of the final plosive is possible include cewek and cowok, meaning ‘girl/young woman’ and ‘boy/young man’ respectively, which are sometimes spelled cewe and cowo in informal usage. However, these cases are exceptional. The final plosive is generally realised in word-final position, either unreleased or as a glottal stop. This is particularly the case for words in which presence versus absence of the final plosive results in a minimal pair, e.g. kotak (‘box’) vs. kota (‘city’), gulat (‘wrestling’) vs. gula (‘sugar’). Monophthongisation. The monophthongisation of diphthongs is described in Section 6.1.3. The diphthongs affected in all varieties are /əʊ/ and /eɪ/, as well as /aɪ/ and /aʊ/ in the learner variety. A viable substrate explanation for this feature would require the absence of these diphthongs in the Malay phoneme inventory. Such an explanation is only possible for the two diphthongs affected in all varieties, /əʊ/ and /eɪ/. Malay has three diphthongs in its phoneme inventory: /aɪ/ as in baik (‘good’), main (‘to play’), damai (‘peaceful’), sampai (‘until’); /aʊ/ as in haus (‘thirsty’), laut (‘sea’), atau (‘or’), hijau (‘green’); /oɪ/ as in koin (‘coin’), boikot (‘boycott’), bolpoin (‘ballpoint pen’).

A substrate explanation can consequently be postulated for the monophthongisation of the diphthongs /əʊ/ and /eɪ/. As these diphthongs are not part of Malay’s phoneme inventory, speakers replace them with monophthongs, generally speaking with the phonemes /o/ and /e/. It should however be noted that these two diphthongs are realised similarly in various other Englishes, for example in many



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 131

Caribbean varieties (cf. Schneider 2008a: 389–390) as well as in other Southeast Asian varieties such as Philippine English and many West and East African varieties (cf. Mesthrie 2008a: 311–312). Given the pervasiveness of the feature across many varieties with substrate languages bearing various phonological profiles, the presented substrate explanation, no matter how plausible, has to be questioned. The inability to pinpoint the exact origin of a feature when both the substrate and SLA explanations are equally plausible, as is recurrent in the present section both for phonological and grammatical features, is admittedly unsatisfactory, but preferable to declaring one explanation as superior to the other without empirical justification. The prospect of solving this problem in a thorough and empirical manner in future research is discussed in Chapter 9. While /eɪ/ is monophthongised in all three varieties under investigation (and many others as pointed out above), the ESL varieties and the learner variety differ in their major realisation of the diphthong, with the former group opting for [e] and the learner variety mostly opting for [ɛ]. The Malay phoneme /e/ has three allophones, [ɛ], [ə] and [e]. The allophone [ə] usually occurs in prefixes, such as pe- in pemusik [pəmusiʔ] (‘musician’), while [e] usually occurs word-finally, e.g. in sore [sore] (‘late afternoon’). An example of [ɛ] is the word anggrek [aŋgrɛʔ] (‘orchid’). It appears that all varieties monophthongise /eɪ/ to the same Malay phoneme /e/, but the ESL varieties select a different allophone than the learner variety. The two diphthongs monophthongised only in Indonesian learner English, i.e. /aɪ/ and /aʊ/, also exist as diphthongs in Malay. However, these diphthongs are often monophthongised in informal Indonesian usage. Final /aɪ/ can be monophthongised to [e], so that e.g. pakai [pakaɪ] (‘to use’, ‘with’) is pronounced [pake], or ramai [ramaɪ] (‘bustling’, ‘loud’) is pronounced [rame]. Final /aʊ/ can be realised as /o/ (with the allophones [o], [ɔ] and [ɒ]), so that e.g. hijau [hidʒaʊ] (‘green’) is pronounced [hidʒɔ]. Out of the three tokens of monophthongised /aʊ/, two are realised as [ɔ] while the remaining token is realised as [ɒ]. However, none of the seven tokens of monophthongised /aɪ/ are realised as [e]. Consequently, the monophthongisation of /aɪ/ cannot be attributed to substrate influence. Alternative explanations other than substrate influence are necessary to make sense of the monophthongisation of /aɪ/ encountered in the Indonesian learner data, as this feature cannot be explained by substrate influence. One possible explanation for this type of monophthongisation lies in the speakers’ perception that the monophthongisation of the diphthong at hand does not lead to ambiguity, e.g. the word quite pronounced as [kwaʔ] in the clause it’s quite OK for me right now . As such, the process of monophthongisation can be regarded as the speaker’s attempt to streamline the phoneme inventory. This explanation can also be applied to the monophthongisation of the other diphthongs for which a substrate explanation is available.

132 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition .

Fricatives. Non-standard realisation of fricatives is described in Section 6.1.4 and mainly deals with the phonemes /θ/, /ð/, /ʃ/ and /f/, which are generally realised as [t], [d], [s] and [p]/[v] respectively. The voiced fricative /v/ is discussed separately in the discussion of the devoicing feature. The non-standard realisations of /θ/ and /ð/ are found in all varieties, while those of /ʃ/ and /f/ are characteristic of the learner variety. The straightforward substrate explanation for the realisation of /θ/ and /ð/ as [t] and [d] respectively is that the phonemes /θ/ and /ð/ are not part of the Malay phoneme inventory. As a consequence, they are each replaced by the closest available existing phoneme, namely the corresponding alveolar stops /t/ and /d/. It should be noted that the realisation of /θ/ and /ð/ as [t] and [d] respectively is very frequent in Englishes around the world, for example in Caribbean varieties (cf. Schneider 2008a: 394) or in African varieties and other Southeast Asian varieties (cf. Mesthrie 2008a: 315). As such, substrate influence does not represent the only viable explanation, as the feature may be generally part of varieties of English regardless of the substrate language’s phoneme inventory. This uncertainty should be addressed by performing dedicated studies that contrast the presence/absence of the feature in question in a wide number of varieties with the presence/absence of the standard phoneme in the phoneme inventory of the relevant substrate languages (cf. discussion in Chapter 9). The phoneme /ʃ/ is not part of the Malay phoneme inventory either, but the sound [ʃ] exists as an allophone of the phoneme /s/. It can be represented by the two graphemes and . Substituting the sound [ʃ] with [s] will not result in any change of meaning and is mostly done in loanwords of Arabic origin, as shown in the examples below: shalat, salat (‘Islamic prayer’) insyaf, insaf (‘to realise’)

The pronunciation of these words with [ʃ] represents the variant closer to the original loanword, while using [s] represents an indigenised pronunciation. Just like [ʃ], the sound [f] originates from loanwords, where it is sometimes maintained, sometimes replaced by /p/, and for certain words used in free allophonic distribution with [p]. Examples of each of theses cases are given below: film (‘film’) kopi (‘coffee’) fikir, pikir (‘to think’)

The first two examples are loanwords originating from European languages (English in the Singaporean/Malaysian context, Dutch in the Indonesian context), for which the sound [f] has either been retained or replaced by /p/. The third example is a



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 133

loanword from Arabic, where pronunciations with either [f] or [p] are possible. Similar to cases of [ʃ]/[s] allophonic variation, the pronunciation with [f] is more faithful to the original loan, while using [p] represents the indigenised pronunciation. The sound [f] exists only in loanwords and functions as an allophone of the phoneme /p/ in the Malay phoneme inventory.13 The substrate explanations for the non-realisations of the fricatives just mentioned can be summarised as allophonic variations in the Malay L1 which are applied to the speakers’ English language production. This is done although the sounds in question are phonemes rather than allophones in standard English and as such form minimal pairs, e.g. three – tree, they – day, she – see and fear – pier. The fact that these distinctions are not systematically maintained suggests that they are not regarded as essential by the speaker community. This applies more to the /θ/ and /ð/ phonemes than it does to /ʃ/ and /f/, as the former are found in all varieties, and the latter constitute learner features. For example, the definite article the remains identifiable as such when pronounced [də], and for the cardinal number three there is little risk of its being mistaken for the noun tree in most contexts. In contrast, it is easy to find examples of /ʃ/ – /s/ and /f/ – /p/ contrasts that would result in ambiguity when their distinctions are blurred, a fortiori when the words belong to the same word class, such as shave – save, shock – sock, feel – peel and fan – pan, just to name a few. Whether the drop of lacking /ʃ/ – /s/ and /f/ – /p/ distinction is purely the result of nativisation or a product of increased learner proficiency is a worthwhile question, which is answered in Section 7.4, where a possible correlation between years spent learning English and the maintenance of these phonemic distinctions will be discussed. Devoicing. Devoicing, in particular word-final devoicing, is described in Section 6.1.5. While the ESL varieties have only word-final devoicing, the learner variety also displays word-internal devoicing. Malay generally avoids word-final voiced consonants, with the exception of nasal sounds, as in makan (‘to eat’). For this reason, Arabic loans originally ending in a voiced consonant e.g. Hajj [hadʒ] (‘pilgrimage to Mecca’), receive an appended vowel to avoid the final voiced consonant, yielding the form Haji [hadʒi] in Malay. As previously discussed, final voiced plosives are often realised as glottal stops or as unreleased stops, e.g. abjad [abdʒad ̚] (‘alphabet’), alkitab [alkitab̚] (‘bible’), so voicing can occur in such cases. However, the voicing of unreleased stops is not consistent, as evidenced by loanwords such as kebab and ad-lib often being spelt and . Substrate influence is 13. However, Lapoliwa (1982) and Lowenberg (1991: 137) describe an emerging phonemic distinction between /f/ and /p/ in Indonesian due to English borrowings such as fakta (‘fact’) and pakta (‘pact’).

134 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

therefore a tenable explanation, although a general principle of language economy may also be at play, as final voiced consonants take more effort to pronounce than unvoiced ones. Although the voiced consonants and their unvoiced counterparts are separate phonemes, final devoicing does not result in ambiguity in most cases. Examples (141) to (144) show some cases of final devoicing that highlight this point. (141) Because [bɪkʌs] I love mathematics. 

(142) B: What you mean media image [ɪmɪtʃ]? A: Caucasians have a very good media image [ɪmɪtʃ]. (143) You, you, you have [hæf] a lot of friends there.

(144) But, um, I might stop working for a while if need to, if I need to lah, especially for looking after kids [kɪts].

Examples (141) to (143) highlight unambiguous cases, as the words in question do not yield minimal pairs with regard to final voicing. Example (144), on the other hand, features a word for which final devoicing results in a minimal pair. When affected by final devoicing, the word kid, whether in singular or plural form, is pronounced as the word kit. In the example at hand, the ambiguity is resolved by context, since kits, as inanimate objects, do not need looking after, while kids certainly do. Word-internal devoicing, which is only attested in the learner variety, is mostly synonymous with /v/ devoiced to [f]. The data also present cases of /f/ being voiced to [v]. In Malay, the phoneme /v/ occurs in loanwords and has the allophones [v] and [f]. Some example words are shown below: televisi [televisi]/[telefisi] (‘television’)14 novel [novɛl]/[nofɛl] (‘novel’)

The blurring of the /v/ – /f/ distinction is similar to that previously discussed for /ʃ/ – /s/. The distinction is phonemic in standard English, e.g. view – few. Stress. The feature of non-standard stress patterns is described in Section 6.1.6 and occurs more often in the ESL varieties than in the learner variety. These deviating stress patterns may be due to the fact that English and Malay have typological differences with regard to rhythm. While English is a typical example of a stressed-timed language, Malay is syllable-timed, which means that it gives all syllables roughly the same amount of stress and as a consequence does not make a distinction between stressed and unstressed syllables as English does. The new stress patterns 14. This is the Indonesian word for ‘television’. The Malaysian word is televisyen. As word-internal /v/ → [f] is only attested in Indonesian learner English, the Indonesian variant of the word is used as an example rather than the Malaysian one.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 135

themselves can therefore not be derived from Malay. However, substrate influence may be at the root of the deviations observed since the speakers’ perception of stress differences, as well as the perception of their importance, can be impeded by the aforementioned typological feature of their L1. In addition, the stress patterns described in Section 6.1.6 differ from those in standard varieties, not only in terms of stress position, but also regarding stress saliency, as the difference between stressed and unstressed syllables is much less pronounced than in standard varieties. Spelling pronunciation. Section 6.1.7 describes a number of cases of spelling pronunciation, a feature found mostly in Indonesian learner English. The cases observed are most likely due to the learners’ lack of familiarity with the intricacies of English spelling. A substrate explanation can be excluded, as instances of Malay pronunciation of graphemes, e.g. as [tʃ], are not encountered. Malay may play a role only in that it has a simple spelling system, probably one of the most straightforward phonetic spelling systems. Cases of spelling pronunciation are expected to be linked to short periods of English language learning. Vowel length. Non-standard vowel length, described in Section 6.1.8, concerns a small number of instances of vowel shortening. As Malay does not feature long vowels, a substrate explanation is possible. As already noted for previous features, the present feature is not unique to the varieties under investigation, given that vowel length is described as not distinctive in many African and Southeast Asian varieties (cf. Mesthrie 2008a: 310). As such, a substrate explanation is plausible, but not convincing as the sole explanation. Resolving this ambiguity requires a comparative study involving multiple varieties, as discussed in Chapter 9. Sandhi. The non-standard use of the sandhi distribution of the indefinite article a is described in Section 6.1.9. The ESL varieties occasionally display the use of a in contexts where the form an is expected in standard usage, while the learner variety additionally uses an where the base form a is expected. The use of a when an is expected can be traced back to substrate influence, which however does not suffice to fully explain the feature. Malay does not have an indefinite article such as a, but the same function can be fulfilled by a combination of the cardinal number one and a classifier. The word for one, satu, is shortened to the prefix se- and appended to the appropriate classifier. Only three classifiers are in frequent use, namely orang, used with humans, ekor, used with animals, and buah, used with inanimate things (Sneddon 2007: 135). The English noun phrase a teacher would therefore be rendered as seorang guru. Se- + classifier does not change according to its phonological environment, but rather to the semantic content of the noun it modifies. The substrate influence only reaches explanatory power when combined with the shortest path principle (Wald 1996: 516–517), whereby learners select only

136 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

one variant when faced with rules allowing for variation, typically the one closer to the L1 feature (Biewer 2011: 14). As the L1 allows variation only with regard to semantic content but not phonological environment, only the base form a is applied. The use of an rather than the base form a by Indonesian learners can be explained as a case of hypercorrection. Realisation of /r/. Cases of non-standard realisation of /r/ are described in Section 6.1.10 under the category ‘other cases’. Generally, this means realisation as [r] rather than [ɹ] or [ɻ] as in standard varieties of English. The realisation [r] corresponds to the Malay phoneme /r/, so that a substrate influence appears to be the most obvious explanation. The data also contain two instances of realisation as [l]. No substrate influence applies for this non-standard realisation, as the two speakers producing it had Malay as their L1. Due to the scarcity of this realisation, i.e. a single token for Malaysian English as well as a single token for Indonesian learner English, it may be regarded as cases of performance slip. Realisation of /ʌ/. A further feature described under the category ‘other cases’ in Section 6.1.10 is the realisation of the phoneme /ʌ/ as [œ] in the word us in Malaysian English. As this feature is restricted to a single word in a single variety, it is not encountered very often. However, as it affects almost 60%, i.e. fifteen of 26 instances of the word us in the Malaysian data, a certain regularity can be ascribed to the feature. Neither /ʌ/ nor /œ/ exist as phonemes in Malay. The only conceivable substrate explanation for this feature lies in the fact that /a/ is sometimes rendered as [ə] in certain dialects of Malay, in particular the central and southern regions of the Malay peninsula as well as in parts of Sumatra and surrounding islands (cf. Asmah 1977: 2; Hassan 2008). Example words include tiga [tiga]/[tigə] (‘three’) and kenapa [k(ə)napa]/[k(ə)napə] (‘why’). Speakers could regard /ʌ/ as close enough to /a/ and apply this Malay allophonic variation to the English phoneme. The change from [ə] to [œ] may occur because [ə] can only exist in unstressed syllables, forcing the speakers to opt for a nearby vowel. This substrate explanation is somewhat convoluted and relies on many assumptions, not to mention that the realisation of /a/ as [ə] in certain Malay dialects is restricted to word-final position, which clearly does not apply to the word us. Consequently, a more straightforward non-substrate explanation must be sought. The speakers may alternate between [ʌ] and [œ], since the vowels are relatively similar and no phonemic distinction exists. However, this does not explain, firstly, why this occurs only in Malaysian English, and secondly, why it is only the word us that is affected and not other words containing the phoneme /ʌ/ such as up, cup or must.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 137

7.1.2 Origin of morphological features Plural marking. Non-standard plural marking is described in Section 6.2.1; it covers both the absence of a marker and the presence of one where none is expected in standard English. Cases of absent plural marking can easily be explained by substrate influence. Plurality in Malay is not expressed with inflectional morphemes, but with the following three possible strategies: reduplication, use of quantifiers, or context. The examples given below illustrate how the plural operates in Malay: (145) Malay: Teman saya. Gloss15: friend 1sg Translation: ‘My friend.’ (146) Malay: Teman~teman saya. Gloss: friend~friend 1sg Translation: ‘My friends.’ (147) Malay: Saya punya teman. Gloss: 1sg have friend Translation: ‘I have a friend.’ / ‘I have friends.’ [depending on context] (148) Malay: Saya punya se-orang teman. Gloss: 1sg have one-clf friend Translation: ‘I have a friend.’ / ‘I have only one friend.’ (149) Malay: Saya punya banyak teman. Gloss: 1sg have many friend Translation: ‘I have many friends.’ (150) *Saya punya banyak teman-teman.

Example (146) demonstrates how plurality is marked by reduplication, in contrast to (145) where no reduplication is used.16 In Example (147), the noun teman (friend) can be understood to be plural although it is not marked for plural by reduplication. To avoid ambiguity, it is customary to mark the noun for singular rather than for plural, typically with the use of the cardinal number ‘one’ combined with a classifier (already introduced in Section 7.1.1), as shown in Example (148) with seorang (NB: seorang does not use a hyphen in Malay spelling, but does so in

15. Glosses follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules, which are listed on the website of the Linguistics Department at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (http://www.eva.mpg. de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php). 16. Plural marking is not the only function of reduplication, as it can also be used as a word formation strategy, e.g. mata (‘eye’), mata-mata (‘spy’). Other functions exist as well. Only its plural marking use is discussed here as it is the only one of relevance to the topic at hand.

