World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition

EAW G58

NOTICE: Author accepted manuscript (see following page for details)

Varieties of English Around the World

G58

World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes

Michael Percillier

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Please note: The present file contains the “author accepted manuscript”. Page numbers in the present manuscript do not coincide with the published version, and there may be further discrepancies between the two versions. Do not cite the manuscript, but the published version only. - - The published version of the work is: MLA: Percillier, Michael. World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition: Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g58 APA: Percillier, M. (2016). World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition: Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes. John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/veaw.g58 BibTeX: @book{percillier-world-2016, Address = {Amsterdam}, Author = {Percillier, Michael}, Doi = {10.1075/veaw.g58}, Isbn = {978-90-272-4918-0 978-90-272-6665-1}, Language = {en}, Number = {G58}, Publisher = {John Benjamins Publishing Company}, Series = {Varieties of {English} {Around} the {World}}, Title = {World {Englishes} and {Second} {Language} {Acquisition}: {Insights} from {Southeast} {Asian} {Englishes}}, Year = {2016}} - - The work is under copyright by John Benjamins Publishing Company, and the publisher should be contacted for permission to re-use or reprint the material in any form.

i

Table of contents

List of abbreviations List of maps, figures and tables Acknowledgements Chapter 1 : Introduction 1.1 Aims of the study 3 1.2 Structure of the study 6 Chapter 2 : Historical overview 2.1 Pre-colonial period 8 2.2 Early modern Southeast Asian states and the colonial period 11 2.3 Independence 18 Chapter 3 : English in postcolonial Southeast Asia 3.1 Linguistic ecologies in the post-colonial period 21 3.1.1 Singapore 22 3.1.2 Malaysia 23 3.1.3 Indonesia 25 3.1.4 Overview of linguistic ecologies in the three countries 29 3.2 Profile of English in Southeast Asia 29 3.2.1 Singapore English 29 3.2.2 Malaysian English 32 3.2.3 English in Indonesia 33 Chapter 4 : Theories and models for a comparative study of secondlanguage varieties and learner Englishes 4.1 Classifying varieties of English 35 4.2 Comparing second-language varieties and learner Englishes 43 4.2.1 Attempts at bridging the paradigm gap 43 4.2.2 Adopting and adapting theories and methodologies 45 4.2.3 A concerted and empirical approach 49 Chapter 5 : Data & Methodology 5.1 Singapore 59 5.2 Malaysia 61 5.3 Indonesia 62 5.4 Overview of data 65 5.5 Data processing 65 5.5.1 Transcription 65 5.5.2 Annotation66 5.5.3 Data format 68 5.5.4 The special case of missing past tense marking: phonology or morphology? 70 5.6 Performing searches 71

iv v ix 1 8

21

35

59

ii

5.6.1 Annotated format 71 5.6.2 Unannotated format 72 5.6.3 R data frames 73 Chapter 6 : A comparative feature inventory 75 6.1 Phonological features 75 6.1.1 Consonant clusters 76 6.1.2 Isolated final plosives 80 6.1.3 Monophthongisation 82 6.1.4 Fricatives 85 6.1.5 Devoicing 91 6.1.6 Stress93 6.1.7 Spelling pronunciation 94 6.1.8 Vowel length 95 6.1.9 Sandhi 96 6.1.10 Other cases 96 6.1.11 Summary of observed phonological features 97 6.2 Morphological features 98 6.2.1 Plural marking 98 6.2.2 Past tense marking 103 6.2.3 Third person singular present tense marking 115 6.2.4 Word class and verb forms 120 6.2.5 Comparative 122 6.2.6 Case123 6.2.7 Progressive aspect 125 6.2.8 Perfect 128 6.2.9 Summary of observed morphological features 129 6.3 Syntactic features 130 6.3.1 Deletion 130 6.3.2 Word choice 145 6.3.3 Redundant items 158 6.3.4 Word order 161 6.3.5 “One relative clauses” 163 6.3.6 Invariant question tags 165 6.3.7 Passive voice 167 6.3.8 Inversion 169 6.3.9 Summary of observed syntactic features 170 6.4 Discourse features 171 6.4.1 Discourse particles 172 6.4.2 Code-mixing and code-switching 175 6.5 Overall summary 179 6.5.1 Frequencies of features 179 6.5.2 Major trends observed 183 Chapter 7 : Origin of features, register variation, ethnic L1 and learner proficiency 189 7.1 Origin of features 191

i i

7.1.1 Origin of phonological features 191 7.1.2 Origin of morphological features 207 7.1.3 Origin of syntactic features 229 7.1.4 Feature origin across varieties 245 7.2 Register 248 7.3 Malay L1 and Chinese L1 speakers 253 7.4 Learner proficiency 255 7.4.1 Phonological features 257 7.4.2 Morphological features 258 7.4.3 Syntactic features 259 7.4.4 Discourse features260 7.4.5 Features unique to the learner variety 262 7.4.6 Acquisition of grammatical morphemes 264 7.4.7 Learner fluency 269 Chapter 8 : Implications for postcolonial Englishes and the ESL/EFL distinction 272 8.1 The genesis of postcolonial Englishes 272 8.2 Revisiting the ESL/EFL distinction 278 8.3 Other levels of the ESL/EFL distinction 281 8.4 Postcolonial developments 285 Chapter 9 : Conclusion and outlook 289 References 300 Index 314

iv

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

v

List of maps, figures and tables

Maps Map 2.1 Map of Malaysia, Singapore and western Indonesia marking the major locations mentioned in the historical overview.................................... 9 Map 5.1 Map showing the locations of data collection, UIB on Batam and Tanjung Pinang on Bintan.............................................................................62 Figures Figure 3.1 Pro-independence slogan written in English (Indonesia 1947)...28 Figure 3.2 Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in 2011, displaying a sign in English............................................................................................28 Figure 3.3 Footwear shop in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia, in 2009........28 Figure 4.1 Kachru's 'Three Circles' model (adapted from Crystal 1997: 54) ...................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 6.1 Overview of normalised frequencies for full (f) versus reduced (r) realisations of final consonant clusters.................................................... 79 Figure 6.2 Overview of ratios for full (f) versus reduced (r) realisations of final consonant clusters.................................................................................79 Figure 6.3 Overview of ratios for full, glottal stop, and unreleased realisations of final plosives......................................................................... 81 Figure 6.4 Relative frequencies of plural marking types............................102 Figure 6.5 Relative frequencies of analytically marked and implicit plurality in cases of missing inflectional plural marking.......................................... 103 Figure 6.6 Relative frequencies of past tense marking types.....................106 Figure 6.7 Relative frequencies of adverbial marking and contextual marking strategies in cases of missing inflectional past tense marking......111 Figure 6.8 Relative frequencies of regular and irregular verbs for cases of missing inflectional past tense marking......................................................113 Figure 6.9 Relative frequencies of types of third person singular present tense marking.............................................................................................. 117 Figure 6.10 Relative frequencies of missing, unexpected and standard progressive aspect....................................................................................... 127 Figure 6.11 Relative frequencies of deletion types.....................................132 Figure 6.12 Relative frequencies of verbal deletion subtypes....................138 Figure 6.13 Relative values of deleted prepositions................................... 141 Figure 6.14 Relative frequencies of non-standard word choice by affected word class................................................................................................... 148 Figure 6.15 Overall comparison of non-standard features by category......180

vi

Figure 7.1 Comparison of potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the category phonology.............................................................246 Figure 7.2 Comparison of potential substrate features and non-substrate features in the categories morphology (m) and syntax (s)..........................246 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).....................................................................................................247 Figure 7.4 Comparison of non-standard features observed in Singapore English, formal Singapore English, informal Singapore English, Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English.....................................................248 Figure 7.5 Overview of phonological features with separate marking of the features 'isolated plosive reduction' and 'monophthongisation'..................251 Figure 7.6 Overview of non-standard features grouped into Malay (m) L1 and Chinese (c) L1 speakers....................................................................... 254 Figure 7.7 Distribution of speakers by number of years of learning English at the time of recording...............................................................................256 Figure 7.8 Scatterplot of phonological features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English...........257 Figure 7.9 Scatterplot of morphological features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English...........259 Figure 7.10 Scatterplot of syntactic features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years learning English..................................260 Figure 7.11 Scatterplot of discourse features in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English.............................261 Figure 7.12 Scatterplot of non-standard realisation of /ʃ/ in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English.......264 Figure 7.13 Scatterplots of TLU scores of grammatical morphemes in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English........................................................................................................ 267 Figure 7.14 Scatterplot of rapidity of speech measures in individual files of Indonesian learner English in relation to years of learning English...........271 Figure 8.1 Illustration of feature selection in the nativisation process.......274 Figure 8.2 Illustration of feature range selection in the nativisation process .................................................................................................................... 275 Figure 9.1 Bilingual sign at Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in 2011, displaying two non-standard features in the English language portion .................................................................................................................... 292 Figure 9.2 Model of the range of sociolinguistic variation of English in ESL and EFL settings......................................................................................... 294 Tables Table 2.1 Examples of Malaysian and Indonesian loanwords from English and Dutch as donor languages...................................................................... 17