138 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

the example given for reasons of morpheme-by-morpheme correspondence as prescribed by the Leipzig Glossing Rules). In addition to reduplication, plurality can be marked with the use of a quantifier, e.g. banyak (many) as shown in Example (149). Using reduplication as well as a quantifier, as shown in Example (150), yields an ungrammatical sentence, because any plural marking beyond the quantifier is deemed redundant. The Malay plural marking system gives a good explanation for why inflectional plural marking is often omitted. It explains why the majority of the cases of inflectional plural omission are alternatively marked by analytical means, i.e. with the help of quantifiers (cf. Figure 6.5 in Section 6.2.1). Speakers adopt one of their L1 plural marking strategies to their English language production, namely by using quantifiers, the other strategy, reduplication, not being a viable option. Lack of inflectional plural marking also includes cases for which no quantifier is used. To conclude that all these cases are due to context is somewhat premature. While context certainly plays a role in some of these cases, a further difference with regard to plurality between English and Malay can also serve as an explanation. The two languages differ not only in the way they mark plurality, but also with regard to when plural marking is required. Two cases are summarised by Sneddon (2007) below: Reduplication does not occur if a whole class of things is referred to. Neither noun in the following sentence can be reduplicated:

Anjing suka tulang. Dogs like bones. […]

Reduplication is not normally used in reference to things which come in pairs, such as certain body parts. Where it is felt necessary to indicate plurality in such cases belah ‘half; one of something which comes in a pair’ is usually used […].  (Sneddon 2007: 17–18)

The remarks made by Sneddon are not limited to reduplication but apply to plural marking in general. This means that in addition to omitting plural marking where plurality can be inferred from the context, speakers may also omit plural marking when referring to whole classes of things or objects normally occurring in pairs due to substrate influence from Malay. Indeed, cases of lacking plural marking in which a whole class of things is referred to can be found in the data, as shown in Examples (151) to (153). (151) For beginner yes, when they study about er grammar, ya because when we tell- when I show them about er active and passive they will- they think we are studying about grammar again, I think I don’t know, maybe kind of offended.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 139

(152) Normally Malay speak more English than this lah, but he’s purposely doing this.  (153) To me, bumper car is not suitable for children.

The words beginner, Malay and bumper car in Examples (151) to (153) represent entire classes rather than single specimens, so that the absence of plural marking can be said to originate in Malay substrate influence. An example of absent plural marking for objects that come in pairs has already been given in sentence (3) in Section 6.2.1, in which the word chopstick occurs in its singular form although chopsticks normally come in pairs. Several alternative explanations can be put forward to explain the cases of lacking inflectional plural marking. The marking of plurality with only a quantifier can be attributed to the avoidance of redundancies strategy, which manifests itself in the choice of only one marker, typically the most salient one (Williams 1987: 169–170; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 174). Williams gives the feature at hand as an example of this strategy, i.e. quantifiers followed by unmarked nouns, where the quantifier is regarded as sufficient for marking the plural (Williams 1987: 176–177). Cases of absent inflectional plural marking with no alternative analytical marking can be explained by the markedness theory, which states that less marked features are less complex and more frequent in world languages, and as a consequence are easier to learn and therefore acquired first (Tschichold 2002: 129). Another possible explanation lies in the “general cognitive strategies of linearisation” (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 171), which independently of L1 or L2 structures give preference to unmarked categories. Cases of inflectional plural where none is expected are also in need of an explanation. A substrate explanation must be excluded since no inflectional plural marking exists in the substrate language Malay. Three different types must be dealt with here. Firstly, the treatment of mass nouns as count nouns and the subsequent use of plural marking on these nouns, e.g. informations (cf. Example (7) in Section 6.2.1). These cases can be explained by the speaker’s unfamiliarity with a given word’s status as a mass noun in standard usage. Alternatively, the shortest path principle (Wald 1996: 516–517) can be invoked. Faced with the variation of using plural marking on count nouns but not on mass nouns, speakers may opt for the variant of plural marking and apply it to all nouns. The second type regards the affixation of the regular -s plural marker to an already existing irregular marker, e.g. childrens (cf. Example (8) in Section 6.2.1). Such cases can be explained with the principle of maximum salience (Williams 1987: 188–189), which creates redundancies for maximum clarity of meaning (Biewer 2011: 15,18). The shortest path principle can again be used, as speakers faced with regular -s plural marking and other irregular plural marking allomorphs opt

140 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

to apply the regular marking in all cases. A third explanation may be that speakers do not realise that forms such as children are already marked as plural and consequently append the -s plural marker. The last type regards the use of plural marking on count nouns when they actually denote a singular item. Example (9) from Section 6.2.1 highlights such a case and is displayed again below.

(9) Betul. I have one, uh, cousin that have cats as a pets. The cats is female. 

This type of unexpected plural marking can best be explained as a case of hypercorrection. Speakers may be aware of their inclination to omit plural marking, and as a consequence use plural markings even where deemed inappropriate in standard usage. Past tense marking. Non-standard past tense marking, described in Section 6.2.2, covers two major types, namely lack of verbal past tense marking and past tense marking on an inserted auxiliary. Furthermore, the former type can be divided into subtypes of alternative past tense marking, i.e. analytic marking with the help of adverbials of time as well as contextual marking with the help of surrounding verbs that use standard past tense marking. Cases of verbs lacking inflectional past tense marking can be explained by substrate influence. Malay does not feature tense marking on the verb, as is illustrated by the following example sentences: (154) Malay: Saya makan nasi. Gloss: 1sg eat rice Translation: ‘I eat rice.’ (155) Malay: Saya sudah makan nasi. Gloss: 1sg already eat rice Translation: ‘I have eaten rice already.’ (156) Malay: Saya makan nasi tadi pagi. Gloss: 1sg eat rice earlier morning Translation: ‘I ate rice this morning.’

In the Examples (154) to (156) given above, the verb remains unchanged regardless of whether the sentence expresses a present or past action. Malay is a typical analytical language in that it marks tense and aspect via lexical items such as adverbs, adverbials of time or particles. Example (155) is identical to Example (154) save for the presence of the adverb sudah, which means ‘already’. According to Sneddon (2007: 197), “Sudah usually indicates that an action has occurred or that a state has been achieved”. In Example (156), it is the adverbial of time tadi pagi that indicates the past tense setting.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 141

As plausible as this substrate explanation may be, the feature is attested in many other varieties, as for example in multiple African varieties (cf. Mesthrie 2008b: 625) and Caribbean varieties (cf. Kortmann & Lunkenheimer 2013). This suggests that the absence of inflectional past tense marking is common in varieties of English and may not necessarily reflect the grammar of the substrate language. The Malay past tense marking strategy just outlined represents one possibility to explain the lack of inflectional past tense marking as well as the alternative analytical past tense marking with the help of adverbs or adverbials of time. According to the substrate explanation, the analytical past tense marking method is sufficient in Malay, and the same principle is applied to the speakers’ English language production. There are however cases for which this substrate explanation cannot be applied. The strategy of contextual marking with the help of surrounding verbs that use standard past tense marking cannot be traced back to Malay past tense marking since the substrate does not feature inflectional marking on the verb. The strategy may perhaps be based on the same principle encountered in Malay, in which a single past tense marker is sufficient to indicate the past setting and that any additional marker within the sentence is therefore viewed as redundant. The actual single past tense marker used, however, cannot be an adaptation from Malay. Incidentally, the strategy of a single past tense marker used in Malay is very similar to the avoidance of redundancies strategy. The other main type of non-standard past tense marking is the past tense marking on an inserted auxiliary. For the same reason as just mentioned above, i.e. the lack of inflectional verbal marking in Malay, this form of non-standard past tense marking cannot be explained by substrate influence. Two alternative SLA strategies can be considered. The principle of maximum salience (Williams 1987: 188–189) may be at work since a separate auxiliary marked as past tense can be regarded as more salient than an inflectional suffix. The other strategy is the teddy bear principle (Hasselgren 1994), which states that learners tend to stick to structures which they feel are safe and familiar. Learners may be more familiar with the past tense forms of auxiliaries than they are with the past tense forms of lexical verbs. Rather than risking choosing the wrong past tense form of a lexical verb, e.g. a verb they do not know with certainty to be regular or irregular, they opt to insert an auxiliary with a known past tense form. Third person singular present tense marking. Non-standard forms of third person singular present tense marking are discussed in Section 6.2.3 and include lack of inflectional third person -s, marking with an inserted auxiliary conjugated for the third person singular, as well as double marking with both the conjugated auxiliary and the standard -s bound morpheme on the verb. Of these three strategies, only the first one, i.e. lack of marking, can be explained by substrate influence as the two other strategies involve inflectional marking on

142 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

the verb, which, as already mentioned in the preceding section when discussing the past tense, does not exist in Malay. Malay verbs remain unchanged regardless of tense, person, number or aspect, e.g. saya pergi (‘I go’), dia pergi (‘he/she/it goes’) and mereka pergi (‘they go’). As such, the lack of third person singular present tense marking can very well be explained by substrate influence. The transfer to somewhere principle (Andersen 1983) states that only unmarked structural L1 features are transferred into L2. Biewer (2011: 14) describes the non-marking of third person singular present verbs as derived from the absence of such marking in the L1 as well as the unmarkedness of all persons but the third person singular in English. As the feature is observed in many other varieties, for example in Caribbean creoles (cf. Schneider 2008b: 767) and in multiple African, South and Southeast Asian varieties (cf. Mesthrie 2008b: 627), the status of the substrate explanation as the only plausible option has to be questioned. Alternative SLA strategies can also be drawn upon, namely the general cognitive strategies of linearisation (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 171), which independently of L1 or L2 structures give preference to unmarked categories, as well as the markedness theory, which states that less marked features are less complex and more frequent in the languages of the world, and as a consequence, are easier to learn and therefore acquired first (Tschichold 2002: 129). Biewer (2011: 15) also describes the feature at hand as an example of markedness theory. As already mentioned, the two remaining strategies, i.e. marking with an inserted auxiliary conjugated for the third person singular as well as double marking, cannot be explained by substrate influence from Malay. The latter bears resemblance to the aforementioned inserted auxiliary past tense marking. The principle of maximum salience (Williams 1987: 188–189) can again be referred to on the grounds that a separate auxiliary conjugated for third person singular present tense can be regarded as more salient than the inflectional suffix -s on the lexical verb. The teddy bear principle (Hasselgren 1994) can also be argued for in terms of the speakers’ avoidance of the complementary allomorphic distribution of the {third person singular present tense} morpheme, i.e. /-s/, /-z/ and /-ɪz/. Instead, the speakers opt for the conjugated auxiliary, typically is, as a form that they certainly know. The double marking using both the conjugated auxiliary as well as the standard -s verbal suffix is most certainly a product of the principle of maximum salience, as the redundancy it creates can be understood as a means to achieve maximum clarity of meaning. The third person singular present tense marker is also encountered in contexts for which it is deemed inappropriate in standard usage, e.g. on verbs with a first person subject. Such cases of unexpected marking can best be explained as cases of hypercorrection, since speakers may be aware of their tendency to omit the -s affix on third person singular present tense verbs and compensate by using the affix even when they are not supposed to.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 143

Word class and verb forms. Cases of unexpected word class and verb forms are described in Section 6.2.4. A substrate explanation can be put forward, as Malay words do not necessarily change form according to their function. This is illustrated in the examples below. (157) Malay: Dia dari Indonesia. Gloss: 3sg from Indonesia Translation: ‘He/she is from Indonesia.’ (158) Malay: Dia orang Indonesia. Gloss: 3sg person Indonesia Translation: ‘He/she is Indonesian.’ (159) Malay: Dia bicara bahasa Indonesia. Gloss: 3sg speak language Indonesia Translation: ‘He/she speaks Indonesian.’ (160) Malay: Saya sedang goreng nasi. Gloss: 1sg prog fry rice Translation: ‘I’m frying rice.’ (161) Malay: Saya sedang makan nasi goreng. Gloss: 1sg prog eat rice fry Translation: ‘I’m eating fried rice.’

Examples (157) to (159) show how the word Indonesia remains unchanged in Malay, even though Examples (158) and (159) do not refer to the country, but to the nationality and the language respectively. Unlike in English, in which terms of nationality and language take different forms than the corresponding country’s name, Malay uses the same term for all three concepts. Ambiguity is avoided by forming a compound specifying the meaning, e.g. with words such as orang (‘person’) or bahasa (‘language’). Examples (160) and (161) show how the verb goreng (‘to fry’) does not undergo any change although its function changes from sentence to sentence. In Example (160), it is used as a transitive verb, while in Example (161) it is used as a postmodifier to the noun nasi. The function that a given verb fulfils is not marked on the verb by affixes, but rather by the verb’s position within the clause.17 17. One exception is the marking of voice on transitive verbs by using the inflectional affixes me- (which assimilates to men- or meng- depending on the phonological environment) for the active voice and di- for the passive voice (cf. Sneddon 2007: 26). Example (160) could also be rendered as Saya sedang menggoreng nasi. This marking is not obligatory unless signaling voice is necessary to avoid ambiguity, e.g. ayam sedang memakan (‘the chicken is eating’) as opposed to ayam sedang dimakan (‘the chicken is being eaten’). Both meanings could be inferred in the sentence ayam sedang makan without a clear context. The use of me-/men-/meng- to exclude the passive voice is glossed in Examples (166) and (167).

144 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The characteristics of Malay just outlined can be used as a substrate explanation for cases such as those in Examples (162) and (163) below. (162) I: What’s your favourite subject at school? S: Eng- English language and Indonesia. (163) … Have any, yeah, they are not really incline, very incline with the cat, with their pet… 

The case shown in Example (162) bears similarities to the Malay Example (159) in that the word Indonesia remains unchanged even though the national language is referred to rather than the country. The phrase English language rather than just English is also reminiscent of the use of the word bahasa in Example (159). The case shown in Example (163) resembles the Malay Example (161) in that the verb incline remains in its base form although standard usage calls for it to occur in its past participle form. An alternative to substrate influence can be proposed as well. Cases of nonstandard word class or verb form such as those presented in Examples (162) and (163) use a given word’s base form lacking any inflectional or derivational morphemes. As such, these cases can be explained by the markedness theory (Tschichold 2002: 129), since the unmarked forms are preferred over the marked ones. Cases displaying exactly the opposite phenomenon are also found in the data, as shown in Example (164) below. (164) Er I don’t know actually er OK it’s- it’s the different maybe for er foreigner and Indonesian students, because in Indonesian you have to- you have toyou have to do this you have to do- to do that, then they will doing that, if it’s to lose control, there’s er no assignment, yeah, they will spend with the others. 

Example (164) is a case of non-standard word class that can be explained by substrate influence, namely the different. The noun difference and the associated adjective different would both be rendered as the word beda in Malay, without any derivation indicating the change in function. However, Example (164) also contains three cases of derivation where none is expected in standard English. The speaker uses the derived form foreigner although the base form is expected, as in the phrase foreign and Indonesian students. The use of the form Indonesian represents the exact opposite of the phenomenon observed in Example (162), namely that the derived form Indonesian is used when the country Indonesia is meant. The last case is the use of the present participle form doing in a context where the base form do is expected. These three instances in Example (164) can best be explained as cases of hypercorrection. Speakers may be aware of their tendency to omit derivational or inflectional affixes and compensate by adding affixes where none are expected.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 145

Comparative. Non-standard comparative forms, described in Section 6.2.5, are characterised by the use of both the particle more as well as the inflectional marker -er. The comparative in Malay uses the particle lebih and can be compared to the English comparative form that uses more. An example is given in (165). (165) Malay: Dia lebih sopan dari-mu. Gloss: 3sg more polite from-2sg Translation: ‘He/she is more polite than you.’ / ‘He/she is politer than you.’

As Malay uses only a particle to form the comparative and does not have a method for inflectional marking on the adjective, substrate influence can be excluded as an explanation for cases of double comparative marking. The most likely cause for this feature can be attributed to the principle of maximum salience (Williams 1987: 188–189). Case. Cases of personal pronouns declined using a case other than expected are discussed in Section 6.2.6. A substrate explanation is possible as Malay personal pronouns do not change according to their semantic role. This is illustrated in the examples below. (166) Malay: Saya meng-undang teman saya. Gloss: 1sg npass-invite friend 1sg Translation: ‘I invite my friend(s).’ (167) Malay: Teman saya meng-undang saya. Gloss: friend 1sg npass-invite 1sg Translation: ‘My friend(s) invite(s) me.’

The personal pronoun saya in Examples (166) and (167) remains unchanged regardless of its function as a subject, a direct object or a possessive pronoun. Only by its position can it be identified as as subject (before an active transitive verb), an object (after an active transitive verb) or a possessive pronoun (after a noun). This may explain why speakers use the subject case on personal pronouns when another case is expected, e.g. he rather than him, as they may regard the subject case as the personal pronoun’s base form. The preference for the subject case can also be explained by the shortest path principle (Wald 1996: 516–517). Speakers are faced with various forms of a given personal pronoun and opt for the one form they see as the base form. On one occasion, the object case is used rather than the subject case: I should find out who is him before I choose him . This instance can be regarded as triggered by hypercorrection.

146 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Progressive aspect. Non-standard use of the progressive, described in Section 6.2.7, covers absent progressive marking, which is unique to Indonesian learner English, as well as unexpected progressive marking, encountered in all varieties. Malay marks the progressive aspects with the help of two types of particles. Sedang, already seen in Examples (160) and (161), indicates an action in progress. The particles lagi and tengah can also be used and serve the same function, but are used less frequently (Sneddon 2007: 198). The other type of particle is masih, which “indicates that an action is still occurring” (Sneddon 2007: 199) and can be translated as still. The use of these particles is shown in the examples below. (168) Malay: Saya sedang makan. Gloss: 1sg prog eat Translation: ‘I am eating.’ (169) Malay: Saya masih makan. Gloss: 1sg still eat Translation: ‘I am still eating.’ (170) *Saya masih sedang makan.