vi i

Table 3.1 Overview of English and Malay in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.......................................................................................................29 Table 5.1 Data used for Singapore English broken down by file.................61 Table 5.2 Data used for Malaysian English broken down by file.................62 Table 5.3 Overview of data collected for Indonesian learner English..........64 Table 5.4 Overview of data collected........................................................... 65 Table 5.5 Annotation scheme for the category 'phonology'..........................68 Table 5.6 Annotation scheme for the category 'morphology'.......................68 Table 5.7 Annotation scheme for the category 'syntax'.................................68 Table 6.1 Overview of phonological features...............................................75 Table 6.2 Overview of reduced consonant clusters......................................77 Table 6.3 Ratios of reduced realisation for word-final consonant clusters...78 Table 6.4 Overview of non-standard realisation of final plosives in isolation ...................................................................................................................... 80 Table 6.5 Count of cases of monophthongisation, grouped by diphthong affected..........................................................................................................82 Table 6.6 Percentages of non-standard realisations of the diphthongs /əʊ/ and /eɪ/.......................................................................................................... 83 Table 6.7 Overview of non-standard realisations of /θ/................................85 Table 6.8 Overview of non-standard realizations of /ð/................................86 Table 6.9 Percentages of non-standard realisations of /θ/ and /ð/ for three most frequently affected types respectively..................................................88 Table 6.10 Overview of non-standard realisations of /ʃ/..............................89 Table 6.11 Overview of non-standard realisations of /f/, /v/, and /s/............90 Table 6.12 Overview of cases of devoicing, grouped by position within a word.............................................................................................................. 92 Table 6.13 Overview of observed types of devoicing..................................92 Table 6.14 Overview of non-standard stress patterns................................... 93 Table 6.15 Overview of audibly discernible vowel shortenings...................95 Table 6.16 Overview of non-standard sandhi alternation for the indefinite article ‘a/an’.................................................................................................. 96 Table 6.17 Overview of non-standard realisations of /r/..............................97 Table 6.18 Overview of observed phonological features.............................98 Table 6.19 Overview of observed morphological features...........................98 Table 6.20 Overview of types of plural marking........................................ 101 Table 6.21 Overview of types of past tense marking..................................106 Table 6.22 Frequencies of adverbial marking and contextual marking strategies in cases of missing inflectional past tense marking....................110 Table 6.23 Types of non-standard third person singular present tense marking....................................................................................................... 117 Table 6.24 Overview of word class and verb form substitutions................122 Table 6.25 Overview of observed morphological features.........................129 Table 6.26 Overview of observed syntactic features..................................130 Table 6.27 Elements affected by deletion................................................... 130 Table 6.28 Tokens of subject deletion by subject type...............................134

vii i

Table 6.29 Overview of types of verb deletion...........................................137 Table 6.30 Overview of deleted prepositions.............................................140 Table 6.31 Tokens of object deletion by object type..................................142 Table 6.32 Overview on non-standard word choices grouped by word class .................................................................................................................... 147 Table 6.33 Overview of non-standard preposition choices.........................151 Table 6.34 Overview of types of non-standard auxiliary choice................155 Table 6.35 Types of non-standard determiner choice.................................157 Table 6.36 Overview of redundant items....................................................160 Table 6.37 Overview of cases of non-standard word order........................162 Table 6.38 Overview of invariant question tags......................................... 167 Table 6.39 Overview of non-standard cases of inversion use.....................170 Table 6.40 Overview of observed syntactic features..................................171 Table 6.41 Overview of discourse particles................................................175 Table 6.42 Overview of the number of features attested for each variety, grouped by category................................................................................... 184 Table 6.43 List of features not attested in all varieties...............................184 Table 6.44 Comparison of the range of realizations/affected elements for applicable features...................................................................................... 186 Table 6.45 Count of significant differences observed between varieties with regard to frequencies and ranges of realisations/elements affected............187 Table 7.1 Examples of non-standard word choices displaying similarities to Malay syntax...............................................................................................233 Table 7.2 Overview of non-standard preposition choice in tokens with regard to correspondence to Malay prepositions........................................ 236 Table 7.3 Overview of rapidity of speech (ROS) measures in words per minute......................................................................................................... 270

ix

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.

x

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 in terviewed. 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, for his dedication and profession alism 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

xi

to David Deterding and Low Ee Ling for making the NIECSSE corpus gen erally 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 manu script. 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.

For my parents,

Doris and Jean.

For Evi.

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Due to its complex colonial history, Southeast Asia is comprised of coun tries 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 Thail and, 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 ex-

2

tends to Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, and southern Thailand (Tadmor 2009: 686-7; 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 lan guage 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 or der to facilitate the comparison of English in the three countries, the em phasis will be placed on the Malay-speaking regions or portions of the population in each country. It should be noted that Malaysia and Indonesia have different stand ardised 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 his torical perspective. For the standard Malay used in Malaysia, the term Malaysian (bahasa Malaysia in Malay) will be used, while the term for the

3

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 Eng lish 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.

4

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 ex-colonial second language is a sign of the more recent integration of the country into global economic, cultural and linguistic currents.

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 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). 1

5

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 hy pothesis 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 re search 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 (sociolin guistic status and norms, language attitudes etc.). These two points have to be verified empirically by comparing fea tures of postcolonial varieties of English with errors found in learner Eng lish 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 sub strate 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?

6

The answers to these questions must involve both quantitative (comparison of frequencies of features/errors in both types of varieties) as well as qualit ative (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.

1.2 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 ex isting 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 discus-

7

sion, 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 in vestigated. 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.

8

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 ver nacular use. This process is estimated to have begun approximately at the beginning of the Common Era. The endpoint cannot be determined with cer tainty, but by the end of the first millennium direct influences from India had waned significantly (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 20-21).

9

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 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.

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

@@ Insert PER_MAP_2.1.eps here

10

With regard to Malaysia, Singapore and Malay-speaking regions of Indonesia, the relevant early polity of this period was Srivijaya, whose zone of in fluence 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 char acterised 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: 61-2). The 'classical' states laid the foundations for the states in the early modern period, 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

11

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' (< badan 'body'), kursi 'chair' (< kursī 'chair'), waktu 'time' (< waqt 'time, period'), pikir 'think' (< fikr 'thinking, cognition') and jawab 'answer' (< jawāb 'answer'). Loanwords from Persian which are not ultimately of Arab origin are rarer but do exist neverthe less, e.g. kawin 'marry' (< kāwīn 'dowry'), domba 'sheep' (< duṃba 'a kind of sheep with a thick tail'), anggur 'grape, wine' (< angūr 'grape, raisin') and gandum 'wheat' (< gandum 'wheat') (Tadmor 2009: 690).

2.2 Early modern Southeast Asian states and the colonial period As mentioned above, the Malay region saw the rise of the kingdom of Malacca around 1400. The Straits of Malacca were a passage point for much of the trade between China and Japan on the one hand, and between India, the Middle East, East Africa and even Europe on the other. This crossing point of traders offered a good entrepôt site. Rather than collecting heavy taxes, the Malaccan kingdom prospered by creating good trading opportunities and providing warehouse facilities (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 110-111). Approximately one century later, in 1511, the Portuguese took Malacca, thinking they would thereby control the greatest entrepôt of the Asian trade system. Instead, they disrupted trade, and merchants relocated to alternative centres of commerce, mainly Aceh. There ensued a period of tri -

12

angular warfare between Malacca's successor Malay state of Johor, Portuguese Malacca and Aceh for control of the Malacca Straits, which resulted in a further disruption of trade and merchants adopting an alternative trade route through the Sunda Straits (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 112-114). The contest between the three powers continued into the seventeenth century (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 149). The involvement of Portugal in the region resulted in numerous loanwords of Portuguese origin into Malay, including many words for everyday objects, e.g. garpu 'fork' (< garfo), kemeja 'shirt' (< camisa), sepatu 'shoes' (< sapato), meja 'table' (< mesa), roda 'wheel' (< roda), bola 'ball' (< bola) and jendela 'window' (< janela) (Tadmor 2009: 690). The first Dutch expedition to Southeast Asia, encouraged by the wish to have direct access to the spice trade, set off in 1595 and reached Banten at the western tip of Java in 1596. This inspired other Dutch expeditions, a period known as 'wild voyages' (wilde vaart), where simultaneous voyages were undertaken by various competing Dutch companies, sometimes with spectacular profits. The news of successful Dutch expeditions made the British want to be directly involved in the spice trade as well, which led to the establishment of the English East India Company (EEIC) in 1600. By 1602, an EEIC outpost was built in Banten, which was to remain its main base in the region for the following eighty years. Meanwhile, the Dutch realised that the unregulated competition among Dutch companies would hurt profits, and therefore decided to merge competing companies into a

13

joint enterprise, the Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie ('United East India Company', abbreviated to VOC) in 1602 (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 132-3). The Dutch involvement in the region began during the triangular conflict between Johor, Portuguese Malacca and Aceh. The Dutch VOC allied with Johor and captured Malacca in 1641. As Aceh had been seriously weakened by the war with the Portuguese, Johor no longer had to fear any rivalry from its two former enemies. The VOC's main interests lay in Java and Maluku, and it had no ambitions in Sumatra or the Malay peninsula, with the exception of Malacca. This spurred Johor to try to reestablish its former standing on both sides of the Malacca Straits. The destruction of Johor Lama in 1673 by an east Sumatran rival, Jambi, forced a relocation of the capital to Riau. Following the defeat of Jambi in 1679, the Riau-Johor empire was once more the dominant power in the Straits, but internal power struggles at the court culminated in the assassination of the last ruler of the Malacca dynastic line in 1699 and in the rise of a new line of rulers. The new dynasty lacked the legitimacy of the old Malacca dynasty, resulting in a loss of influence at its periphery, and new rivals, such as the Minangkabau (Sumatra) and the Bugi (Sulawesi), challenged the Riau-Johor empire for much of the eighteenth century. This provided the opportunity for new sul tanates such as Terengganu (1724), Kelantan (1764) and Selangor (1766) to appear, while kingdoms like Negeri Sembilan became independent from Riau-Johor. The presence of the VOC in the region hindered the establishment of a new Malay centre on the old Malaccan model. The VOC origin -

14

ally followed a policy of neutrality in local disputes, but had to crush several revolts, and the fear of a Malay alliance with the EEIC moved them to seize Riau in 1784, thus reducing the Riau-Johor empire to a Dutch vassal state. The EEIC's founding of the ports of Penang (1786) and Singapore (1819) made any plan for Malay economic and political revival even less probable. Furthermore, the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, signed in 1824 in London, partitioned the Riau-Johor empire into British and Dutch zones of influence, with the British gaining control of Singapore and the Malay peninsula, including Malacca, while the Dutch dominated the other side of the Straits, notably Sumatra. Two years later, in 1826, the British consolidated their position by founding the Straits Settlements, consisting of Penang, Malacca and Singapore (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 150-151). The division of the Riau-Johor empire into British and Dutch spheres of influence not only drew boundaries that shaped the borders of today's nation-states, but also reversed the geopolitical traditions that had hitherto been valid in Southeast Asia. The successive political entities in the Malay world prior to British and Dutch influence, i.e. Srivijaya, Malacca and RiauJohor, were communities connected by water, with the land interior acting as a separator (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 166). The imposition of a European land-based concept of territory therefore divided the communities in Sumatra and the Malay peninsula, which had been linked politically, culturally and linguistically for a millennium.

15

Furthermore, the region's ethnic makeup was altered as colonial rule led to increasing immigration from China and India. Chinese communities and waves of immigration had existed prior to European colonisation. Zheng He's (Cheng Ho) expeditions in Southeast Asia (1405-1433) reported Chinese residents in the region, particularly in the Malay peninsula, Sumatra and Java. The overturning of a Ming ban on trade between China and South east Asia saw many Chinese merchants settle in Southeast Asian trade ports, including those held by European powers, e.g. Portuguese Malacca, Spanish Manila and Dutch Batavia. The establishment of the Qing dynasty in 1644 led to clashes with Ming loyalists in Southern China, which in turn caused many people from the region to flee to Southeast Asia. The lifting of yet another trade ban in 1727 caused a further wave of immigration (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 119-121). Indian communities in Southeast Asia were relatively few in number in the pre-colonial period (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 123). Chinese immigrants became key players in the Straits Settlements as labourers, traders, entrepreneurs and professionals, while they had an important presence in the tin industry in the Malayan peninsula. Chinese immigration took place mainly through the community's own networking, whereas Indian immigration was assisted by the British in order to develop commercial agriculture (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 179-80). In the middle of the nineteenth century, the discovery of rich tin deposits on the west coast of the Malay peninsula coincided with the expansion of the tin-plate industry in Europe. The potential

16

for financial gain and employment in the tin industry caused a sharp rise in Chinese immigration to Malaya (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 203). The colonial powers established various mediums of education for the local population. The colonial language, English or Dutch, was generally only taught to a small elite. Initially, a small minority of Malay aristocrats was educated in English to prepare them for government service. Beginning in the 1860s, English- and Malay-language education was offered in the Straits Settlements. In the following two decades, instruction was also intro duced in the Malay states, though only in the form of a Malay vernacular education (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 178-179), so that vernacular schools out numbered English-medium schools (Brutt-Griffler 2000: 191-195). But as 'colonial bilingualism' was a requirement for high-status lines of work, the demand for education in English grew (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 22). It was however only after the independence of India in 1947 that English was widely taught. As it became clear that all colonies would eventually be lost, Britain's language policy changed radically in order to create greater bonds that would last beyond a country's independence (Schneider 2011: 46). The language education of the Dutch was similar to that of the British prior to 1947. While the Dutch language was taught to a small local minority, the colonial authorities never made it a priority to teach their language to In donesians. A census from the 1930s indicates that the literacy rate in Dutch for the local population was 0.3% at the time (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 221), and

17

only a small fraction of the population ever acieved fluency in the language (Tadmor 2009: 691). The British and Dutch gradually increased their influence until the Japanese occupation of Southeast Asia in 1942 in the context of World War II. This period of separation under two different colonial powers led to distinct linguistic developments in the Malay world. Firstly, each colonial power provided different loanwords to the Malay-speaking regions under their influence, which had previously shared different waves of loanwords, e.g. from Sanskrit, Arabic and Portuguese. Table 2.1 lists several examples of differing loanwords between Malaysian and Indonesian.

Table 2.1 Examples of Malaysian and Indonesian loanwords from English and Dutch as donor languages

@@ Insert PER_TAB_2.1.xls here

The examples listed in Table 2.1 highlight certain differences between the borrowing of words from English and Dutch in their respective zones of influence. On the one hand, loanwords of ultimately Latin or Greek origin, such as March or police, found their way into Malay varieties in the form existing in their respective donor languages. On the other hand, borrowing occured in one variety but not in the other. The words for refrigerator and carrot, for example, were borrowed from Dutch in Indonesian, whereas in Malaysian, compounding using already existing Malay words was more fre -

18

quent than borrowing terms from English, as in peti sejuk (literally 'fresh crate') and lobak merah (literally 'red radish'). Indonesian also borrowed Dutch spelling, such as for /u/, as in koelkas ('refrigerator') mentioned i n Table 2.1. Other graphemes that were borrowed from Dutch are for /dʒ/, as in Djakarta, for /j/ as in ajam ('chicken'), for /ʃ/ as in masjarakat ('people'), for /tʃ/ as in tjutji ('to clean') and for /x/ as i n achir ('end'). These graphemes of Dutch origin were replaced by (kulkas), (Jakarta), (ayam), (masyarakat), (cuci) and (akhir), respectively, during a spelling reform in 1972 in order to harmonise spelling across Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia (Asmah 1989; Hassan 2008).

2.3 Independence Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia all gained independence after World War II, which included a period of Japanese occupation lasting from 1942 until the end of the war. Malaysia and Singapore achieved independence in a very different manner than did Indonesia. Only two days after the Japanese sur render on 15 August 1945, Indonesia declared its independence on 17 August 1945. The Netherlands tried to reoccupy their former colony, which led to a war of independence lasting until the Dutch recognition of Indonesia as an independent state in December 1949 (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 338-345).

19

In contrast, the British were able to reoccupy Malaya in September 1945 with the intention of establishing a Malayan Union, while Singapore was to remain a separate colony. As there was no mass-based nationalist movement insisting on urgent independence due to inter-ethnic tensions and an armed insurgency led by the Malayan Communist Party (MCP), it took a decade for such an opportunity to arise: the spectacular electoral victory of the Alliance Party, a coalition of three political parties, i.e. the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC), which took over 51 of the 52 available seats in the national elections in July 1955. The impressive mandate resulting from this landslide victory allowed the Alliance Party to demand independence from the British sooner rather than later. Malaya's in dependence was finalised on 31 August 1957 (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 327332). Singapore began the post-war period with a similarly divided opposition. The parties to emerge were the Malayan Democratic Union (MDU), which sought a unification with Malaya, as well as the Malay Nationalist Party (MNP), whose vision of a Malay political unit was that of an Indonesia Raya (Greater Indonesia) or Melayu Raya (Greater Malaya), i.e. the fusion of British and Dutch possessions into a single political entity. These parties saw themselves as Malayan rather than exclusively Singaporean, which distracted from the issue of Singaporean affairs. As such, no Singapore-oriented nationalist movement emerged. The United Kingdom began

20

holding regular legislative elections in order to boost confidence in Singa pore's political future. However, the success of the Left, including the People's Action Party (PAP), worried the British, in particular after the rise of Communist China in 1949. For this reason, granting independence to Singapore on its own was not an option from the United Kingdom's perspective. The alternative was to merge it with Malaya. The moderate leaders of the PAP, now in power, advocated such a move, as it would insure Singapore's political future and weaken the party's radical left-wing opponents within a Malaya ruled by the anti-Communist Alliance government. Kuala Lumpur objected to the plan, fearing the influence of Singapore's majorityChinese population after such a merger. Instead, a union also including the three British territories in Borneo (Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo [today's Sabah]) was contemplated. The merger of Malaya, Singapore and the British territories in Borneo (with the exception of Brunei) was sealed on 16 September 1963 with the founding of Malaysia. However, political rivalry between the two main parties in peninsular Malaysia and Singapore, as well as ethnic tensions, posed challenges immediately after Malaysia had been founded. This led Singapore to break off from the Malaysian federation in August 1965 and form a new nation on its own (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 332-338).

21

Chapter 3: English in postcolonial Southeast Asia The aim of this chapter is twofold. A first section describes the linguistic ecologies, i.e. the roles and functions of languages within a speech community, in the three countries under investigation. A second section summar ises previous descriptions of English as a variety in the three countries.

3.1 Linguistic ecologies in the post-colonial period The term 'ecology', adapted from the field of biology (Mufwene 2001: 21), has been applied to linguistics as a factor to explain language evolution. Ecology can be divided into two different sub-categories, namely "speciesinternal and species-external ecologies. The former pertains to the coexistence of features in a language variety, whereas the latter subsumes [...] the contact of a linguistic system with another and the general ethnographic context in which it is used" (2001: 30). Following their independence, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia have undergone various changes, both political and educational, which have defined their respective external language ecologies. This in turn has prompted changes in the forms and func tions of both English and Malay. The external linguistic ecologies of the three countries are outlined below.

22

3.1.1 Singapore Following their split in 1965, the two former British colonies Malaysia and Singapore went their own ways with regard to language planning. English has been on the rise in Singapore for the entire post-colonial period. This process began in the post-war years prior to independence. The proportion of pupils enrolled in English-medium schools rose from 32% in 1947 to 43% in 1952. In 1956, bilingual education was recommended by an AllParty Committee, whereby English had to be the medium of instruction alongside one of the three other languages spoken in Singapore (Chinese, Malay or Tamil). The proportion of enrolment in English-language schools passed 50% right before the end of British rule, in 1962. After independence from the United Kingdom and subsequently from Malaysia, the rates rose further, reaching 58.7% in 1967, 71.3% in 1976 and 79.9% in 1979 (Platt et al. 1983: 10). As a result, English has become the main medium of all edu cation since 1987, with 30% of the population speaking English predomin antly at home as of 2007, a figure that rises to 50% when isolating schoolage children as a group (Deterding 2007: 4). The ethnic makeup of Singapore consists of 77% Chinese, 14% Malay, 8% Indian and 1% others as of 2000 (Deterding 2007: 1). Although they make up the major ethnic group in the nation, Chinese Singaporeans have traditionally spoken a variety of dialects, mainly Southern varieties of Chinese, such as Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew, Hainanese or Hakka. As it was considered to be too challenging for children to speak one of these dia -

23

lects at home and then learn two more languages, i.e. a standard variety for the entire Chinese community of Singapore as well as English, the 'Speak Mandarin campaign' was launched in 1979 to establish a single variety of Chinese to be learned and spoken alongside English. The campaign was very successful, and the switch to Mandarin as a home language for the majority of Chinese Singaporeans was completed within a single generation (Deterding 2007: 2). Malay enjoys the status of being the national language, a fact attested by the Malay-language national anthem (Bautista & Gonzalez 2006: 131), but de facto it serves as the first language of the Malay ethnic minority. The functions of business, higher education and interethnic communica tion clearly belong to English.