In Example (168), the progressive is marked with the particle sedang. Example (169) does not feature the particle sedang, as the use of masih already implies the progressive aspect. Using both particles is regarded as redundant and yields an ungrammatical sentence, as shown in Example (170). The use of masih as sufficient to express what in English requires still as well as the progressive aspect marking can be viewed as the cause of cases such as Example (40), which is given again below. (40) I: OK, so they need to speak English for their work. S: Er I guess so but we still learn it, you know.

The speaker may be using still in the same way as masih is used in Example (169), which implies leaving the verb in its base form. The alternative SLA strategy that can be applied to explain the feature at hand is the avoidance of redundancies strategy, as still can be regarded by the learners as sufficient to mark the progressive aspect, and any additional marking is thus redundant. Incidentally, this strategy is identical to the Malay rules that prevent Example (170) from being a grammatical sentence. The cases of progressive aspect marking where none is expected can be regarded as instances of hypercorrection. Similar to the previous cases of hypercorrection described, speakers attempt to compensate for their tendency to omit marking by also using it in contexts inappropriate in standard usage.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 147

Perfect. Non-standard use of the perfect, described in Section 6.2.8, covers absent perfect marking in Indonesian learner English as well as a single case of unexpected perfect marking in Malaysian English. Perfect marking is not used in Malay, as shown in the examples below. (171) Malay: Saya tinggal di sana dari 2000 sampai 2005. Gloss: 1sg stay in there from 2000 until 2005 Translation: ‘I lived there from 2000 to 2005.’ (172) Malay: Saya tinggal di sini sejak 2000. Gloss: 1sg stay in here since 2000 Translation: ‘I have lived here since 2000.’

In Examples (171) and (172), the verb tinggal remains unchanged, while the meaning of Example (172) would require perfect marking in standard English. As such, Malay does not employ marking on the verb to mark the perfect. Rather, it is the choice of a time adverbial, as well as the preposition used therein that marks whether a clause is to be understood as having perfect meaning. The Malay method of perfect marking just outlined may be the cause of cases of absent perfect as shown in the example below. (173) Er yes. I learn English since I was in the third year of my elementary school, third year. 

In Example (173), the adverbial clause introduced by the preposition since may be regarded by the learner as sufficient to mark the perfect. As such, any additional marking on the verb may be viewed as redundant. Alternative SLA strategies that can be referred to are the avoidance of redundancies strategy, i.e. using an adverbial only rather than in combination with verbal marking, as well as the markedness theory and the general cognitive strategies of linearisation. The two latter alternative strategies give preference to unmarked or less marked features over marked features. The single token of unexpected perfect marking observed in Malaysian English can hardly be categorised as a case of hypercorrection, as no instances of absent perfect marking are encountered in the ESL data. It can either be dismissed as a performance slip, or it may be a case of marking of anteriority to the deictic centre as suggested by Baskaran (2008b: 613). As there are no other cases in the data, it is not feasible to investigate this possibility any further.

148 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

7.1.3 Origin of syntactic features Deletion. Deletion is discussed in Section 6.3.1 and covers a variety of deleted elements. The most important types of deletion observed are subject deletion, verb deletion, article deletion, preposition deletion, object deletion and relative pronoun deletion. The various types of deletion observed may be motivated by Malay influence. Indeed, many items required in standard English syntax are generally absent in Malay syntax. This is illustrated in the examples below. (174) a. b.

Malay: Apakah mau ke pasar? Gloss: q want to market Translation: ‘Do you want to go to the market?’ Malay: Tidak mau. Gloss: neg want Translation: ‘No, I do not want to.’

(175) Malay: Panas hari ini. Gloss: hot day this.dem Translation: ‘It is hot today.’ (176) Malay: Ada sapu di lemari. Gloss: exi broom in cupboard18 Translation: ‘There is a broom in the cupboard.’ (177) Malay: Dia guru. Gloss: 3sg teacher Translation: ‘He/she is a teacher.’ (178) Malay: Saya sedang me-nunggu tamu. Gloss: 1sg prog npass-wait guest Translation: ‘I am waiting for guests/a guest.’

The Malay examples (174) to (178) commonly display the absence of syntactic elements usually required in standard English syntax, namely articles and copulas. For instance, Example (174a) would require articles if rendered in standard English, Example (175) would require a copula, and Examples (176) and (177) would require both articles and copulas. Examples (174) to (176) showcase the feature of subjectless clauses in Malay. Examples (174a) and (174b) are meant to be understood as a question and its corresponding answer. The subjects can be deleted since they can be inferred from the situational context. Example (175) presents a case corresponding to English constructions that have impersonal it, or so-called dummy-subjects. Unlike English, Malay clause structure does not necessarily require a subject, hence the possibility of clauses such as Example (175). In cases such as Example (176), 18. exi stand for ‘existential’. The abbreviation is not part of the list of standard abbreviations.



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 149

standard English syntax would require an existential there followed by a copula. In Malay, the intransitive verb ada is used (Sneddon 2007: 263). The ESL varieties tend to use the verb form got rather than a conjugated form of the copula to be when deleting existential there. Got may be used as a corresponding form to Malay ada. Example (178) represents cases where standard English requires a preposition and Malay does not due to different verb complementation patterns. While English has the pattern wait for someone, Malay simply has menunggu seorang. The aspects of Malay syntax just described are very suitable to explain most cases of deletion observed, while alternative SLA strategies are less satisfactory. However, one type of deletion is not explained by the Malay Examples (174) to (178), namely the deletion of relative pronouns in subject-relative clauses, yielding subject-zero-relative clauses. The structure of relative clauses in Malay is shown in the examples below. (179) Malay: Saya kenal se-orang yang main gitar. Gloss: 1sg know one-person rel play guitar Translation: ‘I know someone who plays guitar.’ (180) *Saya kenal seorang main gitar. (181) Malay: Sepatu yang saya beli itu bagus. Gloss: shoe rel 1sg buy dem good Translation: ‘The shoes (that) I bought are good.’ (182) *Sepatu saya beli itu bagus.

Examples (179) to (182) show that Malay relative clauses are introduced by the relative pronoun yang. Omitting the relative pronoun yields ungrammatical sentences for both subject-relative clauses and object-relative clauses. As zero-relative clauses are not allowed in Malay, the feature of subject-zero-relative clauses cannot be attributed to substrate influence. Instead, this feature can be seen as a case of overgeneralisation. Speakers may think that relative pronoun deletion, which is not allowed in their L1, is generally possible for relative clauses in standard English, rather than restricted to object-relative clauses. A further possible explanation for the emergence of the subject-zero-relative clause is the transfer of the feature from non-standard native varieties via the settler (STL) strand.19 However, this explanation, while plausible for Singapore English and Malaysian English, is unlikely in the case of the learner variety as there was no prolonged contact with English-speaking settlers. As the same feature occurring in the nativised varieties and the learner variety need not have the same cause (cf. Hilbert 2011: 141), this explanation can be accepted as a possible alternative in the case of the postcolonial varieties. 19. Suggested by Edgar W. Schneider (personal communication).

150 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Word choice. Non-standard word choice, described in Section 6.3.2, deals with non-standard choices within an expected word class. The three main types observed are non-standard preposition choice, non-standard auxiliary choice and non-standard determiner choice. A substrate explanation for this feature requires the non-standard choices made by the speakers to be somewhat identical to the standard choices in Malay. Table 7.1 presents examples of non-standard choices observed in the data for which this applies. Table 7.1  Examples of non-standard word choices displaying similarities to Malay syntax Observed

Expected

Malay

same with different with at Jakarta at the Binus university there is no winter season too much worker much money

same as

sama dengan (with)

different than

beda dengan (with)

in Jakarta

di Jakarta

at Binus university

di Universitas Binus

there is no winter season either

juga tidak ada musim salju

many workers

banyak pekerja

a lot of money

banyak uang

The list of examples given in Table 7.1 showcases different types of correspondence between the observed non-standard choices and Malay syntax. The first type is concerned with the complementation patterns of the adjectives same and different. While standard English requires a different preposition for each adjective, speakers tend to use a single preposition for same as well as different. This complementation pattern is similar to Malay, in which the adjectives sama and beda both require the same preposition dengan, whose closest direct translation is ‘with’. The second type relates to prepositions used in adverbials of place. While standard English uses different prepositions depending on the type of adverbial of place, the speakers appear to use at indiscriminately. This use of a single preposition for all types of adverbials of place calls Malay to mind, where the preposition di is generally used for adverbials of place. The third type involves the too/either distinction. In standard English, too is expected to change to either in a negative clause. In the example given, the speaker does not adapt the adverb as expected. This recalls Malay syntax where the adverb juga is used regardless of whether the clause is affirmative or negative. The



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 151

affirmative variant of the example given, i.e. there is a winter season too, would be rendered as juga ada musim salju. The last type shown in Table 7.1 deals with the choice of quantifiers. Standard English requires different quantifiers depending on whether the modified noun is a count or mass noun, and whether the clause is affirmative or negative/interrogative. In the examples shown, the speakers use much indiscriminately. This can be compared to Malay, where the quantifier banyak fulfils the functions of many, much and a lot of in standard English. One of the major types of non-standard word choice not found in Table 7.1 is non-standard auxiliary choice. Non-standard choice of auxiliaries to express functions such as the perfect aspect, the future tense, the conditional mood or negation cannot be attributed to substrate influence since such functions do not make use of auxiliaries in Malay. The perfect aspect in Malay has already been discussed in Section 7.1.2. The remaining functions use specific markers, such as akan for the future tense, kalau for the conditional mood and the negation particles tidak and bukan. The alternative SLA strategies that can be relied upon to explain the features observed are the teddy bear principle (Hasselgren 1994) and the imitation strategy (Hilbert 2011: 133). Both imply that speakers adapt a structure from a different feature they feel secure with (teddy bear principle) or which they encounter more often (imitation strategy). For instance, the clause I don’t interested in politics encountered in Example (86) (cf. Section 6.3.2) uses the auxiliary verb to do rather than to be to express the passive voice. According to the two SLA strategies, the speaker may do this because he is familiar with negating a verb with the auxiliary to do. As such, using to do rather than to be is an imitation of the negation of lexical verbs in the active voice, and it is a form he knows well. Non-standard preposition choice has been shown to be explainable by substrate influence in Table 7.1. However, the few examples presented are not sufficient to suggest that the feature is systematically due to substrate influence. Cases such as in TV, encountered in Example (82) (cf. Section 6.3.2), argue against the use of a single preposition for all types of adverbials of place as is the case in Malay. While the Malay adverbials di Jakarta and di Universitas Binus correspond to the adverbials at Jakarta and at the Binus University shown in Table 7.1, di TV occurs as in TV, while at TV would be expected if speakers really assigned preposition for all types of adverbials of place. It is possible that certain speakers use at, others in as the general preposition for adverbials of place. To find out whether the feature ‘non-standard preposition choice’ displays a general tendency to be influenced by the Malay substrate or whether the preposition choice is relatively random, the various cases of non-standard preposition choices are analysed for their similarity to Malay. An overview is given in Table 7.2, with percentage values rounded to two decimals.

152 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Table 7.2  Overview of non-standard preposition choice in tokens with regard to correspondence to Malay prepositions Observed preposition

 MalE

IndonE

corresponds to Malay does not correspond to Malay % corresponding to Malay

 8  5 61.54%

76 42 64.41%

Although non-standard preposition choice is far more frequent in Indonesian learner English than in Malaysian English, the two varieties display very similar rates of preposition choice influenced by Malay. A clear majority of cases appear to be influenced by Malay substrate; however, this leaves more than a third of the cases that cannot be attributed to Malay. These cases can either be due to speakers’ lack of familiarity with the standard preposition complementation patterns, or they may be cases of hypercorrection, whereby speakers choose a different preposition than the corresponding Malay preposition for fear it could result in a transfer error. Redundant items. This feature, described in Section 6.3.3, relates to words present in the data that are not expected in standard English. The main types of unexpected items are determiners, prepositions and copulas. A substrate explanation for these unexpected items cannot be supported. As has been shown in Examples (174) to (178) in Section 7.1.3, Malay is more likely to be responsible for the deletion of these items than for their unexpected presence. The more tenable explanation is hypercorrection. Since speakers display a tendency to delete certain items, possibly due to substrate influence from Malay, they try to compensate by inserting these items even in contexts where they are not expected in standard English. Word order. Non-standard word order mainly relates to adverb placement, compounds, noun phrase structure and order of constituents. Examples (105) to (109) in Section 6.3.4 highlight these different types of non-standard word order. Malay word ordering is illustrated below. (183) Malay: Saya lebih suka makanan Indonesia. Gloss: 1sg more like food Indonesia Translation: ‘I like Indonesian food more.’ (184) Malay: Saya berjumpa guru sejarah saya di toko buku. Gloss: 1sg meet teacher history 1sg in shop book Translation: ‘I meet/met my history teacher in a bookstore.’ (185) Malay: Kami dari Genting turun ke Kuala Lumpur. Gloss: 1pl.excl from Genting go down to Kuala Lumpur Translation: ‘We go/went down to Kuala Lumpur from Genting.’

In Example (183), the adverb lebih occurs before the verb suka. This is similar to the clause I more like Indonesian food found in Example (105). Example (183) also



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 153

highlights the noun phrase structure in Malay. The noun phrase head occurs first with the modifying element after it. This noun phrase structure can also be seen in Example (184). The noun phrase guru sejarah saya (‘my history teacher’) consists of the compound guru sejarah and the possessive pronoun saya. Unlike in English, the possessive pronoun occurs at the end of the noun phrase. It is actually through its phrase-final position that it is established as a possessive pronoun. If it were to be placed before the phrase head, as in saya guru sejarah, it would in fact not be regarded as a possessive but rather as the subject of a clause meaning ‘I am a history teacher’. The compound guru sejarah, as well as the compound toko buku, show that the same head-modifier structure also applies to compounds. The head-modifier structure in Malay, valid for both noun phrases and compounds, may explain cases of adjectives in post-modifier position such as value added in Example (107) and non-standard compounding order such as certificate graduate in Example (106). Example (185) shows the placement of an adverbial in a position similar to the non-standard constituent order observed in the Malaysian English Example (108). Placing the adverbial sentence-initially, such as in Dari Genting kami turun ke Kuala Lumpur, or sentence-finally, as in Kami turun ke Kuala Lumpur dari Genting, is also permitted. Non-standard constituent order as observed in sentence (108) can therefore be explained by speakers adapting the comparably flexible constituent order rules of Malay to English. Alternative SLA strategies cannot be convincingly applied to explain nonstandard word order, as this type of feature does not imply varying degrees of markedness. Adapting word order from the substrate language therefore seems to be the most straightforward explanation. “One relative clause”. The one relative clause (cf. Section 6.3.5) consists in the relative pronoun one preceded by the modifying constituents. A Malay substrate explanation for this feature can be excluded. As already discussed in Examples (179) to (182) (cf. Section 7.1.3), the Malay relative pronoun yang has to precede the modifying constituents. A possible SLA explanation lies in the overgeneralisation of the use of one as a pronoun. One can be used to substitute a previously introduced noun, as in Which shirt do you prefer? The blue one or the green one. It is conceivable that speakers extend the range of permissible modifying elements for this use of one to entire clauses. A further possible explanation can be offered from Chinese substrate influence. Unlike in English and Malay, the Chinese relative particle de (Chinese: 的) occurs after the modifying constituents. An example is shown below.20 20. The Chinese particle de (的) has other functions, such as forming possessive pronouns, e.g. wŏ (我) means I, wŏde (我的) means my. Only the particle’s function in forming relative clauses is discussed here as it is the only one of interest for the topic at hand.

154 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

(186) Chinese: 我 那 個 有 車 的 朋友 在 家。 Pinyin: wŏ nèi gè yŏu chē de péngyou zài jiā Gloss: 1sg dem clf have car rel friend at home Translation: ‘My friend who has a car is at home.’