3.1.2 Malaysia In contrast to Singapore, Malaysia adopted an entirely different approach to language policy in the wake of its independence. With a population consist ing of 49.78% Malays, 37.1% Chinese and 11% Indians at the time of independence (Asmah 1979: 13), the young nation was faced with the difficult but crucial task of creating a sense of Malaysian national identity. Malay as a national language was generally not disputed by minority groups, and was given that status in the new constitution. A ten-year transition period was stipulated after which Malay was to have superseded English. Consequently, the National Language Act, passed in 1963, amended in 1967, and reviewed

24

again in 1987, made Malaysian not only the national language, but also the sole official language (Davey 1990: 95-96). This last point was an area of contention, particularly among the Chinese and Indian minority groups, who felt that the official language status should also be accorded to their languages, Chinese and Tamil respectively, as well as English. Asmah (1979: 14) gives an account of the situation:

It is then clear that controversies arising from the national language issue were not spurred on by the people's rejection of Malay as the national language, but rather Malay as the official language and as medium of instruction. What people perceived as a symbol of iden tity was something quite different from a tool of communication and education. Hence, the national language, or Malay, was seen fit as a symbol, just like the national flag and the national anthem – a sym bol that called for reverence and devotion to one's country. Any extension of the role of this language would not augur well for certain sections of the population, as this meant an extension of the changes of their behavior, social and verbal.

While Malay as a national language was not contested, its role as the sole official language was seen as discriminatory towards minority ethnic groups, a feeling further aggravated by other privileges granted to the bumiputra ('sons of the soil'), i.e. ethnic Malays. These privileges included con-

25

cessions in land, quotas in public service, educational grants, university pos itions and permits (Davey 1990: 97). Malaysia's policy of favouring ethnic Malays and their language over other groups stands in stark contrast to the Singaporean approach, where each group is expected and encouraged to use their language as well as English. As such, one of the roles of English in Singaporean society is that of a tool for interethnic communication, a function to be covered by the national language in the Malaysian model. The consequence of this approach is not only the devaluation of Chinese and Tamil, but also that of English. As English is not only the language of the former colonial power, but also an international language vital for technology, science and business, promoting Malaysian at the expense of English could prove to run counter to the country's interests. The country's leadership realised this fact and passed the Education Act of 1996, which planned the reintroduction of English as a medium of instruction, albeit only for technical subjects (Bautista & Gonzalez 2006: 131). The measure was implemented in 2003 but reversed in 2012 (Phan et al. 2013: 59). The apparent indecision on the part of the authorities is symptomatic of the conundrum they face, i.e. attempting both to distance themselves from the colonial past by building a national identity, and integrate the country into the current global trends, both polit ical and economic.

3.1.3 Indonesia

26

The adoption of a single national and official language in Indonesia did not result in any of the problems encountered in Malaysia. The national language, Indonesian, is in fact a variety of Malay, referred to as bahasa Indonesia for political reasons. Ethnic Malays constitute only a minority in Indonesia, but the language has been used as a regional lingua franca for maritime trade for several centuries (Asmah 1989; Davey 1990: 98; Tadmor 2009: 686), therefore making it a better choice than Javanese, the language of the country's largest ethnic group. The idea of using a variety of Malay as an Indonesian national language was not new by the time of independence. One of the first local political organisations was Budi Utomo, founded in 1908. Although it was Java-centred and never developed an Indonesia-wide vision, it chose to officially use Malay rather than Javanese (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 280). The notion of an Indonesian nation and a corresponding national language was cemented at a Youth Congress held in Batavia (present Jakarta) in 1928, during which three objectives were declared: satu nusa, satu bangsa, satu bahasa ('one fatherland, one nation, one language') (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 283). A future state of Indonesia, despite its thousands of islands, hundreds of ethnic groups and hundreds of languages, was to be united by the notions of a common state, a common nationality and a common language. Following the declaration of independence in 1945, English was appointed as the new nation's first foreign language. It was chosen over Dutch for two reasons: Firstly, Dutch was the language of the former colonial

27

power, with which Indonesia was still embroiled in a war of independence. Secondly, English was of greater value for international communication (Smith 1991: 40). Within the context of the independence war, those two reasons for adopting English as the first foreign language were inextricably linked. Not only did Republican forces battle the Dutch, they also sought help from the international community. Australia and India, itself just days away from its own independence, raised the issue at the UN Security Council. The United States was noncommittal at first, but later supported the independence movement by suspending aid to the Netherlands that had been supporting its efforts in Indonesia, and then threatened to cut off all aid to the Dutch (Ricklefs et al. 2010: 343-345). The independence movement relied on English in order to seek help from the international community, inasmuch as its main supporters, i.e. Australia, India and the United States, use English as a first or second language. It is therefore not surprising to see documented cases of pro-independence slogans written in English during the Indonesian war of independence (see Figure 3.1).2 As a first foreign language, the main functions of English have been the acceleration of national development by making modern knowledge (mostly written in English) accessible, the facilitation of communication with other countries, as well as the ability to present Indonesian culture to other peoples (Smith 1991: 41). As such, English is often encountered in 2

© Cas Oorthuys / Nederlands Fotomuseum, reproduced by permission.

28

touristic locations, major cities and transportation hubs (see Figure 3.2).3 In 2007, the importance of English for international communication was further stressed by the decision of ASEAN, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, to establish English as its sole working language (Schneider 2011: 149). Since the use of English in advertisements was not part of the origin ally intended functions, several attempts have been made to ban shop signs and public notices in English, though without any success (Smith 1991: 41). In today's Indonesia, Western pop music, Hollywood films (subtitled rather than dubbed), as well as advertisements and shop signs in 'Decorative English' (McArthur 2002: 420-421) are ubiquitous (see Figure 3.3).4

Figure 3.1 Pro-independence slogan written in English (Indonesia 1947)

@@ Insert PER_FIG_3.1.tif here

Figure 3.2 Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in 2011, displaying a sign in English

@@ Insert PER_FIG_3.2.tif here

Figure 3.3 Footwear shop in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia, in 2009

@@ Insert PER_FIG_3.3.tif here Photograph by Dimas Soeharko, reproduced by permission; notice the application of the compounding order used in Malay (head-modifier: shelter bus) rather than the English one (modifier-head: bus shelter). 4 Shop owners, as well as customers, are most likely unaware that athlete's foot refers to a fungal infection affecting the skin between the toes, rather than literally the foot of an athlete. 3

29

3.1.4 Overview of linguistic ecologies in the three countries The different ethnic makeups and postcolonial developments have led to distinct linguistic ecologies in the three countries, in which English and Malay have different functions. Table 3.1 summarises the distinct linguistic ecologies by providing an overview of the status of the two languages across the countries under examination.

Table 3.1 Overview of English and Malay in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia

@@ Insert PER_TAB_3.1.xls here

3.2 Profile of English in Southeast Asia

3.2.1 Singapore English Singapore English is one of the best documented postcolonial varieties of English, and therefore listing the existing body of research in its entirety is close to impossible. Several noteworthy publications that provide an overview of the variety include Platt et al. (1983), Low & Brown (2005) and De terding (2007). Several corpora have been compiled over the years, includ ing a Singaporean component of the International Corpus of English (ICESingapore), the Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus, GSSEC (Lim 2001; Lim & Foley 2004), as well as the National Institute of Educa-

30

tion Corpus of Spoken Singapore English, NIECSSE (Deterding & Low 2001). The non-standard features most commonly identified in Singapore English are indicated below, as summarised and illustrated with examples by Schneider (2011: 162-164):

• on the level of phonology: • the loss of length contrasts in vowels, e.g. merging of the i-sounds in bit difficult and believe to a short vowel • the syllable-timing tendency, which leads to the realisation of reduced vowels as full vowels and to changes in stress patterns, e.g. the word other realised as /ada/ with two identical vowels in both syllables, rather than a reduced vowel in the second syllable • monophthongisation of diphthongs, particularly those with a mid-high onset, such as /əʊ/ and /eɪ/, e.g. g o and say pronounced as [goː] and [seː] respectively • final consonant cluster reduction, e.g. last becomes las' • omission of final stop consonants, e.g. but is pronounced with no audible /t/ • interdental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ realised as their corresponding stops, /t/ and /d/ respectively, e.g. that begins with a /d/ and three with a /t/ • on the level of morphology:

31

• deletion of present tense third person singular inflectional marking, e.g. the one who like to • deletion of past tense inflectional marking, e.g. just run across [the other day] • on the level of syntax: • a distinctive passive structure, the so-called kena-passive, borrowed from the Malay passive marker kena, e.g. He kena sabotage 'he was sabotaged' • zero copulas in equative structures, e.g. He quite poor thing • deletion of articles, e.g. got problem • the verb got has a range of non-standard functions, e.g. possessive, perfective or existential, e.g. that guy got problem (possessive), got buy 'has bought' (perfective), or Here got 'there are' (existential) • reduplication for intensification, e.g. botak (from Malay for 'bald') becomes botak botak 'very bald' • a distinctive relative clause structure where the invariant relative pro noun one is preceded by the modifying constituents, e.g. The fella centre botak three side hair one 'The fella who is bald at the centre and has hair on three sides' • deletion of context-derivable pronominal subjects, e.g. Can or not? • questions formed without inversion or auxiliaries, but rather by intonation, e.g. You remember?

32

• on the level of discourse, in particular discourse particles, most of which are borrowed from Chinese or Malay: • the particle lah, e.g. okay lah • the particle ah, e.g. got problem ah • the particle lor, e.g. He quite poor thing also lor • the particle wat or what, e.g. He kena sabotage what

3.2.2 Malaysian English Malaysian English was at times treated as a single entity together with Singapore English, for instance by Tongue (1979) and Platt et al. (1983), but has since been studied as a variety in its own right. A list, by no means ex haustive, of publications investigating Malaysian English consists of Newbrook (1997), Baskaran (1994; 2008a; 2008b), Pillai (2008) and Pillai et al. (2010). Recent studies specifically contrasting Malaysian English with Singapore English have also appeared, e.g. Tan & Low (2010). In addition to the features mentioned above for Singapore English, the following features have been observed for Malaysian English, as summarised by Baskaran (2008a; 2008b):

• on the level of phonology: • devoicing, mainly in final position, occasionally also in medial position, e.g. [gif] 'give' • voicing of /s/ and /ʃ/ in certain lexical items, e.g. [naɪz] 'nice'

33

• final stops are frequently replaced by glottal stops [ʔ], e.g. [mʌʔ] 'mud' • consonant substitution according to substrate, e.g. [beri] 'very' • on the level of syntax: • lack of singular/plural pronoun concord for inanimate nouns, e.g. Those books are very informative. It can be obtained at Dillon's • mass nouns treated as count nouns, e.g. How many staffs are on medical leave? • tense system determined by temporal distance from deictic centre, e.g. I ate/was eating rice this morning. I have eaten/have been eating rice yesterday. I had eaten/had been eating rice last year • simplified system of modals, e.g. can expressing permission and ability, may expressing possibility • stative verbs in the progressive, e.g. She is owning two luxury apartments • tagged yes-no interrogatives, e.g. She can sing, yes or not? 'Can she sing?' • invariant interrogative tags, e.g. They must submit the forms tomorrow, can or not? 'Can they submit the forms tomorrow?' • lack of verb inversion in adverb-initial sentences, e.g. Never he was so delighted 'Never was he so delighted'

3.2.3 English in Indonesia

34

Research on English in Indonesia, such as Lowenberg (1991), Smith (1991) and Zacharias (2005), has so far focused on the role of English in Indonesian society, English borrowings into Indonesian, and the state of English Language Teaching in Indonesia. There seems to be little to no research on frequent errors or other features found in the speech of Indonesian learners of English. As a result, such an analysis has yet to be performed in order to compare Indonesian learner English with the neighbouring ESL varieties.

35

Chapter 4: Theories and models for a comparative study of secondlanguage varieties and learner Englishes The present chapter begins with an overview of current models used to classify varieties of English. It then explores avenues for a comparative analysis of second-language and learner varieties of English.

4.1 Classifying varieties of English

Given the different colonial backgrounds and postcolonial linguistic ecologies of the three varieties under investigation, it is necessary to categorise them in an appropriate model that distinguishes them in terms of colonial as well as postcolonial characteristics. Varieties of English have traditionally been divided into three major groups: English as a Native Language (ENL), English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This distinction dates back to a suggestion made by Barbara Strang in the 1970s (McArthur 1998: 42; Schneider 2011: 30). Her classification is useful, but it ignores certain complex cases, such as non-native speaker groups in ENL countries, groups of native speakers in ESL countries or multilingual countries (Schneider 2007: 12-13). The ENL/ESL/EFL model is based primarily on the colonial history of a given country, and as such disregards any postcolonial developments which may have resulted in further

36

variation among Englishes spoken in former colonies. Accordingly, ENL countries are comprised of Britain and former settlement colonies, the territ ories to which large numbers of native speakers of English were relocated permanently and became the majority population, while ESL countries consist of former British or American exploitation colonies, those territories in which a minority of native speakers of English ruled over the local population and oversaw the extraction of natural resources during the colonial period and returned to their homeland after independence. The EFL status denotes most other countries on the globe, in which English is taught as a foreign language, primarily due to its status as an international lingua franca. As such, Singapore and Malaysian English belong to the ESL category, and Indonesia falls into the EFL category. Another widespread model used to classify varieties of English is the 'Three Circles' model first proposed by Kachru (1985). Varieties are categor ised into an Inner Circle, an Outer Circle and an Expanding Circle, as shown in Figure 4.1. With regard to the distribution of countries in the different circles, the 'Three Circles' model is largely similar to the ENL/ESL/EFL model. The difference between the two models is largely of a political nature, with the 'Three Circles' model rejecting the notion that ENL coun tries and their native language status should have a privileged position (Schneider 2007: 13-14). This monograph uses the ENL/ESL/EFL terminology, although what is borne in mind is an important introduced in the 'Three Circles' model: that non-native features present in non-native variet-

37

ies should by no means be regarded as deficient or wrong in comparison to standard varieties. The terms 'native' and 'non-native', when applied to varieties, have been criticised, for example by Mufwene (1994: 22, 1997: 183), for failing to express the fact that both ENL and ESL varieties have undergone changes in comparison to their ancestral variety. Nevertheless, the terms are used in the present study given their significance in the ENL/ESL/EFL model.

Figure 4.1 Kachru's 'Three Circles' model (adapted from Crystal 1997: 54)

@@ Insert PER_FIG_4.1.eps here

A further criticism that can be made against the ENL/ESL/EFL distinction lies in the grouping of former exploitation colonies into a single ESL group. Given the different types of postcolonial language policies, like those in Malaysia and Singapore as previously discussed, the accuracy of the encompassing label ESL for these two varieties should be questioned. A distinction between ESL+ for Singapore and ESL- for Malaysia as proposed by Görlach (2002: 107) is useful for this line of thought, but the question remains of how close Malaysian English has drifted towards EFL usage, such as that of Indonesia. The language policies of Malaysia, which promoted Malaysian at the expense of English, may have, whether deliberately or not, turned Malaysia into an (almost-)EFL country. This may have been an attempt to purge any colonial legacies, or it may have been seen as a necessary sacri -

38

fice in building national unity and identity. The previously mentioned Edu cation Act of 1996 marked the time when the country's leadership considered this objective to have been met, and English could safely be intro duced to assist in the country's modernisation process (Bautista & Gonzalez 2006: 131). The fact that English was reintroduced only as a language of science and technology may be seen as an indication that the renewed in terest Malaysia exhibits towards English is motivated by the same incent ives as in neighbouring Indonesia. One could therefore argue that Malaysia deprecated English as a former colonial language and has recently embraced it in its function as a global lingua franca. The ENL/ESL/EFL model may be useful for categorising varieties of English according to how English came to be spoken in the respective area, but a model that takes into account both colonial as well as postcolonial as pects is needed for a more accurate classification of varieties of English. The first factor that comes to mind when classifying postcolonial varieties of English is the colonisation type they emerged from. Mufwene (2001) distinguishes one the one hand between trade colonies, which later expanded into exploitation colonies, and settlement colonies on the other (2001: 8-9). As a rule, former exploitation colonies currently have an ESL status due to the presence of local native languages other than English used among the majority of the population, while former settlement colonies have an ENL status, given the fact that the majority population which descended from the settlers has maintained English as their native language. The two

39

former British colonies under discussion, Singapore and Malaysia, were both exploitation colonies. Therefore, a model of postcolonial Englishes that allows for distinctions between Englishes in various former exploitation colonies, i.e. ESL forms, is needed in order to classify the varieties under examination. One model that categorises ESL varieties by incorporating colonial as well as postcolonial factors is the one proposed by Schneider (2007). For both types of colonies, the model distinguishes between two speaker strands, the settler (STL) strand and the indigenous (IDG) strand. The two strands are related to the notions of ENL and ESL respectively, as an ENL status implies a STL strand in the majority while an ESL status implies an IDG strand in the majority. The concepts differ in that the ENL and ESL la bels have been applied to entire countries, while the STL and IDG strands apply to speech communities within a country (2007: 31-32). Former settlement and exploitation colonies are characterised by different ratios of STL and IDG strands. In former exploitation colonies, on which the focus lies here, the STL strand constituted a small minority that usually left the country with the advent of independence, whereas the IDG strand corresponds to the local population. As such, the aspects of the IDG strands in former ex ploitation colonies are deemed most important for the varieties at hand, given that most members of the STL strand left after independence, thus making the IDG strand the sole speech community in these former colonies.

40

Schneider's (2007) model of postcolonial Englishes includes five distinctive stages: foundation (2007: 33), exonormative stabilisation (2007: 36), nativisation (2007: 40), endonormative stabilisation (2007: 48) and dif ferentiation (2007: 52). Schneider posits that former colonies undergo these developmental stages, with certain countries reaching the lower stages only and others progressing to the final stage. Stages 1 and 2 cover the first con tact between settlers and indigenous populations, marked largely by incipi ent pidginisation and toponymic borrowings (2007: 35) as well as the sub sequent borrowing of lexemes for local fauna and flora in the settler strand (2007: 39) and bilingualism within the local elites (2007: 38). Stage 3, nativisation, is considered by Schneider to be "the most interesting and im portant, the most vibrant one, the central phase of both cultural and linguistic transfer" (2007: 40). The linguistic effects of this stage of develop ment include a marked local accent which can frequently be explained by transfer phenomena from the phonology of indigenous languages (2007: 44), as well as grammatical features which emerge when idiosyncrasies of usage develop into indigenous and innovative patterns and rules (2007: 4445). Stage 4, endonormative stabilisation, presupposes not only political in dependence but also cultural self-reliance, meaning that the postcolonial so ciety considers itself detached from its former colonial master (2007: 4850). The linguistic effects of this stage are characterised by the intensified homogeneity of the new indigenous language. Any existing heterogeneity is downplayed or ignored (2007: 51). The last phase, differentiation, is reached

41

when the sociopolitical background is marked by a secure existence and life in the stable young country. Self-dependency has thus been attained politically, culturally, and as consequence linguistically. Identities are formed not only on the national level, but also on that of the immediate community (2007: 52-53). The linguistic effects of phase 5 include increasing regional differences and ethnic dialect markers (2007: 54). It should be noted that phase 5 does not imply monolingualism in English at all (2007: 55). Schneider describes Malaysian English as having proceeded substantially into phase 3 (2007: 148). Singapore English is classified as having reached many characteristics of phase 4 and may at some point reach the fi nal phase (2007: 153). The model does not cover EFL countries, therefore Singapore English and Malaysian English cannot be compared to Indone sian learner English within that framework. However, a crucial difference between the two ESL varieties and the EFL variety can be identified via Schneider's model, namely that both ESL varieties have undergone nativisa tion, but to varying degrees, while Indonesian learner English has not. It is thus possible to categorise the three varieties as such: Indonesian learner English as a non-nativised variety, Malaysian English as a nativised variety, and Singapore English as a nativised variety undergoing endonormative stabilisation. Despite its usefulness as a dynamic model that incorporates colonial and postcolonial aspects, several criticisms have been raised against Schneider's model. One point is the fact that identity is treated by Schneider

42

as a public concept in terms of nationhood, while other important aspects of identity such as class and status are not given the attention they deserve. A further point contends that the model is based mainly on an analysis of the Asia-Pacific region, and it is not clear whether it can be applied as such to other regions, such as Africa and South Asia (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 3536). The latter point is of less concern here since the varieties under examination in this book are all in the Asia-Pacific region. The former point is more important for the present study because the class and status aspects of identity can influence linguistic variation. Such variation, as in a basilectalmesolectal-acrolectal continuum, can be a part of an incipient differentiation, a transition to stage 5. Status and class have played a role in the genesis of postcolonial varieties, as during the colonial period instruction in English was usually given to local elites only. This suggests parallels with learner Englishes, as status and class also play an important role in EFL countries. In Indonesia, for example, "English has high status and many middle and upper class Indonesians will use English for peer interaction" (Smith 1991: 41). Consequently, factors such as speakers' education, sense of identity, and class deserve consideration for both postcolonial and lingua franca contexts.