In Example (186), the defining relative clause yŏuchēde (有車的) is positioned between the demonstrative-classifier unit nèigè (那個) and the noun phrase head péngyou (朋友). The Chinese relative clause resembles the one relative clause in that the relative pronoun/particle occurs at the end of the relative clause. However, Chinese syntax places the modified head after the relative clause, while English syntax, and that includes one relative clauses, places the modified head prior to the relative clause. An example would be the one relative clause the daughter got murdered by her boyfriend one from Example (110), which does not entirely replicate the Chinese model (which would yield the got murdered by the boyfriend one daughter). A Chinese substrate origin of the one relative clause would imply that speakers maintain the relative pronoun position in the substrate but adopt the English modified head position. The difference in head position is a fact against substrate influence from Chinese. However, there is a fact in favour of this explanation. Of the 49 tokens of one relative clause observed in the Malaysian data, every single one is produced by a Chinese L1 speaker. The same applies to Indonesian learner English, where all five tokens are produced by the same Chinese L1 speaker (speaker ERN). Singapore has only three tokens of one relative clauses, two of which are produced by Malay L1 speakers, the remaining one by a Chinese L1 speaker. The fact that the one relative clause is restricted to Chinese L1 speakers only in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English suggests that the feature may have Chinese substrate origins. Singapore English is different in this respect. However, this may be due to the fact that a majority of speakers in Singapore have Chinese as their L1. Features originating from this substrate may spread to other L1 speakers due to the majority status of Chinese. Invariant question tags. Invariant question tags are described in Section 6.3.6 and are attested in the ESL varieties only. Two different invariant question tags can be observed, namely is it and or not. Malay question tags consist of the words for yes or no, ya and tidak/bukan respectively, appended at the end of a statement, typically with rising intonation to signal the interrogative (or a question mark in written language). As such, a Malay substrate explanation can be excluded for the question tag is it, but is conceivable for or not. The fact that or not is not attested in the learner variety is contrary to the substrate influence explanation, although it does not refute it. The most likely explanation for the is it question tag can be found in



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 155

the shortest path principle (Wald 1996: 516–517). Speakers are faced with variation in question tags, both in terms of negation and non-negation of the verb, pronoun in concord with the subject of the preceding statement, as well as the choice of auxiliary, from which they select the single variant is it. The invariant question tag or not can also be explained by the same principle, namely that out of all the possible variants of negated versus non-negated, speakers select the negated one. However, the shortest path principle appears to operate in combination with the avoidance of redundancies strategy (Biewer 2011: 15). The negation of the preceding statement may be seen as sufficient to form a question tag, so that the remaining standard question tag elements of agreement in terms of auxiliary and personal pronoun are regarded as redundant. Passive voice. Non-standard usage of the passive voice is described in Section 6.3.7 and covers absent passive voice marking in Indonesian learner English as well as the kena passive in Malaysian English. As already mentioned in footnote 14 in Section 7.1.2, Malay marks the passive with the inflectional prefix di- (as opposed to the active marker me-/men/-meng-). This marker is not required when the passive can be inferred from the context. This may explain why Indonesian learners of English occasionally omit passive voice marking. Absence of passive voice marking can also be explained by alternative SLA strategies, such as the general cognitive strategies of linearisation (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 171) and the markedness theory (Tschichold 2002: 129). Learners tend to opt for unmarked verb forms instead of forms marked for passive voice. The kena passive is visibly a feature influenced by the Malay substrate. Kena is another passive marker besides di- and can be thought of as similar to the get passive in English. A Malay example is given below. (187) Malay: Dia kena tampar. Gloss: 3sg pass slap Translation: ‘He/she gets/got slapped.’

Passive constructions such as the Middle Easterns, all kena stop, observed in Example (117), feature not only the Malay passive marker kena, but also have an unmarked verb as in the Malay example (187). The Malay origin of the kena passive is therefore evident. Inversion. Non-standard use of inversion is discussed in Section 6.3.8 and covers the lack of inversion where it is expected in standard usage as well as the use of inversion where it is not expected. Malay does not use inversion to form interrogatives, nor does a clause-initial adverb trigger inversion. Questions are formed by intonation, or an interrogative particle such as apakah (neutral question marker),

156 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

kenapa/mengapa (‘why’), kapan (‘when’), bagaimana (‘how’) or berapa (‘how many/ how much’). An example of how apakah is used is given in sentence (175a) in Section 7.1.3. This may explain why no inversion occurs after interrogative pronouns as in When it is? When it was? observed in Example (118). Alternative SLA strategies that can equally explain the lack of inversion in interrogatives are the markedness theory (Tschichold 2002: 129) and the avoidance of redundancies strategy (Biewer 2011: 15). In the case of the markedness theory, the inverted order represents the marked variant while the SVO order is unmarked, which will prompt speakers to opt for the latter one. In the case of the avoidance of redundancies strategy, the interrogative pronoun is regarded as sufficient to signal the interrogative, and consequently any additional marker, such as inversion, is treated as redundant. Cases of unexpected inversion cannot be explained by Malay substrate influence since Malay does not make use of inversion. One possible explanation for this feature is hypercorrection. Speakers may be aware of their tendency to avoid inversion in interrogatives and attempt to compensate for this by using inversion in contexts where it is not expected. However, this explanation is not convincing given the fact that absent inversion occurs only in Malaysian English, while unexpected inversion is found only in the two other varieties. As such, those speakers who tend to avoid inversion do not attempt to compensate for it otherwise, and speakers who use unexpected inversion have no absent inversion they could possibly compensate for. The most convincing explanation is the one put forward by Hilbert (2011), namely that speakers use “the same available and (most) frequent fixed chunks” (2011: 132). The learner strategy involved is imitation (2011: 133). The frequent fixed chunks involved for the feature at hand are interrogative pronouns followed by inversion. When speakers form a relative clause introduced by a relative pronoun that can also function as an interrogative pronoun, e.g. what, they insert the fixed chunk they are familiar with from interrogative constructions. 7.1.4 Feature origin across varieties The observed phonological, morphological and syntactic features were discussed with regard to their potential substrate influence. The features can be grouped by cases in which a substrate explanation is tenable on the one hand and features for which a substrate explanation must be excluded on the other hand. A comparison of these two groups across the three varieties can provide an insight into possible differences of substrate influence in the varieties under examination. As phonological features are far more frequent than morphological and syntactic features, the normalised frequencies of phonological features are shown in a separate figure in order to make the graphical display of morphosyntactic features more discernible. The normalised frequencies of potential substrate features and non-substrate features are given in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2.

Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 157



Non− substrate Potential substrate













SgE

MalE

IndonE

Figure 7.1  Comparison of potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the category phonology 

Non− substrate Potential substrate















SgE(m)

MalE(m)

IndonE(m)

SgE(s)

MalE(s)

IndonE(s)

Figure 7.2  Comparison of potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the categories morphology (m) and syntax (s)

158 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The normalised frequencies of potential substrate features and non-substrate features shown in Figure 7.1 and Figure 7.2 suggest that features for which a substrate explanation is ruled out form only a small fraction of all features observed across the three varieties. The non-substrate features appear to be consistently more frequent in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties. This appears to be the case particularly for syntactic features. The proportion of non-substrate features is not linked to a variety’s overall frequency count. For example, Malaysian English displays the highest frequency for phonological features, although its frequency of non-substrate features is smaller than that of Indonesian learner English. With regard to morphological features, the higher overall frequency observed in Indonesian learner English coincides with a higher frequency of nonsubstrate features. On the other hand, the overall frequency in Malaysian English is more than twice as high as the one observed in Singapore English, although the frequency of non-substrate features is higher in the latter variety. Only for syntactic features does the number of non-substrate features appear to go hand in hand with a higher overall frequency. Due to the varying frequencies observed in the three varieties, relative frequencies offer a better comparison of potential substrate features and non-substrate features. Expressing the two subgroups as fractions of overall frequencies makes it possible to compare their prevalence across varieties. Such a comparison is evident in Figure 7.3, with values rounded to three decimals. The relative values displayed in Figure 7.3 reveal that the ESL varieties display equally small rates of non-substrate phonological features. This changes for morphological features, for which Singapore English has the highest ratio of nonsubstrate features of all varieties. With regard to syntax, Indonesian learner English clearly has the largest share of features for which substrate influence can be ruled out. Malaysian English has the lowest rate in the categories of phonology and morphology, but with regard to syntax its proportion of clearly non-substrate features is higher than that of Singapore English. 7.2

Register

As the corpus material collected for Singapore English originates from two corpora, each representing a different level of formality, the influence of register can be investigated in Singapore English and contrasted with the relatively informal and formal registers in the Malaysian data and the Indonesian data respectively. The normalised frequencies of formal and informal Singapore English, represented by the material gathered from the NIECSSE and the GSSEC corpora respectively, are contrasted with the other varieties in Figure 7.4. The frequencies observed for the total Singaporean data are also given for comparison.

Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 159



Potential substrate

IndonE(s)

Non-substrate

MalE(s) SgE(s) IndonE(m) MalE(m) SgE(m) IndonE(p) MalE(p) SgE(p) 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Figure 7.3  Comparison of relative values for potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the categories phonology (p), morphology (m) and syntax (s) 

SgE total SgE formal SgE informal



MalE IndonE











phonology

morphology

syntax

discourse

Figure 7.4  Comparison of non-standard features observed in Singapore English, formal Singapore English, informal Singapore English, Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English

160 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The first observation that can be made from the Singaporean register comparison given in Figure 7.4 is quite a trivial one. Non-standard features are more frequent in informal speech than in formal speech. This applies to all categories observed. However, the magnitude of these differences varies from category to category. Whereas the disparities for syntactic features do not appear to be of great importance, the differences with regard to discourse features are great, to the extent that the frequency of discourse features in formal Singapore English (~59 occurrences per 100,000 words) is not discernible in the graphical representation given in Figure 7.4. The relative unity observable between the frequencies of informal Singapore English and the overall Singaporean data should not be regarded as too meaningful due to the fact that the Singaporean data consists of GSSEC material to approximately 74%. The comparison of the two levels of formality in Singapore English with the frequencies observed in Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English should make it possible to answer two questions. The first question is concerned with the importance of register in the learner variety. Given that the degree of formality in the Indonesian data is comparable to the formal subset of the Singaporean data, it is possible to verify whether formal Indonesian learner English displays greater similarities to formal or informal Singapore English, and whether these differences vary from category to category. The second question relates to the higher frequency observed for phonological features in Malaysian English (cf. Figure 6.15 in Section 6.5.1). The comparison of the informal subset of the Singaporean data and the Malaysian data can provide insights into whether the higher frequencies of phonological features previously observed for Malaysian English are a product of register variation. With regard to the levels of register examined in Singapore English and their similarities to Indonesian learner English, the comparison given in Figure 7.4 offers clear insights for the categories morphology, syntax and discourse. The frequencies observed for morphological and syntactic features suggest that the differences between formal Singapore English and the learner variety are far greater than the differences between informal Singaporean English and the learner variety, in spite of the relatively formal setting in which the Indonesian learner data were recorded. Overall, the differences observed between the ESL variety and the learner variety with respect to morphology and syntax remain great. The comparison of discourse features reveals a different picture. Formal Singapore English and Indonesian learner English have low frequencies of discourse features in common, whereas informal Singapore English displays the highest frequency of discourse features. It is worth noting that discourse features appear to be more frequent in (formal) Indonesian learner English than in formal Singapore English. The comparison of phonological features across the learner variety and formal/informal Singapore

Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 161



English suggests that the frequency of phonological features in Indonesian learner English lies somewhat between the frequencies observed for formal and informal Singapore English. As such, the accent of formal Indonesian learner English can be regarded as more pronounced than that of formal Singaporean English, but less so than that of informal Singaporean English. As far as the phonology of the two ESL varieties is concerned, it appears that the gap in frequency between Malaysian English phonological features and Singapore English phonological features still persists when looking at informal Singapore English as a separate category. Consequently, register variation cannot be viewed as a decisive factor to explain the clearly higher frequency of phonological features observed in Malaysian English. The observed differences between Malaysian English and Singapore English phonology could be due to major differences within a few features, or instead, due to minor differences within an array of features. In order to verify whether any of these cases applies, the two features displaying the largest differences between Malaysian English and Singapore English, i.e. isolated plosive reduction and monophthongisation, are marked separately in Figure 7.5. 12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

SgE formal

isolated plosive reduction

SgE informal

MalE

monophthongisation

IndonE other phonological features

Figure 7.5  Overview of phonological features with separate marking of the features ‘isolated plosive reduction’ and ‘monophthongisation’

162 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The overview given in Figure 7.5 suggests that the feature ‘isolated plosive reduction’ makes up a large portion of phonological features in informal Singapore English and (informal) Malaysian English. The frequency of isolated plosive reduction is higher in Malaysian English than in informal Singapore English and as such widens the gap between the counts of phonological features in the two varieties. However, isolated plosive reduction cannot be said to play a more important part in Malaysian English than in Singapore English phonology, as the proportional representation of the feature, at 44.76% in informal Singapore English and 44.75% in (informal) Malaysian English, is virtually identical. A similar point can be made for the feature ‘monophthongisation’. It is more frequent in Malaysian English than in informal Singapore English, but the percentages in relation to the count of overall phonological features is similar for the two varieties, with 13.52% in informal Singapore English and 15.18% in (informal) Malaysian English. Consequently, the differences observed between the two ESL varieties should not be viewed as certain features being significantly more prominent in Malaysian English than in Singapore English. Instead, Malaysian English generally produces higher frequencies of phonological features than Singapore English, while the proportions for individual features are relatively similar in the two varieties, at least for the two important features singled out. The more striking difference that can be observed in Figure 7.5 concerns the clear distinctions between formal and informal registers. Frequencies for the feature ‘isolated plosive reduction’ are smaller in both formal Singapore English and (formal) Indonesian learner English than in informal Singapore English and (informal) Malaysian English. Furthermore, the percentages in relation to the count of overall phonological features is similar for the two formal registers, with 23.94% in formal Singapore English and 25.17% in Indonesian learner English. However, register cannot be said to be more important than the ESL/EFL distinction on that basis alone. As a case in point, monophthongisation is visibly more prominent in formal Singapore English (9.34% of total phonological features) than in Indonesian learner English (1.19% of total phonological features). 7.3

Malay L1 and Chinese L1 speakers

Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia all have ethnic Malay and Chinese populations. While the majority of Singaporeans are ethnic Chinese, the majority of Malaysia’s population is ethnically Malay, although a large ethnic Chinese minority exists. Ethnic Chinese constitute a small minority in Indonesia, as do ethnic Malays. However, the Malay language plays an important role in the country due to its function as a national language in the form of Indonesian. As such, it is spoken as an L1 by speakers from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. For this reason, it is not ethnicity



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 163

but L1 that is analysed as a factor. Several speakers from the Indonesian learner data are excluded from this comparison, as already mentioned in Section 5.3. The speaker AGS is excluded because she is the sole Javanese L1 speaker. The file HASZ contains four speakers, out of which three have Chinese as their L1, while the remaining speaker has Malay as his L1. As it is not possible to identify speakers with certainty, the file HASZ is excluded as well. A comparison of overall features in the categories of phonology, morphology, syntax and discourse features, while treating Malay L1 and Chinese L1 speakers as separate speaker groups, should allow us to verify whether a unifying effect exists, and if so, whether it is restricted to the ESL varieties. Such a comparison is shown in Figure 7.6. phonology

SgE(m) SgE(c) MalE(m) MalE(c) IndonE(m) IndonE(c)

morphology

syntax

discourse

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Figure 7.6  Overview of non-standard features grouped into Malay (m) L1 and Chinese (c) L1 speakers

The comparison shown in Figure 7.6 does not suggest a clear unifying effect in any variety. Only with regard to morphology are the values comparable between Malay L1 and Chinese L1 speakers in any given variety. For frequencies of syntactic values, only the learner variety displays a level of relative unity between Malay L1 and Chinese L1 speakers. In both ESL varieties, the speech of Chinese L1 speakers contains more syntactic features than does that of Malay L1 speakers. Frequencies of phonological features indicate a similar pattern in Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, i.e. clearly higher frequencies for Chinese

164 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

L1 speakers than for Malay L1 speakers. This pattern is inverted in Malaysian English, in which Malay L1 speakers clearly display higher frequencies than Chinese L1 speakers. As regards discourse features, ESL varieties are characterised by higher frequencies for Chinese L1 speakers. The frequencies for Malay L1 are smaller in both ESL varieties, but the differences are far more pronounced in Malaysian English. The learner variety exhibits a different pattern, as discourse features are more frequent for Malay L1 speakers, but the differences observed are relatively small. To summarise, a unifying effect can only be observed for morphological features in all varieties and syntactical features for the learner variety, while other features exhibit discernible differences between Chinese and Malay L1 speakers. 7.4

Learner proficiency

This section attempts to answer the question of whether Indonesian learner English comes to resemble the ESL varieties with increasing learner proficiency. The measure used is the years learners have spent learning English. As already mentioned in Section 5.3, the file HASZ contains four speakers, who cannot be identified with certainty. As the speakers have been learning English for different periods of time, the file is excluded from this analysis. Thus, 24 files are available for this analysis, comprising 25 speakers, as the file TU features two speakers who have been learning English for the same period of time. This file is treated as a single entity as it is not possible to identify the individual speakers with certainty. It should be noted that the speakers are not evenly distributed across the various periods of English language learning, as can be seen in Figure 7.7. The distribution given in Figure 7.7 shows that while certain groups are represented by several speakers, from two to five speakers (e.g. speakers who have been learning English for eight years), certain groups feature only a single speaker (e.g. three years) or no speakers at all (e.g. eleven years). As the number of speakers per proficiency level does not follow a normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test for normality: W = 0.91548, p = 0.04644*; cf. Baayen 2008: 73), the correlation tests preformed in this section resort to a non-parametric method, specifically Spearman’s rank correlation test (cf. Baayen 2008: 91). The possible impact of the number of years of learning English on the frequency of non-standard features is visualised with the help of scatterplots, one for each category. The frequencies observed in the individual files are each normalised to 10,000 words to accommodate the different file sizes, ranging from 506 words to 3,272 words. The overall frequencies observed for the ESL varieties are marked for

Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 165

number of speakers



5 6 3 2 1 0

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

14

15

17

density

years of learning English

0.1

0

5

10

15

years of learning English

Figure 7.7  Distribution of speakers by number of years of learning English at the time of recording

reference, also normalised to 10,000 words. The values for Malaysian English are indicated by a dashed line, those for informal Singapore English by a dotted line, and those for formal Singapore English by a dashed-dotted line. 7.4.1 Phonological features As has been previously observed in Section 7.2 (cf. Figure 7.4), the frequency of phonological features in Indonesian learner English lies between the frequencies observed for the formal and informal registers of Singapore English, and is considerably lower than the frequency observed for Malaysian English. An analysis of the frequencies of phonological features in Indonesian learner English at various stages of English language learning should make it possible to see whether learners undergo a certain development with increasing proficiency, or whether the frequency between those of formal and informal registers of Singapore English remains constant. Such an analysis is given in Figure 7.8, with values normalised for 10,000 words. The normalised frequencies of individual Indonesian learners of English given in Figure 7.8 suggest a non-significant low positive correlation (rs = 0.1244836, p = 0.5622, n.s.) between the number of years of learning English and the frequency of phonological features. Despite the lack of a noteworthy correlation, a certain

166 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition



normalised frequency













   years of learning English





Figure 7.8  Scatterplot of phonological features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English

observation can be made. The data contain speakers whose frequency of phonological features lies below that of formal Singapore English as well as speakers whose frequency lies above that of Malaysian English. Yet the scatterplot smoother line (in light red), which “smoothes away all the turbulence around the main trend in the data” (Baayen 2008: 34), starts below the frequency of formal Singapore English for speakers learning English for less than six years, subsequently crosses into the region between the formal and informal registers of Singapore English and remains there. This suggests that Indonesian learners of English have a less marked accent in their early period of language learning and later on produce non-standard phonological features in frequencies comparable to those of Singapore English. This development implies that in an early learning phase, learners tend to comply with as many target language norms as possible, while in a later phase, they comply only with those norms they deem relevant to successful international communication (cf. the discussion on learner attitudes in Chapter 9).

Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 167



7.4.2 Morphological features Morphological features are more frequent in Indonesian learner English than in Malaysian English, which in turn displays a higher frequency than Singapore English (cf. Figure 7.4 in Section 7.2). An analysis of the frequencies of morphological features in Indonesian learner English at various stages of English language learning should make it possible to see whether learners come closer to ESL varieties in terms of morphology with increasing proficiency, or whether the opposite holds true. Such an analysis is given in Figure 7.9, with values normalised for 10,000 words. 

normalised frequency













   years of learning English





Figure 7.9  Scatterplot of morphological features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English

The plot shown in Figure 7.9 displays a non-significant intermediate positive correlation (rs = 0.2454606, p = 0.2476, n.s.). The frequencies of Indonesian learners generally lie above the frequency observed for Malaysian English, with only three speakers displaying frequencies lower than those for Malaysian English. None

168 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

of the frequencies lie below the frequencies observed for Singapore English. The course followed by the scatterplot smoother line suggests that the frequency of nonstandard morphological features increases with the number of years spent learning English, thereby widening the gap between the learner variety and the ESL varieties. However, this increase is slight and not entirely steady. 7.4.3 Syntactic features Syntax constitutes the category for which the ESL varieties, and the informal registers of Singapore English and Malaysian English in particular, display the greatest degree of uniformity as opposed to the learner variety (cf. Figure 7.4 in Section 7.2). The question arises of whether increased learner proficiency, as measured in years of learned English, widens or narrows the gap between the syntax of the learner variety and that of the ESL varieties. Figure 7.10 displays the normalised frequencies of non-standard syntactic features in relation to the learners’ number of years of learning English, with values normalised for 10,000 words. 



normalised frequency















   years of learning English





Figure 7.10  Scatterplot of syntactic features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years learning English



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 169

The frequencies of syntactic features by speaker shown in Figure 7.10 present the only scenario of a negative correlation, specifically a statistically significant negative correlation (rs = −0.4554171, p = 0.02533*). All the frequencies observed lie above those of the ESL varieties, with only two learners displaying frequencies very close to that of Malaysian English. In spite of the level of scattering observed (R2 = 0.2676), the scatterplot smoother line suggests a clear trend. With an increasing number of years of learning English, the frequencies of non-standard syntactic features observed for Indonesian speakers appear to slope towards the lower frequencies of the ESL varieties. This decline seems to reach a temporary plateau between the seventh and tenth year of learning English, but the overall trend points to a gradual drop of non-standard syntactic features towards ESL levels with increasing proficiency. 7.4.4 Discourse features The frequencies of discourse features display great differences between the ESL varieties and the learner variety on the one hand, as well as between the formal and informal registers of Singapore English on the other (cf. Figure 7.4 in Section 7.2). The formal register of Singapore English and the learner variety also exhibit comparable frequencies of discourse features. Figure 7.11 gives the frequencies (normalised for 10,000 words) of discourse features of individual speakers in relation to the number of years of learning English in order to investigate whether increasing proficiency has any impact on learners’ tendency to use discourse features. The frequencies of discourse features broken down by speaker and shown in Figure 7.11 suggest that the use of discourse features by Indonesian learners of English stays relatively close to that of formal Singapore English. With the exception of two outliers, the frequencies lie below the frequencies of informal ESL registers. The frequencies present a non-significant low positive correlation (rs = 0.1590188, p = 0.458, n.s.) and a high level of scattering (R2 = 0.004619), which may in part be due to the presence of the two outliers. Excluding the outliers yields a lower degree of scattering (R2 = 0.01409), which remains very high nonetheless, and the correlation does not display any noteworthy change (rs = 0.07149168, p = 0.7519, n.s.). The course of the scatterplot smoother line suggests that learners tend to use discourse features more often in their early learning phase. This most likely represents code-switching as a fallback strategy rather than the use of discourse particles. The use of discourse features drops with increasing proficiency, only to rise again between the seventh and ninth year of English language learning. After the ninth year, the use of discourse features decreases gradually but slightly. However, the rise observed between the seventh and ninth years may be distorted by the two outliers. Redrawing a new scatterplot smoother line (in dark red) that excludes the two outliers suggests only a very slight increase and a relatively constant rate of discourse feature use thereafter.

170 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition



normalised frequency















   years of learning English





Figure 7.11  Scatterplot of discourse features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English

7.4.5 Features unique to the learner variety A small number of features are unique (or virtually unique) to the learner variety. The list includes the non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ and /f/, devoicing in non-final word position, as well as absence of marking for the progressive and perfect aspects and the passive voice. The question arises as to why these features occur in the learner variety but not in the ESL varieties. Two different explanations appear plausible. The first explanation considers the nativisation process to be responsible for excluding features such as the aforementioned examples from the nativised varieties. The features enter a feature pool, as defined by Mufwene (2001: 4–6), but are not selected to be conventionalised by the speech community. The second explanation is based on the premise that the features at hand do not make it into the feature pool in the first place. Instead, they wane with increasing learner proficiency and no longer constitute a feature by the time the nativisation process begins.

Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 171



In order to test which explanation is more plausible, the normalised frequencies of these features can be analysed in relation to learner proficiency, measured in years of learning English. The aforementioned features are generally rare, numbering no more than a dozen tokens. The single exception is the non-standard realisation of /ʃ/, which displays a frequency of 454 occurrences per 100,000 words in the Indonesian data. This feature will be tested since it is the only feature unique to the learner variety for which a certain level of regularity can be observed in the data. As only a single token of this feature is found in the ESL varieties, the feature can be regarded as virtually unique to the learner variety. A significant decrease in frequency with increasing time learning English would be in favour of the second explanation, i.e. that the feature is phased out from the learner variety and never enters the feature pool. On the other hand, a relatively constant frequency, or even an increase, would point to the first explanation, i.e. that the feature enters the feature pool but is subsequently not selected in the process of nativisation. Figure 7.12 shows the normalised frequencies (per 10,000 words) for the non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ in relation to the number of years of learning English. 200

normalised frequency

150

100

50

0

4

6

8 10 12 years of learning English

14

16

Figure 7.12  Scatterplot of non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English

172 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The plot shown in Figure 7.12 does not suggest a decrease of non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ with increasing proficiency, but rather the opposite. The overall trend, represented by the scatterplot smoother line, points to an overall increase of non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ with increasing proficiency, which is confirmed by a statistically significant positive correlation (rs = 0.4601195, p = 0.02367*). This increase is not steady, but it is clearly noticeable that the three learners who have spent the largest amount of time learning English, i.e. seventeen years (at the time of recording), use non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ far more frequently than the three learners who spent less than six years learning English. The members of the latter group scarcely use the feature, if at all. This suggests that features existing in a learner variety can be discarded by the nativisation process and consequently be absent from the resulting nativised variety. 7.4.6 Acquisition of grammatical morphemes Several researchers, e.g. Dulay and Burt (1973), propose an order of acquisition common to all English language learners. With regard to a learner variety giving rise to an ESL variety after the process of nativisation, the relevant question is the following: To what extent is the level of acquisition of grammatical morphemes achieved by learners prior to the nativisation process responsible for the morphosyntactic features of the resulting ESL variety? This question could be partially answered by comparing the levels of acquisition of grammatical morphemes by Indonesian learners in relation to their proficiency with the features observed in the ESL varieties. In their meta-analysis of previous research on the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes by learners of English, Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) review a number of scoring/coding systems used to determine the standard use of grammatical morphemes. One of the methods discussed is the concept of suppliance in obligatory contexts (henceforth SOC) introduced by Brown (1973). This index counts the number of obligatory contexts, i.e. contexts in which the morpheme in question is required in a standard variety, and calculates the rate of accuracy with which learners use the morpheme. The SOC score has subsequently been expanded by awarding half-credits for cases in which a morpheme is required but an incorrect one is provided (cf. Dulay & Burt 1973). Given this change, the SOC score is generally obtained using the formula shown below (Pica 1983: 474): n misformations n correct suppliance ×2+ ×1 in obligatory context in obligatory context _________________________________________________ SOC = total obligatory contexts × 2



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 173

However, the SOC score poses two problems. Firstly, it describes learners’ language production purely in terms of compliance to the rules of the target language ideal (Goldschneider & DeKeyser 2001: 17). The second problem is that it does not account for the use of grammatical morphemes in unexpected contexts (Lightbown et al. 1980; Pica 1983). According to Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001: 17), “[a] student may appear to be completely accurate in the use of particular functors because s/he supplies them in all obligatory contexts, but may also use them inappropriately in other contexts”. An alternative measure, which is similar to the SOC but takes unexpected marking into account, is the scoring method called TargetLike Use (henceforth TLU), which uses the following formula (Pica 1983: 474): n correct suppliance in obligatory contexts TLU = _____________________________________________________ (n obligatory contexts) + (n suppliance in nonobligatory contexts)

In spite of the advantages of the TLU, Goldschneider and DeKeyser (2001) have to opt for the SOC since most of the studies they review rely on this scoring methodology (2001: 18). However, this restriction does not apply to the present study, so that the TLU scoring system can be used in order to assess the level of standard use of specific grammatical morphemes. The TLU scoring can be applied to grammatical morphemes that have been annotated for absence, unexpected use and standard use. Non-standard forms are also marked, but the TLU formula does not need to be modified to include these cases. The features marked for the aforementioned parameters are the plural marker, the past tense marker, the third person singular present tense marker -s, and the articles a, an and the. The latter have not specifically been annotated for standard use; however, these cases can be easily retrieved. The TLU score indicates learners’ accuracy in relation to an ideal L1 target language. However, this is not the current concern. Instead, the focus lies on the differences between the learner variety and the ESL varieties. Nevertheless, the TLU measure can serve as a reference point when TLU scores for the ESL varieties are also given. TLU scores for Malaysian English are marked by a dashed line, those for Singapore English by a dotted line. The TLU scores for the four aforemetioned grammatical morphemes are given in Figure 7.13. The four panels in Figure 7.13 show very different pictures for the different grammatical morphemes analysed. The TLU scores for plural marking suggest that standard plural marking is clearly lower in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties. A growing number of years of learning English does not appear to change this, given that the correlation observed in not significant (rs = 0.03765216, p = 0.8613, n.s.). One of the learners with 17 years of experience in learning English displays a TLU score that is very close to those of the ESL varieties, but the fact that the two

174 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

rd person





.

. TLU score

TLU score

plural

. .



























years of learning English

past

article





.

.

. .



. . .

. 



years of learning English

TLU score

TLU score

. .

. 

.













years of learning English



















years of learning English

Figure 7.13  Scatterplots of TLU scores of grammatical morphemes in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English

other learners with the same amount of experience have TLU scores close to 0 does not suggest a correlation of learning experience and similarity to ESL varieties. The overall trend, represented by the scatterplot smoother line, indicates a very low TLU score throughout the learning stages. The second panel is concerned with third person singular present tense -s marking and displays a non-significant low positive correlation (rs = 0.08360919, p = 0.6977, n.s.). The course of the scatterplot smoother line suggests that during the first nine years of English language learning, learners come close to third person singular present tense -s marking found in Malaysian English, but subsequently distance themselves slightly from the ESL variety. The third panel covers past tense marking and is the only one to exhibit a negative correlation, specifically a non-significant low negative correlation (rs = −0.2139615, p = 0.3154, n.s.). Rather than becoming more similar to the ESL varieties with an increasing number of years of learning English, the past tense marking used by learners with increasing experience in learning English appears



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 175

to grow further apart from that of the ESL varieties (as well as the TL ideal). The scatterplot smoother line suggests that learners start off with past tense marking similar to that in the ESL varieties in their early period of English language learning. However, the TLU scores continuously distance themselves from those of the ESL varieties until the seventh year of English language learning, and remain relatively constant thereafter. The TLU scores for article use shown in the fourth panel are generally close to the values of the ESL varieties (as well as the TL ideal). The course of the scatterplot smoother line suggests that the article usage of learners is different from that in the ESL varieties in the early years of English language learning, but continuously moves towards ESL usage with an increasing number of years of learning English, although not in a statistically significant manner (rs = 0.3782724, p = 0.06836, n.s.). Of the four grammatical morphemes analysed, only article usage displays a visible and steady move towards ESL usage. This sets article usage apart from the other three morphemes taken into account. The difference may lie in the fact that articles are free morphemes, while the remaining morphemes are bound morphemes. Similar to the non-standard realisation of /ʃ/, the differences between the learner variety and the ESL varieties suggest that the process of nativisation causes far-reaching changes that cannot be attributed to increased learner proficiency. 7.4.7 Learner fluency A further point worth investigating is concerned with possible differences in the rapidity of speech between the ESL varieties and the learner variety. For the purpose of the present test, rapidity of speech is measured in words per minute. The actual time spoken is used rather than the total length of the recording in order to exclude periods of silence and speech of the interviewer. These values are extracted from the “Text Grid” files created by Praat with help of a Python script, then combined with the word counts to estimate a rapidity of speech measure for each individual file. An overview of rapidity of speech measures for the three varieties is given in Table 7.3, with values rounded to the nearest integer. Table 7.3  Overview of rapidity of speech (ROS) measures in words per minute Variety

SgE

MalE

IndonE

Mean ROS Lowest ROS Highest ROS

154  95 234

171 156 198

105  60 143

176 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The values given in Table 7.3 indicate that the learner variety generally displays slower speech than the ESL varieties, to such an extent that the Indonesian learner displaying the fastest speech is slower than the slowest Malaysian speaker. In addition, Malaysian English exhibits the smallest variation in speech rapidity, but this may be due to the fact that the twelve files represent only four speakers, all recorded in an informal setting. The question that arises is whether the higher speech fluency observed in the ESL varieties is a result of the nativisation process, or rather increasing learner proficiency. To answer that question, the rapidity of speech values for Indonesian learners are broken down by learner proficiency measured in years learning English and compared to the average values of the ESL varieties. The results are shown in Figure 7.14. 

Years of learning English















  words per minute





Figure 7.14  Scatterplot of rapidity of speech measures in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English



Chapter 7.  Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 177

The distribution of rapidity of speech values shown in Figure 7.14 suggests only a low positive and non-significant correlation between the number of years of learning English and fluency of speech (rs = 0.05610529, p = 0.7946, n.s.). The scatterplot smoother line remains relatively stagnant throughout the learning period, displaying only a small drop between the seventh and tenth year of learning English, and a slight rise thereafter. Increased speech rapidity in ESL varieties can therefore be assumed to be the product of nativisation, which also implies the use of English in a wider variety of occasions and contexts.

chapter 8

Implications for postcolonial Englishes and the ESL/EFL distinction

The present chapter discusses insights gained in the two preceding chapters in relation to the following topics: the role of second-language acquisition in the genesis of postcolonial Englishes, the ESL/EFL distinction, and postcolonial developments in the three varieties under investigation. 8.1

The genesis of postcolonial Englishes

The premise of the present study was to view Indonesian learner English as a hypothetical “stage 0” addition to Schneider’s (2007) model of postcolonial Englishes. When it is assumed that the non-nativised learner variety bears similarities to Malay L1 learner English in Singapore and Malaysia prior to the process of nativisation, the impact of said process can be assessed. In order to postulate that ESL features have their origin in learner errors, a certain degree of correspondence has to be observable between the features found in the ESL varieties and the learner variety. This largely appears to be the case, as out of a total of 34 features observed in the categories phonology, morphology and syntax, only four features attested in an ESL variety are not encountered in Indonesian learner English (cf. Table 6.43 in Section 6.2.2). It should be noted that three of these features are syntactic features. This fact is not surprising since syntax is the domain in which the ESL varieties and the learner variety display the greatest differences. In contrast, Singapore English is relatively similar to Indonesian learner English in terms of phonological features when contrasted with the high frequency of phonological features in Malaysian English (cf. Figure 6.15 in Section 6.5.1 and Figure 7.4 in Section 7.2). This suggests that phonological features are more likely to “survive” the nativisation process than syntactic features. In addition, the fact that three syntactic features are not found in the learner variety indicates that the nativisation process may have innovative syntactic structures as a result. The observation that phonology appears to be less affected by nativisation than syntax is in line with Schneider’s description of the process resulting in a marked local accent which can frequently be explained by transfer phenomena from the phonology of indigenous languages (2007: 44).