43

4.2 Comparing second-language varieties and learner Englishes

The individual fields of World Englishes/New Varieties of English and Second Language Acquisition (SLA) each have built up their respective bodies of research. As the premise of this monograph is that a number of features of the nativised varieties under discussion trace their origins to learner errors, it is necessary to link these two disciplines. This gap between World Englishes and SLA research has already been deplored by Sridhar & Sridhar (1986). They argue that both fields have neglected each other, which they blame mainly on the fact that assumptions on which SLA is based, such as holding a standard variety as a learning target, do not correspond to the realities existing in ESL societies (1986: 5). As such, the principles of SLA cannot be applied to the empirical study of ESL varieties. The disregard of SLA research displayed towards ESL varieties is regrettable in light of the fact that the use of English between non-native speakers (as opposed to uses between native and non-native speakers) appears to be the rule rather than the exception (1986: 3), and this implies the use of English in a context of bilingualism. Consequently, the "paradigm gap" (1986: 3) between SLA research and World Englishes research should be bridged in order to make the theoretical framework of SLA more widely applicable.

4.2.1 Attempts at bridging the paradigm gap

44

Since Sridhar's & Sridhar's assessment in 1986, several attempts have been made to "bridge the gap", including publications appearing shortly thereafter. However, it is not until very recently that more concerted attempts have been made. A pioneering publication on the comparative study of ESL and EFL varieties is Williams's (1987), which describes non-native varieties of English as a special case of language acquisition. Williams argues that learner languages and ESL varieties, which she refers to as non-native institutionalized varieties of English (NIVEs), exhibit certain similarities:

Certain forms [...], which are found in NIVEs, strongly resemble forms found in learner languages, and at one time may, in fact, have been the result of individual language acquisition. However, these varieties, which contain many such modifications, have spread throughout the population and become insitutionalized and as a result, can no longer be considered learner varieties of their NS counterparts. (Williams 1987: 163)

Although ESL and EFL varieties share certain features, and EFL properties may even play a role in the genesis of ESL varieties, they differ in that ESL varieties are spoken within the population. This implies that unlike for EFL learners, standard varieties are no longer regarded as a target of develop ment, since they are neither easily accessible nor desirable for a majority of

45

speakers (Williams 1987: 164). As certain features found in ESL varieties may originate in learner errors, present EFL varieties that share a common substrate language can be thought of as similar to ESL varieties in their prenativisation stages. It is therefore useful to treat EFL varieties with a common substrate language as a hypothetical "stage 0" addition to Schneider's (2007) model. Consequently, the comparative analysis of ESL and EFL varieties in this study does not focus on the ESL/EFL distinction as such, but rather on the role that structural nativisation plays in the genesis of ESL varieties. These may have begun in a very similar fashion to learner varieties, but in the process have maintained certain features, discarded others and replaced them with innovative forms.

4.2.2 Adopting and adapting theories and methodologies Performing a comparative analysis of ESL and EFL varieties entails adopting theoretical frameworks, methodologies and resources from two different fields, namely the study of second-language varieties of English as well as second language acquisition research. A publication that introduces such an approach is the volume edited by Granger (2002a). The volume focuses mostly on the study of differences between ENL and EFL usage, and does not contain comparative analyses of ESL and EFL language data as such, but raises the possibility of an empirical approach to the comparison of ESL and EFL forms of English. As certain features of ESL and EFL varieties are

46

prone to overlap, corpora covering ESL varieties, such as the International Corpus of English, can be contrasted with learner corpora (cf. Granger 2002b: 7-10) in order to identify traits that testify to the SLA origins of nativised varieties. The methods originating in learner corpus research, such as error tagging (Granger 2002b: 18-20) and subsequent computer-aided error analysis (Granger 2002b: 13-14), can be adopted under the condition that they are adapted to suit the conditions and needs of a comparative analysis of ESL and EFL varieties. This includes renaming these methods as feature tagging and feature analysis, one reason being that ESL varieties do not maintain standard varieties as their development target, so that deviations from exonormative standards do not constitute errors but rather features that are deemed acceptable within the speaker circle. A further reason lies in the fact that features of ESL varieties do not arise solely from SLA errors, but also from innovations emanating from the nativisation process. Therefore, error tagging schemes used in learner corpora research cannot be directly applied to comparative ESL/EFL feature tagging. A custom annotation scheme will be more adequate for this task. A further approach derived from SLA research that can prove useful for the present study is Gilquin's (2008) Detection-Explanation-Evaluation (DEE) model. It combines elements from Granger's (1996) Integrated Con trastive Model and Jarvis's (2000) unified framework for transfer research, in order to investigate learner errors, both qualitative and quantitative

47

(Gilquin 2008: 26), in terms of plausibility of transfer as an explanation (2008: 13-16) and the ensuing relevance for foreign language teaching (2008: 17-18). The need for a model such as the DEE model arises from the fact that the existence of equivalents in a learner's L1 and their interlan guage does not necessarily imply transfer, as errors may be due to learning obstacles inherent in the target language, and as such may also occur in the interlanguage of learners whose L1 does not feature specific equivalent structures (2008: 14). The DEE model relies on several corpus-based crosscomparisons, namely the comparison of the learner's interlanguage with the mother tongue, whereby attested similarities make transfers plausible in the first place (2008: 13), followed by a comparison of native corpus data from the learner's L1 and the target language, which allows for the estimation of the linguistic distance of structures across the two languages (2008: 16). The latter comparison is based on Ellis's (1994: 327) premise that actual distance between the native language and the target language acts as a constraint on transfer. Gilquin (2008) states that her DEE model can be applied "to other languages, other types of transfer" (2008: 6). Applying her model to the present study in order to determine whether an observed structure can be plausibly explained as originating from Malay L1 transfer would require a native corpus of Malay. Only two such corpora exist (to the author's knowledge), namely the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) Corpus (114 million words from sources such as modern literature and textbooks) and the Malay Concordance Project (5.8 mil-

48

lion words from classical Malay literature). "Unfortunately, the former is not publicly available while the latter has obvious limitations in studying mod ern Malay" (Baldwin & Su'ad 2006: 2213). Therefore, features observed in Singapore and Malaysian English or Indonesian learner English can only be assessed with regard to their similarity to Malay in a qualitative manner, as there is no suitable quantitative resource currently available. In order to avoid classifying features as originating in L1 transfer when they could be due to universal learner strategies, the observed features could be compared to language produced by learners of English with different L1 backgrounds, e.g. as compiled in the International Corpus of Learner English (Granger 2003). However, this corpus contains written language only, while the data for the present study are made up entirely of spoken language (see Chapter 5). A non-standard feature, say lack of plural marking, can hardly be expec ted to occur with similar frequencies in spoken and written language, even if its origins are identical for all varieties under examination. Furthermore, this excludes the comparison of any phonological features. The identification of substrate features can therefore not take place under ideal circumstances. Features for which a substrate explanation is readily available may in fact have come about via different learner strategies, and can therefore not be identified with certainty. However, substrate influence can be ruled out when the non-standard feature under consideration does not have any properties found in Malay and vice versa. As such, features can be categorised as 'not substrate influenced' and 'potentially substrate influenced'.

49

4.2.3 A concerted and empirical approach It is only recently that more systematic attempts to "bridge the gap" have been undertaken. For example, Nesselhauf (2009) has performed an exploratory study of co-selection phenomena with data from ESL and EFL cor pora. Her results suggest that similar collocations and innovative prepositional verbs are attested across second-language and learner varieties, and that both variety types tend “to favour one or a few phraseological expressions when there is a choice of several in L1 English” (2009: 23). A more concerted approach can be found in the volume edited by Mukherjee & Hundt (2011) dedicated to "bridging the gap". Its aim is to combine the approaches of SLA and ESL research by featuring empirical case studies of both learner Englishes and second-language varieties, dis cussing similarities and differences, scrutinising varieties on the fuzzy boundary between ESL and EFL, questioning these labels, as well as the no tions of native and non-native speakers, and ultimately setting up an agenda for a future integrated approach (Hundt & Mukherjee 2011). The volume contains a number of empirical studies that cover a wide range of cases and on certain occasions come to different conclusions. The contributions that are most relevant to the present study are listed and summarised below:

50

• Biewer (2011), in her study on modal auxiliaries in Englishes across Africa, Asia and the South Pacific, questions the suitability of the ESLEFL distinction and the gradient nature of the second-language status of World Englishes. • Gilquin & Granger (2011) look at the use of the preposition into in various learner Englishes in comparison to native British English. They con clude that the complex picture emerging from their analysis supports the use of the label learner Englishes rather than learner English. • Gut (2011) addresses the important question of whether structural changes in World Englishes should be classified as innovations or learner errors. The answer is said to depend on the speaker's attitudes and the status of the new variant or variety of English. • Hilbert (2011) looks at interrogative inversion in Indian English, Singapore English, and Irish English. She concludes that structurally identical forms can arise through different processes. • Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2011) compare degrees of grammatical analyticity and syntheticity across ESL and EFL forms. They conclude that the two variety types are clearly different from a typological perspective. • Van Rooy (2011) examines the role of errors and innovations in the formation of new norms in ESL varieties in Africa. The concepts of grammatical stability and grammatical acceptability are introduced as criteria to identify emerging norms.

51

These contributions will now be discussed in further detail. Biewer (2011) gives a succinct account of general SLA processes that can be used to ex plain the emergence of non-standard features, regardless of whether they are learner errors in EFL Englishes or initial learner errors turned innovations in ESL varieties. This inventory of possible explanations can prove useful for determining the origins of any non-standard features found in Singapore English, Malaysian English or Indonesian learner English. The SLA processes mentioned include:

1.