180 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

However, not all phonological features of the learner variety are represented in the ESL varieties. This suggests that the nativisation process does not systematically adopt existing accent features. Two scenarios are possible for the absence of certain accent features in the ESL varieties. The first one maintains that accent features decrease with increasing learner proficiency and are already phased out by the time the nativisation process begins. The other explanation sees accent features as existent in English learner language production at the onset of the nativisation process, but not selected and thus not part of the nativised variety. The question as to which of these scenarios is the more probable is addressed in Section 7.4.5. As was shown in Section 5.4.5, the non-standard realisation of the phoneme /ʃ/ is the most prominent accent feature of the learner variety not featured in the ESL varieties (with only a single exception encountered in Singapore English). Figure 7.13 indicates that rather than phasing out the feature with increasing learner proficiency, learners tend to use the feature more prominently the longer they learn English. This suggests that the feature is discarded during the process of nativisation rather than phased out by increasing learner proficiency prior to it. An illustration of the selection (and non-selection) of phonological features is given in Figure 8.1. Learner features

Feature pool

Nativised variety features

Non-standard realisation of /θ/

Non-standard realisation of /θ/

Non-standard realisation of /θ/

Non-standard realisation of /ð/

Non-standard realisation of /ð/

Non-standard realisation of /ð/

Non-standard realisation of /∫/

Non-standard realisation of /∫/

Figure 8.1  Illustration of feature selection in the nativisation process

Chapter 8.  Implications for postcolonial Englishes and the ESL/EFL distinction 181



Figure 8.1 uses the aforementioned non-standard realisation of /ʃ/, as well as two other examples of phonological features encountered in the learner variety, namely the non-standard realisations of /θ/ and /ð/. These features enter the feature pool (Mufwene 2001: 4–6) and thereby serve as input to the nativisation process. A feature present in the feature pool may or may not be represented in the nativised variety. Some of the features in the feature pool are conventionalised by the speech community while some are not (Van Rooy 2011: 204). For the examples given in Figure 8.1, the non-standard realisations of /θ/ and /ð/ are instances of features that have been conventionalised by the speech community, while the non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ is not selected from the feature pool. The process of nativisation appears to be more subtle than consisting simply of selection versus non-selection of a given feature. This is best demonstrated by the recurring observation that non-standard features display a wider range of realisations in the learner variety than in the nativised varieties (cf. Table 6.44 in Section 6.5.2). An illustration of this more subtle type of selection is given in Figure 8.2. Feature pool

Learner features [f ] Non-standard realisation of /θ/ [ɾ]

[ɪ]

[f ]

[d]

[ɾ]

aux. verb

[t]

[t]

[e]

[e]

[ʔ]

[ɪ] [ε]

[ε]

Monophthongisation [e] of /eɪ/ [з] [ɑ]

adverb

[d]

[t] [ʔ]

[ɑ]

adverb

conj.

aux. verb

[з]

conj.

copula

Redundant items Prep.

pron.

noun

Nativised variety features

copula

det. lex. verb

det.

Prep.

pron.

noun

lex. verb

det.

Prep.

pron.

noun

lex. verb

Figure 8.2  Illustration of feature range selection in the nativisation process

Figure 8.2 indicates that while the three learner features given are selected from the feature pool and are consequently present as features in the nativised variety, not all of their instantiations are adopted. This is valid for accent features as well as grammatical features. While for phonological features, only a single non-standard

182 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

realisation tends to be selected and consequently conventionalised by the speaker community, the selection process for syntactic features restricts the range of items affected by a given feature. The non-standard realisation selected may be the most frequent one in the learner variety, but not necessarily so. The realisation of /θ/ as [t] is the most frequent one in the learner variety, and is also the only variant conventionalised and therefore regularly observed in the nativised varieties. In contrast, the monophthongisation of /eɪ/ to [e] is the only variant selected by the nativisation process, yet it is one of the least used variants in the learner data, alongside [ɜ] and [ɑ]. The most frequent realisation used in the learner variety is [ɛ], followed by [ɪ]. However, these two variants are not conventionalised and are therefore absent from the nativised varieties. This selection of only a fraction of options available prior to nativisation can be thought of as a process of regularisation. This process may also entail higher frequencies of use of the given feature in the resulting nativised variety. For example, the monophthongisation of /eɪ/ offers a wider range of realisations in the learner variety, but is also used more frequently with fewer realisations in the ESL varieties. However, regularisation of realisations does not necessarily imply higher frequencies. For example, the non-standard realisation of /θ/ offers a wider range of realisations as well as higher frequencies in the learner variety. The analysis of possible substrate explanations has revealed that substrate influence can be excluded for only a minority of features. However, this does not necessarily imply that a majority of features are caused by substrate influence, as alternative SLA strategies provide explanations as well in many cases. The difficulty of identifying substrate influence with certainty is addressed separately in the following chapter. Nevertheless, the proportion of features for which substrate influence can be ruled out can be compared across varieties and may provide an insight into the genesis of nativised varieties. The rates of non-substrate features are generally similar across the three varieties under examination, with the exception of syntax, for which the rate of non-substrate features in Indonesian learner English is visibly higher than in the nativised varieties (cf. Figure 7.2 and Figure 7.3 in Section 7.1.4). This observation, in conjunction with a higher frequency of syntactic features in the learner variety, suggests that substrate features, or at least features bearing similarities to substrate typology, are more likely to be selected from the feature pool. Selection from the feature pool may not be the only explanation for observed differences between the learner variety and the nativised varieties. As previously mentioned, certain features may be phased out due to increased learner proficiency prior to the nativisation process. While this was shown to be very unlikely for the non-standard realisation of /ʃ/, the explanation can still be applied to other features. The analyses performed in Section 7.4 address this question, and reveal that this explanation is only plausible for syntactic features. The trend observed



Chapter 8.  Implications for postcolonial Englishes and the ESL/EFL distinction 183

in Figure 7.10 (cf. Section 7.4.3) indicates that frequencies of syntactic features tend to decline towards the values of ESL varieties with an increasing number of years of learning English. This may suggest that certain features are phased out to near-ESL levels prior to nativisation. However, this only holds true for syntax. For morphological features (cf. Figure 7.9 in Section 7.4.3), the trend indicates a move away from the ESL values. This is made even clearer by the analysis performed for individual grammatical morphemes in Section 7.4.6 (cf. Figure 7.14). The learner variety displays a constant degree of distance to the nativised varieties throughout all proficiency stages with regard to plural marking, while it displays similarities in early learner stages but then moves away from ESL values with regard to past tense marking. This suggests that while learner proficiency may play a role in discarding certain learner features prior to the nativisation process, the process itself still appears to be the stronger actor in the genesis of ESL varieties. 8.2

Revisiting the ESL/EFL distinction

The ESL/EFL distinction is typically defined on historical grounds, i.e. ESL is spoken in former exploitation colonies of the British Empire or the United States, while EFL countries are either former colonies of other powers, or countries that have not been colonised. This historical distinction, which is useful in terms of explaining how English came to be spoken in a given country, may not necessarily reflect linguistic reality in that the distinctions it makes may not translate into structural distinctions. The analysis of two ESL varieties and an EFL learner variety can shed light on the accuracy of the ESL/EFL labels. This can be done by verifying to what extent the two ESL varieties are alike, and to what extent they differ from the learner variety. The ESL/EFL distinction appears most accurate with regard to syntax. Figure 6.15 in Section 6.5.1 shows that the ESL varieties share relatively similar frequencies of syntactic features, whereas the frequency observed for Indonesian learner English is significantly higher than in the ESL varieties. The latter also applies to morphological features, although the ESL varieties display a lower level of uniformity in this category. The observations made for the categories morphology and syntax confirm the findings of Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2011: 184), who report “a distinction between English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) on purely structural grounds”. While this holds true for morphology and syntax, the distinction is not as clear when it comes to accent. Malaysian English displays the highest frequency of phonological features, while the frequency observed for Indonesian learner English lies between the frequencies of the formal and informal registers of Singapore English

184 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

(cf. Figure 7.4 in Section 7.2). As such, the picture of an ESL/EFL distinction in terms of phonology appears murky when compared to the clear separation observed for syntactic features. The differences in phonology combined with the similarities in syntax observed between the two ESL varieties can be summarised as “accent divides, and syntax unites”, as already mentioned in Section 6.5.1. In contrast, the relationship between ESL and EFL forms of English can be characterised by the motto “accent unites, syntax divides”. However, the “accent unites” element only applies to Singapore English and Indonesian English, as the frequency of phonological features in Malaysian English is clearly higher than in the other two varieties. It seems clear that “accent divides” for the ESL varieties on the one hand, and “accent unites” for a comparison between ESL varieties and the learner variety on the other hand, cannot be entirely valid simultaneously, since a learner accent cannot be “united” with two already “divided” nativised accents. At best, the learner accent can be thought of as filling the divide between the ESL accents, as the formal accent of Indonesian learner English appears to be more marked than the formal accent of Singapore English. While the motto “accent unites” applies only to a comparison of Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, “syntax divides” is accurate with regard to a comparison of the learner variety and both ESL varieties. With “accent divides, and syntax unites” confirmed and “accent unites, and syntax divides” only partially applicable, where does that leave morphology? As the frequency of morphological features in Malaysian English lies somewhat between those of Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, it is hard to fit morphology into any summarising maxim. What can be said is that it does not unite the ESL varieties as clearly as syntax does, but still divides them from the learner variety, although the latter is clearer for Singapore English than it is for Malaysian English. The bottom line is that there is more to the ESL/EFL distinction than a simple historical categorisation. There are, after all, clear divides in the domain of syntax, as well as less sharp divides with regard to morphology. As such, the ESL/EFL distinction can be said to be a relevant label when it comes to grammar. In addition to this structural distinction, the ESL/EFL categorisation may also be useful on other levels, as discussed below. 8.3

Other levels of the ESL/EFL distinction

The presence of two different registers in the Singaporean data has made it possible to compare different constellations of formal and informal language, namely formal Singapore English and formal Indonesian learner English on the one hand and informal Singapore English and Malaysian English on the other hand. As one



Chapter 8.  Implications for postcolonial Englishes and the ESL/EFL distinction 185

would expect, the register difference in the Singaporean data has an impact on the frequencies of features on all linguistic levels, with the formal variant displaying fewer phonological, morphological, syntactic, and above all, discourse features (cf. Figure 7.4 in Section 7.2). The effects of register in all varieties are best attested for discourse features, which display comparably low frequencies in the formal registers of Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, as well as comparably high frequencies for the informal registers of Singapore English and Malaysian English. By far the most interesting register comparison that can be made with respect to the ESL/EFL distinction is the contrast between the formal/informal registers of ESL varieties and the formal register of Indonesian learner English. In the categories of morphology and syntax, Indonesian learner English produced in a formal setting displays more non-standard features than the informal registers of the ESL varieties. This is not surprising, given the “syntax divides” situation. However, accent features provide a more subtle differentiation. The accent of Indonesian learner English produced in a formal setting is more marked than that of formal Singapore English, while it is less marked than that of informal Singapore English. A number of questions arise from this observation. Firstly, would the divide between the morphosyntax of learner English and ESL varieties be even greater in the case of informal learner English? And secondly, would the accent of Indonesian learner English produced in an informal context be more marked than that of informal Singapore English (possibly even that of Malaysian English)? While these questions are of interest in their own right, the question that needs to be addressed first and foremost is whether such a thing as “informal Indonesian learner English” exists. ESL speakers can alternate between different sub-varieties on a continuum ranging from basilectal speech, the lowest sub-variety, to acrolectal speech, the highest sub-variety. The choice of sub-variety chosen may depend on situational context and interlocutor. The scope of sub-varieties a speaker can cover depends on socio-economic factors (cf. Platt 1975: 369 for a model of sub-varieties available to Singapore English speakers in relation to socio-economic factors). For example, an educated Singaporean speaker of English may opt for a sub-variety close to standard English on formal occasions, while using a sub-variety bearing more similarities to Indonesian learner English in vernacular settings. As the learner variety, when produced in a relatively formal setting, displays more nonstandard features than formal Singapore English (and the informal ESL registers when it comes to morphosyntax), it is imaginable that either an informal subvariety of Indonesian learner English would display starker differences, or there is no register variation, and hence no sub-varieties, in the learner variety. If the latter case applies, then the ESL/EFL forms of English can be distinguished on the grounds that while ESL varieties use non-standard features by choice, English learners produce them by necessity.

186 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

In order to verify the existence of register variation in Indonesian learner English (or lack thereof), it would be necessary to analyse Indonesian learner English produced in vernacular settings. However, English is generally not used in intra-national communication. Smith (1991) reports that “many middle and upper class Indonesians will use English for peer interaction” (1991: 41), but does not elaborate on which contexts are more prone to prompt communication in English among Indonesians. The ESL/EFL distinction may not only be a useful label for structural differences with respect to grammar, but could also distinguish various sociolinguistic realities. In this sense, the ESL status denotes speaker communities in which English is used internally as well as for international communication, while English in EFL settings is mainly restricted to interaction with foreigners, as the name EFL implies. These differences in terms of contexts in which English is used have consequences on the forms of English spoken in the various settings. The dual intra- and international function of English in ESL settings provides a wider scope of situational contexts in which English is used, covering formal and informal settings, interaction with foreigners and fellow citizens, as well as official, professional and private functions. In contrast, English in an EFL country such as Indonesia is more likely to be used internationally in official or professional settings involving foreigners. These differences impact the width of the acrolect-basilect continuum, which may be minimal in EFL settings. Although the ESL/EFL distinction proved to be useful with regard to grammatical features and sociolinguistic contexts, the validity of a strict categorisation based on historical criteria should be seriously questioned. One result from the present study that casts doubt upon the rigid classification is the fact that the frequencies of morphological and syntactic features in Malaysian English stand between those of Singapore English and Indonesian learner English (cf. Figure 6.15), which suggests a cline in which Malaysian English is located at an intermediate position, rather than rigid categories offering only binary distinctions between ESL and EFL. This goes in line with recent studies investigating the ESL-EFL distinction, for example Buschfeld’s (2013) investigation of the variety status of English in Cyprus, in which she concludes that this form of English is of a hybrid ESL-EFL nature (Buschfeld 2013: 188), or the studies on the status of English in the Netherlands by Edwards (2014) and Edwards & Laporte (2015), in which the learner variety is contrasted with various ESL varieties and is found not to be strictly different (Edwards 2014: 189, Edwards & Laporte 2015: 160–161). The justification for a strict ESL/EFL distinction is further undermined when considering its focus on colonial history, as countries without a history of British or American colonisation have adopted English as an official language, for example Namibia, as studied by Buschfeld &



Chapter 8.  Implications for postcolonial Englishes and the ESL/EFL distinction 187

Kautzsch (2014), in which English plays an important role as a second language, and a generational divide can be observed before and after the introduction of English as an official language (Buschfeld & Kautzsch 2014: 147). 8.4 Postcolonial developments English has played different roles in the various language policies of the three countries under examination since they gained independence from colonial rule. While Singapore and Indonesia have generally promoted English, albeit for different reasons, Malaysia has promoted its national language at the expense of English. With regard to structural differences between Singapore English and Malaysian English, the question remains as to whether any differences observed are due to different degrees of nativisation reached by the two ESL varieties by the time of independence or whether they were nativised to comparable levels before Malaysia’s language policy reduced the role played by English, which led the perhaps once similar varieties to grow apart over approximately half a century. Furthermore, it can be asked whether Malaysia is approaching EFL status, a concept labeled as ESL− by Görlach (2002: 107). From a structural point of view, Malaysian English lies between Singapore English and Indonesian learner English in terms of syntax and morphology in particular. With regard to accent, it is more marked than the other varieties. The distance of the Malaysian English accent to the Singapore English accent appears to be smaller than its distance to the Indonesian learner accent. However, it is unclear how an informal Indonesian learner accent (if such a register distinction exists) would fare in that comparison. The fact that Malaysian English lies between Singapore English and Indonesian learner English in terms of grammar has two possible explanations, the first being that its lower degree of nativisation places it between the more nativised variety and the learner variety, the second being that Malaysian language policies have partially reversed the properties acquired during the nativisation process. Thus, it cannot be determined whether Malaysian English is turning towards EFL status on purely structural grounds. The fact that its morphological profile lies between those of Singapore English and Indonesian learner English may suggest this. However, as concerns syntax it is almost on a par with Singapore English, and its accent is significantly more marked than that of the learner variety. A further point of interest lies in the structural differences between speakers of different L1s. Figure 7.7 in Section 7.3 looks at Malay L1 and Chinese L1 subgroups and suggests that while all varieties display great differences in terms of accent

188 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

and a certain degree of homogeneity with regard to morphology, only the learner variety displays homogeneity when it comes to syntactic features. The fact that the learner variety shows greater unity between Malay L1 and Chinese L1 in terms of morphosyntax casts doubt on the concept of a unifying effect taking place during nativisation (Schneider 2007: 146). Not only is there a certain degree of unity in a non-nativised learner variety, but there is a greater L1 discrepancy in nativised varieties. Before dismissing the concept of a unifying effect, it should be taken into consideration that Chinese L1 speakers in Indonesia constitute a much smaller minority than they do in Malaysia, let alone in Singapore, where they are the majority. As such, a certain unifying effect already exists in Indonesia, where ethnic Chinese speak and use Indonesian alongside Chinese, and use Indonesian almost exclusively in the fields of education and media. The unifying effect in Indonesia is so established that many ethnic Chinese Indonesians have Indonesian as their L1 and do not speak Chinese. This situation can be regarded as different from that in the ESL countries, where the proportion of the ethnic Chinese population is significantly higher. A further possible explanation for the greater differences observed in the ESL varieties may be incipient differentiation, i.e. Schneider’s stage 5 (2007: 52–54). In this stage, identities are formed not only on the national level, but also on that of the immediate community (2007: 52–53). Linguistic effects of stage 5 include increasing regional differences and ethnic dialect markers (2007: 54). While the observed differences can be taken as symptoms of incipient differentiation in Singapore English, which is reported to have reached stage 4 (2007: 153), such an explanation appears less plausible for Malaysian English, which is only said to have reached stage 3 (2007: 148). However, the phases of Schneider’s model and their characteristics do not necessarily follow a strict order. “[N]ot all characteristics of a given phase occur exactly simultaneously: it is normal for individual characteristics of a certain stage to appear earlier than others, or to be delayed, as well as for elements of subsequent but distinct stages to overlap and co-occur in time” (Schneider 2007: 57). It is therefore conceivable that first signs of differentiation can be attested in Malaysian English before the variety has acquired all the characteristics of stage 4.

chapter 9

Conclusion and outlook

The present study has analysed the ESL varieties Singapore English and Malaysian English as well as Indonesian learner English in the light of their structural differences. The first aim was to investigate the role played by learner errors in the genesis of postcolonial varieties of English and how this role relates to the process of nativisation. The second aim was to verify the relevance of the ESL/EFL distinction, defined as a historical criterion, with respect to linguistic realities. The main conclusions that can be drawn from the analyses performed are that with only a few exceptions, features found in the ESL varieties also exist in the learner variety, which suggests that learner errors constitute a major portion of features selected from the feature pool. The fact that three out of four features unique to the nativised varieties are syntactic features indicates that it is in the domain of syntax that the greatest amount of restructuring occurs in the course of the nativisation process. Furthermore, the selection process occurring during nativisation not only applies to the selection of features as a whole, but also to the selection of specific variants of a given feature. This is instantiated in a small number of nonstandard realisations of a given phoneme being selected from a wider range in the learner variety, or a small number of elements affected by a given syntactic feature selected from a wider range of elements affected in the learner variety. With regard to the ESL/EFL distinction, it can be said to be relevant for structural differences in the domain of grammar, but not accent. While the truism “accent divides, and syntax unites” applies to a comparison between the two ESL varieties, the ESL/EFL distinction can be summarised as “accent sometimes unites, and syntax always divides”. Differences with respect to rapidity of speech were also observed. In addition, the distinction can serve as an indicator for the sociolinguistic properties of English varieties. The ESL label implies a wider range of functions of English coupled with a greater scope of possible sub-varieties on the acrolectbasilect continuum. In contrast, the use of English in EFL forms is restricted to only a few settings, notably international communication, which limits the range of register variation. Although the ESL/EFL distinction is useful in terms of structural and sociolinguistic properties, it should be conceptualised as a cline rather a rigid categorisation. This is justified by the position of Malaysian English as somewhat in between Singapore English and Indonesian learner English, and is also supported by recent studies investigating the ESL/EFL distinction based on other varieties (cf. Buschfeld 2013, Edwards 2014, Edwards & Laporte 2015).

190 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

The actual range of register variation could not be properly assessed in the present study, due mostly to the fact that the data obtained for Indonesian learner English was recorded in a relatively formal setting. This leaves the question open as to whether register variation, as well as other types of sociolinguistic variation, exist in EFL forms of English, and if so to what extent. A comparison of sociolinguistic variation across Singapore English, Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English would yield some answers to this question. Such an investigation requires formal and informal data for all the varieties involved. Such data are available for Singapore English, and will be available for Malaysian English once the compilation of the Malaysian ICE corpus is completed. As for Indonesian data, it is highly unlikely to encounter English spoken in informal contexts, which may in fact be one of the clearest signs of the ESL/EFL distinction with regard to sociolinguistic realities. Data of informal English conversations between Indonesians and foreign peers could no doubt be obtained, but this does not constitute the exact same setting as the intra-national informal use of English encountered in the neighbouring ESL countries. The form of English as it is used in conversations with foreigners is more likely to differ from the English used in conversations with fellow citizens. For one, the latter is less likely to feature discourse particles and instances of code-mixing and code-switching. Accent and grammar may be affected as well. As previously mentioned, Smith (1991: 41) says that many upper and middle-class Indonesians use English for peer interaction, yet it remains unclear to what extent this is the case. The collection of informal spoken English among Indonesians, as well as betweens Indonesians and foreigners, would make it possible to investigate sociolinguistic variation across ESL and EFL varieties. In addition to variation due to formal/informal settings and local/foreign interlocutors, the variation due to written/spoken language should be investigated as well. Non-standard features have already been attested for ESL varieties in written language. For example, Ho (2003) reports a non-standard past tense marking feature in written Singapore English similar to the contextual past tense marking described in Section 6.2.2. Non-standard forms in written language are also attested in the EFL country Indonesia (see Figure 9.1).21 Written data should also be analysed along sociolinguistic variables such as degrees of formality and intended readership. Formal written data could, for example, be obtained from English language newspapers published in the different countries, e.g. The Straits Times and The New Paper in Singapore, The New Straits Times and The Star in Malaysia, or The Jakarta Post and The Jakarta Globe in Indonesia.

21. Photograph by Evi Nurfidianti, reproduced by permission.



Chapter 9.  Conclusion and outlook 191

Figure 9.1  Bilingual sign at Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in 2011, displaying two non-standard features in the English language portion

The lines along which sociolinguistic variation can differ in ESL and EFL forms of English can be expressed along four major clines. The first cline is register with the extremes formal and informal; the second cline is the type of the interlocutor, who can be foreign or local; the third cline is educational background, which ranges from a high level of education to a low level of education; the fourth cline is medium, which distinguishes between written and spoken language. These four clines are displayed in the form of a model in Figure 9.2. The clines are pictured in a circle rather than a quadrilateral in order to allow for any potential additional clines. The proximity to the central circle labeled Standard English does not represent a proximity to standard English per se, but rather a given variety’s maximum proximity to a prototypical standard form of English. As such, the range of maximum proximity and maximum distance to standard English for an ESL variety (combination of light pink and dark pink circles) is far greater than that of an EFL form of English (dark pink circle only). This means that the collection of English language data in (near-)natural conditions is possible in a greater variety of settings for an ESL variety than for an EFL form of English. For example, the cline educational background in Singapore English covers speakers with high educational backgrounds who have a wide range of sub-varieties at their disposal, and which may include acrolectal speech and basilectal speech, whereas a speaker with

192 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

a lower educational background may only vary between mesolectal and basilectal sub-varieties. In contrast, an educated Indonesian speaker may speak English with little variation according to degrees of formality, while Indonesians with lower levels of education might not speak English at all. Similar examples can be given for the other clines. Indonesian speakers of English are more likely to use English exclusively with foreigners, and are more likely to read and write English only as opposed to also speaking and hearing it in oral conversations.

ES

L

Register

informal

ES

L/

EF

L

formal

Interlocutor local

Standard English

foreign

written

spoken

Medium

Educational background

high level

low level

Figure 9.2  Model of the range of sociolinguistic variation of English in ESL and EFL settings

In addition to the range of possible settings, the structural properties of ESL and EFL forms of English can be compared for equal settings along the four clines. This may provide insights not only with respect to structural differences in a given situational setting, but also with regard to the structural variation as situational settings change. It should be noted that the cline interlocutor could distinguish several intermediate points, namely foreigners with the same L1 and locals with a different L1. The question here is how, say, an ethnic Chinese Singaporean would communicate



Chapter 9.  Conclusion and outlook 193

with an ethnic Chinese Thai. Would they communicate in English at all (rather than Chinese), and if so, would this form of Singapore English differ significantly from Singapore English used to communicate with an ethnic Malay Singaporean? These intermediate points are not marked on the interlocutor cline, as it is not certain in which order they should be positioned. A further point that was treated in the present study concerned substrate influence as a possible origin of learner errors and features of nativised varieties of English. Although substrate influence is plausible for many of the features observed, alternative SLA strategies were equally effective in explaining features in many cases. Because of this, features were classified according to the possibility of excluding substrate influence. While this resulted in overall high proportions of potentially substrate influenced features, a significant difference between ESL varieties and the learner variety could be observed in the domain of syntax. However, judging a given feature to be “potentially substrate influenced” cannot be deemed satisfactory if one wants to assess the importance of L1 transfer versus universal learner errors, or L1 transfer versus innovation in the context of nativisation. In the end, the fact that a given feature is plausibly explainable by substrate influence does not mean it is actually the result of L1 transfer. Mesthrie (2008b: 634) notes that broadly attributing features of ESL varieties to transfer seems improbable, given that there are extensive similarities across New Englishes from Africa and Asia, which cover more than a thousand substrate languages. However, neither can substrate influences be entirely excluded on that basis, as a feature occurring across many varieties may have a different cause in each case (Hilbert 2011: 141). A possible methodology for “closing in” on specific features’ actual origins may consist in comparing a wide range of ESL varieties and learner Englishes that represent a collection of typologically different substrate languages, akin to the comparative analysis by Schreier (2005: 158–196) for consonant cluster reduction. Only features unique to ESL varieties and learner Englishes with substrate languages displaying a certain typological trait can then be thought of as substrate features with any degree of certainty. Ideally, this should be done for spoken and written data in order to investigate the substrate influence on grammatical and accent features. Such a cross-comparison may be possible when spoken learner corpora such as the Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage are released. The investigation of Indonesian learner English presents some interesting questions with regard to the concept of a Target Language (TL) in the study of Second Language Acquisition (SLA). The analyses performed in Section 7.4 looked at frequencies of non-standard features in relation to the number of years spent learning English. The fact that all but two tests (i.e. syntactic features and non-standard realisation of /ʃ/) returned non-significant results suggests that there is little to no correlation between increasing periods of time spent learning English and

194 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

target-like use. More often than not, speakers tended to distance themselves from the TL norm the longer they learned English. Of course, one can be quick to blame the Indonesian education system and/or its teacher training programmes, but the cause of this phenomenon may also lie in the fact that learners may not see standard English as their actual learning target. Indeed, the development Indonesian learners of English follow appears to be in line with Siegel’s (2009) description of a certain learner attitude: But the purpose of learning this language is not for integration into the society of its speakers. Rather it may be at first for limited communication with these speakers, and later predominantly for communication with other learners or former learners. In either case, the goal is not necessarily to acquire the language as it is spoken by its original speakers. Therefore, the learners go through the normal processes of SLA but acquire only as much as they need, and adopt alterations to the language that suit their own purposes and reflect their own identities.  (2009: 585)

Siegel’s account of this learner attitude towards SLA, which he describes as “not so much imperfect as it is strategic or adaptive” (2009: 585), begs the question of whether the study of SLA should be strictly divided into SLA in native speaker societies on the one hand and SLA in foreign language contexts on the other hand, with the TL concept only applicable to the former type. While the syllabus requirements in many EFL contexts may formulate a native form of English as a target language ideal, learners may depart from said learning target once their focus shifts to effective communication with speakers from other language backgrounds (who may not adhere to native-speaker norms either), rather than a native-like language proficiency. Whether a learning target applies in one SLA context and not another can be tested by comparisons of learner production in ENL immigration settings and foreign language learning settings, e.g. Indonesians learning English in an ENL country (typically students rather than immigrants) versus Indonesians learning English in Indonesia, as recorded for the purpose of the present study. The main idea of the present study was to compare ESL and EFL forms of English that shared a common substrate language. The conclusions reached may give insights into the properties of the nativisation process and the ensuing nativised varieties of English, as well as the ESL/EFL distinction. However, these conclusions may be unique to the varieties at hand and may not necessarily be applicable to nativisation and the ESL/EFL distinction in general. Ideally, the present study should be complemented by investigating other cases that consist of a similar constellation, i.e. ESL and EFL forms of English that share a common substrate language. One such case that is suitable is the contrast between Hong Kong English, an ESL variety, and learner English in neighbouring Cantonese speaking regions in the People’s Republic of China. Comparable cases can also be found in Africa,



Chapter 9.  Conclusion and outlook 195

for instance a comparison between Kiswahili L1 speakers in ESL countries such as Uganda and Tanzania on the one hand, and Kiswahili L1 English language learners in EFL countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi on the other. Such a comparison bears a similarity to the present study in that Tanzania has reduced the role of English in the wake of its independence as Malaysia did (Schneider 2007: 1), so that a comparison between ESL+ and ESL− may be possible in addition to an ESL/EFL comparison. Furthermore, this particular constellation could also be used to investigate the role of a superstrate language on learner language production, as French, unlike Dutch in Indonesia, still remains in use in certain African EFL countries. A collection of such research projects would enrich and refine the conclusions drawn in the course of the present study and possibly provide valuable insights not only with regard to the genesis of postcolonial varieties of English and the current status of the ESL/EFL distinction, but also in relation to general postcolonial development trends. Analyses of the differences in such trends, as well as their foreseeable trajectories in both ESL and EFL societies, may lead to a gradual redefinition of the ENL/ESL/EFL distinction, and thus more accurately reflect the changing role of English, or rather Englishes, around the world.

References

Andersen, R. 1983. Transfer to somewhere. In Language Transfer in Language Learning: Issues in Second Language Research, S. Glass & L. Selinker (eds), 177–201. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Anthony, L. 2006. AntConc (Version 3.2.0m) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. (15 November 2006). Asmah, H. O. 1977. The Phonological Diversity of the Malay Dialects. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Asmah, H. O. 1979. Language Planning for Unity and Efficiency. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit Universiti Malaya. Asmah, H. O. 1989. The Malay Spelling Reform. Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society 1989(2): 9–13. (December 2015). Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R. ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511801686 Baldwin, T. & Su’ad A. 2006. Open Source Corpus Analysis Tools for Malay. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2006), 2212–2215. Genoa. (July 2011). Bao, Z. 1998. The sounds of Singapore English. In English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore, J. A. Foley, T. Kandiah, Bao Z., A. F. Gupta, L. Alsagoff, H. C. Lick, L. Wee, I. S. Talib & W. Bokhorst-Heng (eds), 152–174. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Management/Oxford University Press. Baskaran, L. 1994. The Malaysian English mosaic. English Today 37: 27–32. doi:  10.1017/S0266078400000857

Baskaran, L. 2008a. Malaysian English: phonology. In Varieties of English 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, R. Mesthrie (ed), 278–291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Baskaran, L. 2008b. Malaysian English: morphology and syntax. In Varieties of English, 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, R. Mesthrie (ed), 610–623. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bautista, M. L. S. & Gonzalez, A. B. 2006. Southeast Asian Englishes. In The Handbook of World Englishes, B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. L. Nelson (eds), 130–144. Malden MA: ­Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9780470757598.ch8

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Biewer, C. 2011. Modal auxiliaries in second language varieties of English: A learner’s perspective. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 7–33. doi: 10.1075/scl.44.02bie Boersma, P. & Weenink, D. 2009. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 5.1.17) [Computer software]. (8 July 2009). Brown, A. 1988. The staccato effect in the pronunciation of English in Malaysia and Singapore. In New Englishes: The Case of Singapore, J. A. Foley (ed), 115–125. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Brown, R. 1973. A First Language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

198 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

doi:  10.4159/harvard.9780674732469

Brutt-Griffler, J. 2000. World English: A Study of its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Buschfeld, S. 2013. English in Cyprus or Cyprus English: An Empirical Investigation of Variety Status [Varieties of English around the World G46]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/veaw.g46

Buschfeld, S. & Kautzsch, A. 2014. English in Namibia: A first approach. English World-Wide 35(2): 121–160. doi: 10.1075/eww.35.2.01bus CIA. 2011. The World Factbook. Washington DC: Central Intelligence Agency. (19 July 2011). Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman. Crystal, D. 1997. English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davey, W. G. 1990. The legislation of Bahasa Malaysia as the official language of Malaysia. In The Campaign for English as the Official Language of the USA, K. L. Adams & D. T. Brink (eds), 95–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Deterding, D. 2007. Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. doi:  10.3366/edinburgh/9780748625444.001.0001

Deterding, D. & Low E. L. 2001. The NIE Corpus of Spoken Singapore English (NIECSSE). SAAL Quarterly 56, (November 2001): 2–5. Deterding, D. & G. Poedjosoedarmo. 1998. The Sounds of English: Phonetics and Phonology for English Teachers in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Dulay, H. & Burt, M. K. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning 23: 245–258. doi:  10.1111/j.1467-1770.1973.tb00659.x

Edwards, A. 2014. The progressive aspect in the Netherlands and the ESL/EFL continuum. World Englishes 33(2): 173–194. doi: 10.1111/weng.12080 Edwards, A. & Laporte, S. 2015. Outer and expanding circle Englishes: The competing roles of norm orientation and proficiency levels. English World-Wide 36(2): 135–169. doi:  10.1075/eww.36.2.01edw

Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gilquin, G. 2008. Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: detection, explanation, evaluation. In Linking up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, G. Gilquin, S. Papp & M. Belén Díez-Bedmar (eds), 3–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi. doi:  10.1163/9789401206204

Gilquin, G. & Granger, S. 2011. From EFL to ESL: Evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 55–78. doi: 10.1075/scl.44.04gra Goldschneider, J. M. & DeKeyser, R. 2001. Explaining the ‘Natural Order of L2 Morpheme Acquisition’ in English: A Meta-analysis of Multiple Determinants. Language Learning 51(1): 1–50. doi:  10.1111/1467-9922.00147

Görlach, M. 2002. English in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, The Philippines ... a second or a foreign language? In Still More Englishes [Varieties of English around the World G28], M. Görlach (ed), 99–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g28 Granger, S. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: an integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Languages in Contrast. Papers from a Symposium on Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies, K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg & M. Johannson (eds), 37–51. Lund 4–5 March 1994. Lund: Lund University Press. Granger, S., Hung, J. & Petch-Tyson, S. (eds). 2002a. Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lllt.6 Granger, S. 2002b. A Bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In Granger, et al. (eds), 3–33.

References 199

Granger, S. 2003. The International Corpus of Learner English. A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly 37(3): 538–546. doi: 10.2307/3588404 Gupta, A. F. 1994. The truth about Singapore English. English Today 38(10): 15–17. doi:  10.1017/S0266078400007446

Gut, U. 2005. The realisation of final plosives in Singapore English: Phonological rules and ethnic differences. In English in Singapore: Phonetic Research on a Corpus, David Deterding, Adam Brown & Low Ee Ling (eds), 14–25. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Gut, U. 2009. Past tense marking in Singapore English verbs. English World-Wide 30(3): 262–277. doi:  10.1075/eww.30.3.02gut

Gut, U. 2011. Studying structural innovations in New English varieties. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 101–124. doi: 10.1075/scl.44.06gut Hajar, A. R. & Su’ad, A. Forthcoming. ICE – Malaysia. School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Hassan, A. 2008. Bahasa Melayu dan Bahasa Indonesia. Berita Harian. 19 March 2008. (19 June 2011). Hasselgren, A. 1994. Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 237–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-4192.1994.tb00065.x Hilbert, M. 2011. Interrogative inversion as a learner phenomenon in English contact varieties: A case of Angloversals? In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 125–143. doi: 10.1075/scl.44.07hil Ho, M. 2003. Past tense marking in Singapore English. In English in Singapore: Research on Grammar, D. Deterding, A. Brown & E. L. Low (eds), 39–47. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Ho, M. & Platt, J. 1993. Dynamics of a Contact Continuum: Singaporean English. Oxford: C ­ larendon Press. Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hundt, M. & Mukherjee, J. 2011. Introduction: Bridging a paradigm gap. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 1–5. doi: 10.1075/scl.44.01muk Jarvis, S. 2000. Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning 50(2): 245–309. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00118 Kachru, B. B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (eds), 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press & The British Council. Kortmann, B. & Lunkenheimer, K. (eds). 2013. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (3 July 2016). Lapoliwa, H. 1982. Phonological problems of loanwords in Bahasa Indonesia. In Papers from the Third International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics, Vol. 2: Tracking the Traveller, A. Halim, L. Carrington & S. A. Wurm (eds), 285–297. Canberra: Australian National University. Leimgruber, J. R. E. 2009. Modelling Variation in Singapore English. PhD dissertation, Oxford University. (29 May 2011). Lewis, M. P. (ed). 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th edn. Dallas TX: SIL International. (19 July 2011).