The transfer to somewhere principle, originally proposed by Andersen (1983), states that "only structural features in L1 that are unmarked in L1 are transferred into L2" (Biewer 2011: 14). As an example, she gives the unmarkedness of third person singular present verbs derived from the unmarkedness in L1 as well as the unmarkedness of all persons but the third person singular in English (2011: 14).

2.

The shortest path principle, as defined by Wald (1996: 516-517), states that when faced with rules allowing for variation in the target language, learners will select only one variant, typically the one closer to the L1 feature (Biewer 2011: 14).

3.

The "general cognitive strategies of linearisation" (Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 171), which independently of L1 or L2 structures give preference to unmarked categories and result in a 'basic variety' at early stages of SLA (Biewer 2011: 14).

52

4.

Markedness theory states that less marked features are less complex and more frequent in the world's languages, and as a consequence are easier to learn and are therefore acquired first (Tschichold 2002: 129). Biewer (2011: 15) sees this as an explanation for the initial neglect of third personal singular present tense marking on verbs and plural marking on nouns in both ESL and EFL.

5.

The so-called teddy bear principle, a term coined by Hasselgren (1994), describes the tendency of learners to stick to structures which they feel are safe and familiar. According to Biewer (2011: 15), this explains "why grammatical patterns of the target language tend to be regularized, giving way to overusage of some patterns and underusage of others".

6.

T h e avoidance of redundancies is a strategy to reduce ambiguity (Biewer 2011: 15). It manifests itself in the choice of only one marker, typically the most salient one (Williams 1987: 169-170; Mesthrie & Bhatt 2008: 174). Examples include quantifiers followed by unmarked nouns, where the quantifier is regarded as sufficient for marking the plural, or lexical markers of pastness in combination with unmarked verbs (Williams 1987: 176-177).

7.

The principle of maximum salience (Williams 1987: 188-189) can have the opposite effect, namely the creation of redundancies for max imum clarity of meaning (Biewer 2011: 15,18).

8.

The avoidance of plurifunctionality (Shatz & Wilcox 1991: 321-322) is a strategy mostly used by young learners. Using the modal system as an

53

example, Biewer (2011: 16) argues that in early stages of SLA, learners will regularise this system by avoiding the plurifunctionality of modals, so that the predominance of deontic modality over epistemic modality will be more pronounced than in ENL varieties.

Gilquin & Granger (2011) argue that the traditional dichotomy between ESL/EFL should be re-conceptualised as a continuum, with ESL and EFL to be defined as two extremes on a cline (2011: 55-56). This perspective is use ful for categorising the two postcolonial varieties and the learner variety under examination. As there may be structural differences and similarities between them, grouping two of them under the label ESL and placing the third one in the different category EFL may not reflect their actual proper ties. Instead, categorising them with regard to their distance or proximity to prototypical ESL or EFL extremes may prove to do justice to their features more than a dichotomy could. A further important point Gilquin & Granger make is the observed tendency to reduce functionally equivalent variants to just a few choices or even a single variant, which may vary depending on the learner's L1 (Gilquin & Granger 2011: 68). This tendency, alongside the shortest path principle mentioned by Biewer (2011: 14), may explain cases of overuse and underuse of certain structures. Gut (2011) discusses the idea that "structural features that were originally produced by language learners came to be adopted by later generation speakers and have developed into stable features of the newly emerged

54

variety of English" (2011: 102). She argues that the process implied in this claim would require at least three steps defined by Muysken (2000: 271), namely that features of the indigenous language are part of the language production of individual learners of English, that these features remain even after a high level of competence in English has been reached, and finally that these features are adopted by speakers of following generations. This is in accordance with the premise of the present study, namely that certain ESL features have their origin in learner errors and should therefore also be found in learner English with the same L1. Investigating the possible common origin of learner errors and ESL features requires the evaluation of sub strate influence (or cross-linguistic influence or CLI, to use Gut's terminology), but "as yet there exists no reliable method of quantifying the relative contribution of cross-linguistic influence on any structure produced by language learners" (Gut 2011: 105). The systematic analysis of CLI is made difficult by the fact that it affects all linguistic subsystems in both direct and indirect ways (2011: 107). CLI is known to appear in a variety of ways, namely as "direct borrowings or loans, the production of mixed structures, conceptual transfer, avoidance patterns, preference patterns, hypercorrection and a general facilitating effect in language learning" (2011: 105). These different types of CLI tend to occur at different levels of competence in the course of the language learning process, with direct types of CLI predominant in earlier phases and indirect forms found in later stages (2011: 112). The fact that CLI appears to be dependent on more than the structural fea-

55

tures of the learner's L1 calls for "a multi-factor approach to analyzing CLI that assumes a relationship between universal factors, specific factors about the learner's L1, specific factors about the learner's L2 and extra-linguistic factors such as learning strategies and social context" (2011: 112). An ana lysis of substrate influence for features observed in Singapore English, Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English should therefore take these four factors into account. Regarding the question of feature vs. error for non-standard structures observed in ESL and EFL varieties, Gut makes the point that the answer does not lie in the structural properties themselves, but rather in "the norm-orientation and language policy of a speaker com munity or nation" (2011: 120). The same non-standard feature found in an ESL and EFL variety can therefore be labeled as an error in an EFL setting, since a standard variety of English is used as a reference model, while in an ESL setting it can be seen as an error or a feature, depending on how well it is accepted by the speaker community. In her investigation of interrogative inversion in English contact varieties, Hilbert (2011) introduces another possible learner strategy. A substrate explanation for non-standard interrogative inversion is out of place for some varieties, e.g. Singapore English, whose contact languages do not have inversion (2011: 129). In the course of her analysis, she also excludes overgeneralisation as an explanation, opting instead to attribute the observed patterns to "the use of the same available and (most) frequent fixed chunks" (2011: 132). The learner strategy underlying this explanation is imitation

56

(2011: 133), which has to be added to the inventory of possible explanations for observed features. In addition, Hilbert warns against focusing solely on the mere presence or absence of features, as a feature occurring across many varieties may have a different cause in each case (2011: 141). In their typological study comparing ESL and EFL forms of English, Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2011) come to the conclusion that learner Englishes and indigenised varieties have different typological profiles and that learner Englishes are generally not influenced by typological properties of their substrate languages (2011: 167). The important generalisation deriving from their analysis is that learner Englishes are more analytic than ESL vari eties, and that ESL varieties are more synthetic than learner Englishes (2011: 175), which leads them to advocate "a distinction between English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL) on purely structural grounds" (2011: 184). Their conclusion is drawn solely from the comparison of frequencies of analytic and synthetic features, unlike the present study. Nevertheless, the comparative analysis of two ESL varieties and one EFL form of English performed in the present study will shed light on the structural similarities and differences of the three varieties. A significant difference between the ESL varieties on the one hand and the EFL form on the other would confirm the position held by Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2011), while a lack thereof would attenuate it. An important difference that needs to be addressed derives from the fact that their investigation relies on written data, while the present study relies on spoken data (see

57

Chapter 5). The consequences of this are twofold: Firstly, the present study also investigates phonological features in addition to morphosyntax. The confirmation of a strict structural divide between ESL and EFL on the level of grammar as suggested by Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2011) would not necessarily entail the same differences on the accent level. The second point draws on the fact that the discrepancies observed on the level of morphosyntax for written language may be diminished when spoken language is analysed. Szmrecsanyi & Kortmann (2011) will be able to address this point once the LINDSEI corpus (Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage) is released (2011: 184). Van Rooy (2011) makes a distinction between ESL and EFL forms of English by drawing on Croft's (2000) explanation of language change in volving two independent processes: linguistic innovation and linguistic conventionalisation (Van Rooy 2011: 192). He argues that while both forms innovate in the form of learner errors, the conventionalisation of such a learner error is far more likely in an ESL setting (2011: 193). Contrary to the case of learner Englishes, where the target norm is defined as a standard variety, the ESL setting allows for learner errors to enter a feature pool, as defined by Mufwene (2001: 4-6), from which some are conventionalised by the speech community while others are not (Van Rooy 2011: 204). This the oretical process can be put to the test in the present study by searching for errors in Indonesian learner English and corresponding features in Singa pore and Malaysian English. The scenario that fits Van Rooy's (2011) ex -

58

planation would be the following: some of the Indonesian learner errors can also be found in Singapore and Malaysian English as features having under gone conventionalisation, while others are unique to Indonesian learner English because they have not been selected from the feature pool by the speaker community in the ESL settings. The respective fields of World Englishes and SLA have remained largely disconnected in spite of their mutual relevance, a fact that has been known for several decades but not addressed until very recently. In spite of this, a comparative study integrating both fields can rely on concepts and models of either research tradition. For instance, SLA concepts such as CLI and SLA processes (as listed by Biewer 2011) can be used to explain the origins of non-standard ESL features, while models relevant to the field of World Englishes, such as the dynamic model proposed by Schneider (2007), can be expanded to accommodate both ESL and EFL forms of English. Moreover, recent efforts to integrate both fields, as in the collective volume edited by Mukherjee & Hundt (2011), resulted in theoretical frameworks that explain the transition from learner variety to nativised variety, which are immensely beneficial to the current project, for example the model proposed by Van Rooy (2011).

Chapter 5: Data & Methodology

Given that efforts to join the fields of World Englishes and SLA are very re cent, corpora designed for the comparison of ESL and EFL Englishes are non-existent. As such, the present study cannot rely on a single existing cor pus, but instead on the combination of various corpora when possible, or on the collection of new data when necessary. The present chapter outlines the processes of data collection, transcription, and annotation, as well as the methodologies used for data analysis.