200 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Lightbown, P. M., Spada, N. & Wallace, R. 1980. Some effects of instruction on child and adolescent ESL learners. In Research in Second Language Acquisition, R. C. Scarcella & S. D. Krashen (eds), 162–172. Rowley MA: Newbury House. Lim, L. 2001. Towards a Reference Grammar of Singapore English. Final Research Report. Singapore: Academic Research Fund, National University of Singapore. Lim, L. 2007. Mergers and acquisition: On the ages and origins of Singapore English particles. World Englishes 26: 446–473. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00522.x Lim, L. & Foley, J. A. 2004. English in Singapore and Singapore English: Background and methodology. In Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. [Varieties of English Around the World G33], L. Lim (ed), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g33.03lim Low E. L. & Brown, A. 2005. English in Singapore: An Introduction. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Lowenberg, P. H. 1991. English as an additional language in Indonesia. World Englishes 10(2): 127–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00146.x Mair, C. 2007. British English/American English grammar: Convergence in writing – Divergence in speech? Anglia 125(1): 84–100. doi: 10.1515/ANGL.2007.84 McArthur, T. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McArthur, T. 2002. The Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mesthrie, R. 2008a. Synopsis: the phonology of English in Africa and South and Southeast Asia. In Varieties of English, 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 307–319. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110208429 Mesthrie, R. 2008b. Synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in Africa and South and Southeast Asia. In Varieties of English, 4: Africa, South and Southeast Asia, R. Mesthrie (ed.), 624–635. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110208429 Mesthrie, R. & Bhatt, R. M. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. ­Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791321 Mufwene, S. S. 1994. New Englishes and criteria for naming them. World Englishes 13(1): 21– 31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.1994.tb00280.x Mufwene, S. S. 1997. The legitimate and illegitimate offspring of English. In World Englishes 2000, L. E. Smith & M. L. Forman (eds), 182–203. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. Mufwene, S. S. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612862 Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M. (eds). 2011. Exploring Second-language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 44]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.44 Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual speech: A Typology of Code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nelson, G. 1996. The design of the corpus. In Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English, S. Greenbaum (ed), 27–35. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nesselhauf, N. 2009. Co-selection phenomena across New Englishes: Parallels (and differences) to foreign learner varieties. English World-Wide 30(1): 1–26. doi: 10.1075/eww.30.1.02nes Newbrook, M. 1997. Malaysian English: Status, norms, some grammatical and lexical features. In Englishes around the World, 2: Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Australia [Varieties of English around the World G19], E. W. Schneider (ed), 229–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/veaw.g19.21new

Phan, L. H., Kho, J. & Chng, B. 2013. Nation Building, English as an International Language, Medium of Instruction, and Language Debate: Malaysia and Possible Ways Forward. Journal of International and Comparative Education 2(2): 58–71. doi: 10.14425/00.50.27

References 201

Pica, T. 1983. Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning 33: 465–497. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00945.x Pillai, S. 2008. Speaking English the Malaysian way – Correct or not? English Today 24(4): 42–45. doi:  10.1017/S0266078408000382

Pillai, S., Zuraidah, M. D., Knowles, G. & Tang, J. 2010. Malaysian English: an instrumental analysis of vowel contrasts. World Englishes 29(2): 159–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2010.01636.x Platt, J. 1975. The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect ‘Singlish’ as a ‘creoloid’. Anthropological Linguistics 17: 363–374. Platt, J., Weber, H. & Ho, M. L. 1983. Singapore and Malaysia [Varieties of English Around the World G4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.t4 Python Software Foundation. 2006. Python (Version 2.5.1) [Computer software]. (9 October 2007). Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (9 December 2010). Ricklefs, M. C., Lockhart, B., Lau, A., Reyes, P. & Aung-Thwin, M. 2010. A New History of Southeast Asia. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Schneider, E. W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511618901 Schneider, E. W. 2008a. Synopsis: phonological variation in the Americas and the Caribbean. In Varieties of English, 2: The Americas and the Caribbean [Varieties of English around the World G19], E. W. Schneider (ed), 383–398. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110208405

Schneider, E. W. 2008b. Synopsis: morphological and syntactic variation in the Americas and the Caribbean. In Varieties of English, 2: The Americas and the Caribbean [Varieties of English around the World G19], E. W. Schneider (ed.), 763–776. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110208405

Schneider, E. W. 2011. English around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schreier, D. 2005. Consonant Change in English Worldwide: Synchrony meets Diachrony. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230513327 Shatz, M. & Wilcox, S. A. 1991. Constraints on the acquisition of English modals. In Perspectives on Language and Thought, Interrelations in Development, S. A. Gelman & J. P. Byrnes (eds), 319–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511983689.010 Siegel, J. 2009. Language contact and second language acquisition. In The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (eds), 569–589. Bingley: Emerald. Smith, B. D. 1991. English in Indonesia. English Today 26: 39–43. doi: 10.1017/S0266078400005526 Sneddon, J. N. 2007. Indonesian reference grammar. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Sridhar, K. K. & Sridhar, S. N. 1986. Bridging the paradigm gap: second language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes 5(1): 3–14. doi:  10.1111/j.1467-971X.1986.tb00636.x

Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. 2011. Typological profiling: Learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 167–187. Tadmor, U. 2009. Loanwords in Indonesian. In Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook, M. Haspelmath & U. Tadmor (eds), 686–716. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

202 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

Tan, R. S. K. & Low, E. L. 2010. How different are the monophthongs of Malay speakers of Malaysian and Singapore English? English World-Wide 31(2): 162–189. doi: 10.1075/eww.31.2.03tan Tay, M. W. J. 1982. The phonology of educated Singapore English. English World-Wide 3: 135–145. doi:  10.1075/eww.3.2.02tay

Tongue, R. K. 1979. The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Tschichold, C. 2002. Learner English. In Perspectives on English as a World Language, D. J. ­Allerton, P. Skandera & C. Tschichold (eds), 125–133. Basel: Schwabe & Co. Van Rooy, B. 2011. A principled distinction between error and conventionalized innovation in African Englishes. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds), 189–207. doi: 10.1075/scl.44.10roo Wald, B. 1996. Substratal effects on the evolution of modals in East LA English. In Sociolinguistic Variation: Data, Theory and Analysis. Selected Papers from NWAV 2″ at Stanford, J. Arnold, R. Blake, B. Davidson, N. Mendoza-Denton, S. Schwenter & J. Solomon (eds), 515–530. Stanford CA: CSLI. Wee, L. 2004. Reduplication and discourse particles. In Singapore English: A Grammatical Approach [Varieties of English around the World G33], L. Lim (ed), 105–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g33.07wee Williams, J. 1987. Non-native varieties of English: a special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide 8: 161–199. doi: 10.1075/eww.8.2.02wil Zacharias, N. T. 2005. Teachers’ Beliefs about Internationally-published Materials: A Survey of Tertiary English Teachers in Indonesia. Regional Language Centre Journal 36(1): 23–37.

Index A acrolect  27, 185–186, 189, 191 see also basilect, mesolect Africa  7, 27, 31, 131–132, 135, 141–142, 193–195 American colonialism  1–2, 23, 186 English  64, 129 analytic marking  31, 34, 43–44, 68, 70–71, 80–81, 84, 88–89, 138–141 see also synthetic marking annotation scheme  29, 42–44, 70, 75, 78 Arabic  7, 10, 132–133 aspect  86–88, 140, 142, 146–147, 151, 170 perfect  87–88, 147, 151, 170 progressive 86–87, 146, 170 auxiliary verb  20, 71–73, 79–80, 82, 86, 92–95, 100–101, 104–106, 109, 112, 140–142, 150–151, 155 see also modal auxiliary verb avoidance of plurifunctionality 32 avoidance of redundancies  32, 139, 141, 146–147, 155–156 B basilect  27, 185–186, 189, 191–192 see also acrolect, mesolect Borneo 12 borrowing  5, 7, 10–11, 20–22, 26, 33, 115, 129, 132–134 Britain  see British British  colonialism  1–2, 5, 8–13, 23, 25, 183, 186 English  31, 129 Buddhism  5, 7 Brunei  1, 11–12

C Caribbean Englishes  131–132, 141–142 colonial backgrounds  1, 23 language  2, 9, 25 legacy 3 rule  1, 9, 187 see also American colonialism, British colonialism, Dutch colonialism, Portuguese colonialism communication  2, 14–17, 166, 186, 189, 194 interethnic communication 14–15 international communication 2, 16–17, 166, 186, 189 intra-national communication 186 consonant cluster reduction 20, 43, 50, 67, 128–129, 193 China  7, 9, 12, 119, 194 Chinese  ethnicity  9, 11–12, 14, 38, 128, 162, 188, 192–193 language  13–15, 21, 37–39, 41–42, 119, 127–128, 153– 154, 162–164, 187–188, 193 CLI see cross-linguistic influence cluster reduction  see consonant cluster reduction context  20, 44–46, 68–69, 72–77, 94, 137–138, 140–141, 143, 148, 155, 190 see also suppliance in obligatory contexts conventionalisation  35, 170, 181–182 see also feature pool, nativisation cross-linguistic influence  33, 35 see also substrate

D diphthong  20, 56–57, 64–65, 124, 130–131 discourse particle  21, 115–118, 169, 190 double marking  43–44, 80–81, 85, 89, 141–142, 145 Dutch  colonialism  1, 5, 8–11, 16 language  2, 9–11, 16, 132, 195 dynamic model  see Schneider’s dynamic model of postcolonial Englishes E ENL/ESL/EFL model  23–25, 195 ESL/EFL distinction  2–4, 28– 29, 33, 122, 162, 179, 183–186, 189–190, 192, 194–195 ethnicity  9, 11–12, 14–16, 19, 26, 37–38, 127–128, 162, 188, 192–193 see also Chinese ethnicity, Indian ethnicity, Malay ethnicity European  influence  7, 9 see also American colonialism, British colonialism, Dutch colonialism, Portuguese colonialism loanwords  129, 132 see also borrowing exploitation colonies  23–26, 183 see also American colonialism, British colonialism, Dutch colonialism, Portuguese colonialism

204 World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

F feature pool  35, 170–171, 180–182, 189 see also conventionalisation, nativisation Filipino English  see Philippine English formal register  37, 122, 127, 158–162, 165–166, 169, 183– 186, 190–192 see also informal register

interrogative  21, 31, 34, 79, 94, 100, 105–106, 114, 120, 151, 154–156 irregular verb  78–79 Islam 7

G general cognitive strategies of linearisation  32, 139, 142, 147, 155 glottal stop  21, 53–55, 59, 61, 129–130, 133 see also unreleased plosive Great Britain  see British

L learner error  3, 27–29, 31, 33, 35, 43, 179, 189, 193 strategy  see Second Language Acquisition strategy learning target  see target lexical borrowing  see borrowing loanword  see borrowing

H Hinduism 5 Hong Kong  1, 194 hypercorrection  3, 33, 136, 140, 142, 144–147, 152, 156 I ICE  see International Corpus of English ICLE  see International Corpus of Learner English imitation  34, 151, 156 implicit plural  68, 70–71, 88 India  5, 7–10, 16 Indian English 31 ethnicity  9, 11, 14 Indianization 5 inflectional marking  20, 70–75, 77–80, 84, 88, 137–145, 155 informal register  37, 122, 127, 130–131, 158–162, 165–166, 168–169, 176, 183–187, 190–192 see also formal register innovation  29, 31, 35, 193 interlanguage  29, 35, 193 International Corpus of English 19, 29, 37–40, 42, 45, 127, 190 International Corpus of Learner English  30, 39

J Javanese  16, 41–42, 163 K Kachru  see Three Circles

M Malacca 6–9 Malay  ethnicity  11, 14, 37, 162, 193 language  1–2, 4–7, 10, 13–17, 19–21, 30, 37–42, 64, 96, 114, 116, 119–120, 127–156, 162–164, 179, 187–188 peninsula  6, 8–9, 39, 136 markedness theory  32, 139, 142, 144, 147, 155–156 mass noun  21, 68–69, 100, 105, 107, 139, 151 mesolect  27, 192 see also acrolect, basilect modal auxiliary verb  21, 31–32, 82, 92–95, 104–105 see also auxiliary verb N national language  2, 14–16, 19, 144, 162, 187 nativisation  2, 26–29, 35, 128, 133, 149, 170–172, 175–177, 179–183, 187–189, 193–194 see also conventionalisation, feature pool

Netherlands  history  see Dutch colonialism status of English  186 New Varieties of English  see World Englishes NIVEs  see World Englishes non-native institutionalized varieties of English  see World Englishes O overgeneralisation  34, 149, 153 overuse  32–33, 43 P paradigm gap  28 partitive 68 see also quantifier Philippine English  131 Philippines 1 plurifunctionality  see avoidance of plurifunctionality Portuguese colonialism 7–9 language  7, 10 position word-final  50–51, 130, 133, 136 word-initial 62 word-internal  51, 55, 62, 133–134 Praat  42, 45, 175 principle of maximum salience 32, 139, 141–142, 145 Python (programming language)  45–46, 175 Q quantifier  32, 68, 107, 137–139, 151 see also partitive question  see interrogative R range of realisations  124–126, 181–182 rapidity of speech  xiv, xvi, 175–177, 189 redundancy  see avoidance of redundancies

Index 205

reduplication  20, 137–138 regular verb  78–79 R (programming language)  45, 47 Riau-Johor 8–9 Riau Islands  39, 41–42 S Sanskrit  5, 10 Schneider’s dynamic model of postcolonial Englishes  26–28, 35, 179, 188 Second Language Acquisition 2–3, 27–29, 31–32, 35, 37, 127– 128, 131, 141–142, 146–147, 149, 151, 153, 155–156, 182, 193–194 process  31–32, 35, 127 strategy  2–3, 127, 141–142, 146–147, 149, 151, 153, 155–156, 182, 193 settlement colonies  23, 25 see also American colonialism, British colonialism, Dutch colonialism, Portuguese colonialism shortest path principle  32–33, 135, 139, 145, 155 SLA  see Second Language Acquisition SOC  see suppliance in obligatory contexts speaker community  see speech community speech community  3, 13, 25–26, 34–35, 43, 49, 133, 170, 181–182, 186

Srivijaya  6, 9 standard marking  69–70, 72–73, 81 substrate explanation  30, 34, 127–133, 135–136, 139, 141–145, 150, 152–154, 156, 158, 182 feature  2, 30, 127, 156–159, 182, 193 influence  2–4, 30, 33–34, 49, 129, 131–133, 135–142, 144–145, 149, 151–154, 156, 158, 182, 193 language  1–3, 28, 34, 41–42, 45, 122, 129, 131–132, 139, 141, 153, 193–194 Sumatra  6, 8–9, 136 suppliance in obligatory contexts 172–173 synthetic marking  34, 84 see also analytic marking T tag scheme  see annotation scheme target  27–30, 32, 35, 43, 128, 166, 173, 175, 193–194 Target-Like Use  173–175, 194 teddy bear principle  32, 141–142, 151 tense  20–21, 45–46, 67, 71–75, 77–82, 88–89, 93, 105, 112–113, 115, 119, 140–142, 151, 173–175, 183, 190 Three Circles  24 see also ENL/ESL/EFL model

TL  see target TLU  see Target-Like Use transfer to somewhere principle 32, 142 typology  3, 31, 34, 134–135, 182, 193 U unexpected  marking  68–70, 79, 82, 86–89, 107–108, 140, 142, 146 use  108–109, 114–115, 120, 124, 143, 147, 152, 156 United Kingdom  see British United States  see American unreleased plosive  53–55, 59, 61–62, 129–130, 133 see also glottal stop V Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie  see Dutch colonialism VOC  see Dutch colonialism W World Englishes  27–28, 31, 35, 37 word-final position  see position word-initial position  see position word-internal position  see position World War II  10–11

Bridging the gap between the ields of World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition, this volume ofers an in-depth comparative analysis of two postcolonial varieties of English (Singapore and Malaysian English) and neighbouring Indonesian learner English in order to examine the Outer/Expanding Circle distinction and shed light on the genesis of postcolonial varieties of English. The study identiies and analyses more than thirty linguistic features in the categories phonology, morphology, syntax, and discourse, concluding that in spite of clear syntactic diferences, the distinction between the Outer and Expanding Circles is gradual rather than strictly categorical, and should rely on current sociolinguistic realities rather than on historical criteria. The volume will be highly relevant for researchers interested in the dynamics of Outer Circle and Expanding Circle Englishes, the structural and sociolinguistic aspects of English in Southeast Asia, or the integration of the paradigms of World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition.

“In a series of meticulous corpus-based studies, Michael Percillier investigates dynamic developments in the use of English in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. Readers interested in Englishes in South East Asia will appreciate the up-to-date empirical indings. His explorations of the increasingly luid boundaries between English as a Native Language (ENL), English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language / English as a Lingua Franca (EFL/ELF) will be of interest to the entire World Englishes community.” Christian Mair, University of Freiburg

isbn 978 90 272 4918 0 Cover illustration by Steve Cornish.

John Benjamins Publishing Company