5.1 Singapore

The data for this project should ideally be spoken language, not only be cause phonological features will be investigated alongside morphology and syntax, but also due to the fact that non-standard features are more likely to occur in (informal) spoken language than in (formal) written language. The International Corpus of English (ICE) would seem to be an obvious choice for the purpose of this study because it aims to cover a wide range of variet ies of English, and the corpus design includes text categories from both spoken and written registers (cf. Nelson 1996: 28-33). The Singaporean component of ICE is available. However, as ICE-Singapore does not contain

59

60

biographical speaker data such as ethnic identity or linguistic background, discerning the necessary distinction between Malay L1 speakers and speakers with different backgrounds (e.g. Chinese, Tamil) is not feasible. There fore, I had to fall back on other corpora of Singapore English. Two such corpora that include the desired speaker information are the National Institute of Education Corpus of Spoken Singapore English (Deterding & Low 2001), abbreviated as NIECSSE, and the Grammar of Spoken Singapore English Corpus (Lim 2001; Lim & Foley 2004), abbreviated as GSSEC. Out of a total of 46 speakers in the 'Interview' category of the NIECSSE corpus, only 4 are ethnic Malay speakers. The data of ethnic Malay speakers from both the NIECSSE and GSSEC corpora should be combined in order to obtain a sufficiently large amount of data for a comparative analysis with Malaysian English and Indonesian learner English. The GSSEC corpus contains 9 files of conversations between ethnic Malay speakers, totalling 23 speakers. Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia all have ethnic Chinese popula tions who form the majority in Singapore and are minorities in Malaysia and Indonesia. By having both Malay and Chinese L1 speakers for each variety, any possible differences in L1 influence among the three varieties can be in vestigated. Thus, the existence of a unifying effect (Schneider 2007: 146) can be tested for both the ESL varieties and Indonesian learner English. For this reason, three files containing speech by ethnic Chinese Singaporean speakers were chosen randomly from NIECSSE and GSSEC, totalling 6

61

speakers. The data gathered for Singaporean English, broken down by file, are presented in Table 5.1. It should be noted that for files from the NIECSSE corpus, speech produced by the interviewer was not taken into account as he is not Singaporean.

Table 5.1 Data used for Singapore English broken down by file

@@ Insert PER_TAB_5.1.xls here

5.2 Malaysia

At the time of writing, the Malaysian component of the ICE (Hajar & Su'ad forthcoming) was still being compiled. However, the ICE-Malaysia team have kindly provided 12 files from the category "Spoken Component/Dialogue/Private/Direct Conversations" that have already been transcribed. The data available from ICE-Malaysia are presented in Table 5.2. It should be noted that the data include two conversations rather than 12, the number of files. This is due to the fact that the ICE corpus design is based on files with a size of roughly 2,000 words (Nelson 1996: 27). The recorded conversations have therefore been split up into individual files smaller than 2,000 words. As a consequence, the number of speakers in Table 5.2 totals 4 speakers rather than 24.

62

Table 5.2 Data used for Malaysian English broken down by file

@@ Insert PER_TAB_5.2.xls here

5.3 Indonesia

When considering the Indonesian learner data, choosing a source is not as simple as for the neighbouring ESL varieties. The International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) has no Indonesian component. Furthermore, the study is intended to pay particular attention to spoken language, a genre not covered by ICLE. It was therefore preferable to collect Indonesian learner data specifically for this study. The process of data collection took place in May 2009 at two locations: the International University of Batam (Universitas Internasional Batam, abbreviated as UIB) located on the island of Batam, and the public library in Tanjung Pinang on the island of Bintan. Both islands lie in the Riau Islands archipelago, approximately 20 km south of Singapore. The places of data collection and their geographical proximity to Singapore and the southern tip of the Malay peninsula are shown on Map 5.1.

Map 5.1 Map showing the locations of data collection, UIB on Batam and Tanjung Pinang on Bintan

@@ Insert PER_MAP_5.1.eps here

63

Batam and Bintan were chosen not only because of their location, but first and foremost because the variety of Malay spoken on the Riau Is lands is very similar to that spoken in Singapore and the southern regions of the Malay peninsula (Hassan 2008). In addition, Malay and Indonesian form the two ends of a register continuum in regions of Indonesia where Malay is spoken as an L1, with the latter being the high variety and the former the low variety (Tadmor 2009: 687). This diglossic situation is closer to that of Malaysia than in other parts of Indonesia, where Indonesian is the high vari ety and a local language other than Malay is the low variety. Thus, the influ ence of regional variability as a factor can be kept to a minimum. The collection of data was meant to emulate as closely as possible the categories used in the ICE corpora in order to ensure adequate comparability. The category "Direct Conversations" was deemed most important, both because of this study's focus on spoken language as well as the cat egory's propensity for non-standard features characteristic of ESL varieties. The data for this category were obtained by conducting informal 30-minute interviews with 23 students taking English classes at UIB, 2 English teachers at UIB as well as 4 pupils in Tanjung Pinang. In total, 25 interviews were conducted. It should be noted that those speakers who did not speak Malay/Indonesian as their first language had been speaking it fluently as their second language since their childhood (usually elementary school at the latest). In a similar manner to the interviews in the NIECSSE, utterances

64

by the foreign interviewer (i.e. myself) were not taken into account. Table 5.3 gives an overview of the data collected for Indonesian learner English.

Table 5.3 Overview of data collected for Indonesian learner English

@@Insert PER_TAB_5.3.xls here

The two files marked with an asterisk (*), i.e. HASZ and TU, were recorded with several speakers, four and two respectively. In both files, the speakers cannot be identified with certainty. The file HASZ features three speakers with Chinese as their L1 and 1 speaker with Malay as L1. In addition, they have been learning English for different periods of time. The file HASZ will therefore be excluded from any analysis involving L1 or years of learning English as factors. The data recorded on the Riau Islands are by no means representative of English in Indonesia, as it does not represent the country's vast territ ory, nor its wealth of different substrate languages, e.g. Javanese, Sundanese, Balinese, just to name a few. In addition, the respondents all learned English in a scholastic setting, which may not hold true for all speakers of English in the country, such as sellers who acquired English mainly via contact with tourists. As the present study is concerned with a comparison of English in countries sharing a substrate language but which have different colonial histories, the label "Indonesian learner English" (ab breviated IndonE) can be used for reasons of convenience. However, any

65

study aiming to describe the state of English in Indonesia in its entirety would have to rely on a wider variety of data than Riau Islands scholastic learner English.

5.4 Overview of data

An overall comparison of the data collected for the three varieties under dis cussion is given in Table 5.4, detailing total word counts as well as subtotals for Malay as L1 and Chinese as L1. These subtotals do not add up to the overall total due to the aforementioned exclusion of the file HASZ as well as the presence of a Javanese L1 speaker in the Indonesian data.

Table 5.4 Overview of data collected

@@ Insert PER_TAB_5.4.xls here

5.5 Data processing

5.5.1 Transcription The recorded interviews of Indonesian learners of English were transcribed orthographically with the help of Praat (Boersma & Weenink 2009). The data were simultaneously annotated using a custom tag scheme which will be outlined below. Phonological features were determined by auditory analysis.

66

5.5.2 Annotation As previously mentioned, methods that originated in learner corpus re search, such as error tagging (Granger 2002b: 18-20) and subsequent computer-aided error analysis (Granger 2002b: 13-14), can be adopted under the condition that they are adapted to suit the conditions and needs of a comparative analysis of ESL and EFL varieties. Accordingly, a custom annotation scheme was devised in order to mark and describe the non-standard features encountered in the data. Non-standard forms found in the Singaporean and Malaysian data are not to be considered errors, but rather features, since exonormative standards are not regarded as a development target and such forms are deemed acceptable within the speaker community. By contrast, if such forms are found in the Indonesian data, they should be regarded as errors, because a standard variety is viewed as the target of the learning process. For the sake of simplicity and an easier comparison between the ESL and the EFL varieties, both non-standard features and learner errors will be referred to as features. The custom annotation scheme consists of tags enclosed between angle brackets ("< >"). Each tag contains various information on the feature it is assigned to. This information is divided into several levels, the first of which indicates to which overall linguistic subsystem the feature can be attributed:

67

• phonology (abbreviated as p) • morphology (abbreviated as m) • syntax (abbreviated as s) • standard form used as expected in a standard variety (abbreviated as ok) • standard form used where it is not expected in a standard variety (abbrevi ated as overuse) • code-mixing and code-switching (abbreviated as switch)

The remaining levels describe the feature itself by listing specific attributes and additional information, depending on the feature at hand. While detailed explanations will be provided for individual features in the course of their description, the recurrent attributes can be outlined here. For certain fea tures, the attributes 'origin' and 'result' are given, which, respectively, give the element expected in a standard variety and the realisation actually pro duced. Another set of attributes, 'missing', 'analytic', and 'double', is used to describe respectively whether the feature in question is missing, marked analytically when it should be marked synthetically, or marked analytically as well as synthetically. An overview of the custom annotation scheme for the domains phonology, morphology and syntax is shown in Table 5.5, Table 5.6 and Table 5.7 respectively. Structuring tags into several levels of information makes it possible to perform searches of different scopes:

68

• broad searches, e.g. overall counts of phonological, morphological and syntactic features • searches for specific features, e.g. counts of consonant cluster reduction across all three varieties • specific cases of a given feature, e.g. counts of consonant cluster reduction from /nt/ to /n/

Table 5.5 Annotation scheme for the category 'phonology'

@@ Insert PER_TAB_5.5.xls here

Table 5.6 Annotation scheme for the category 'morphology'

@@ Insert PER_TAB_5.6.xls here

Table 5.7 Annotation scheme for the category 'syntax'

@@ Insert PER_TAB_5.7.xls here

5.5.3 Data format For the description of phonetic and phonological features, X-SAMPA is used instead of IPA in order to avoid text coding issues. For the features 'cluster' and 'stop', the consonant in question was placed in parentheses, e.g. jus(t) and bu(t), in addition to the aforementioned marking of features in X-

69

SAMPA. This was done in order to facilitate the search for cases where con sonant clusters and stops were realised as in a standard variety. The "Text Grid" files created by Praat were processed using a Python (Python Software Foundation 2006) script that extracts the speech data only. A further Python script removes the tags so that the corpus files exist in both annotated and unannotated formats. Additionally, another Python script lists tags in a CSV (Comma Separated Value) format for easy importation in R (R Development Core Team 2010). Each sentence in the annotated version of the data is given an initial index tag, which contains the following elements:

1.

the variety, abbreviated as SgE (Singapore), MalE (Malaysia) or IndonE (Indonesia)

2.

the file name

3.

the sentence number within the file (which corresponds to the seg mentation carried out in Praat, and may not necessarily coincide with the sentence numbers used in ICE-Malaysia once the corpus is generally available)

4.

the speaker abbreviation (if there are two or more speakers in the file)

An example sentence is given below to illustrate the format of the annotated version of the data.

70

I don'(t)

know, the lecturer give it to us, so, jus(t)

, yeah, it's include(d)

in curriculum, righ(t)

, that's why we learn i(t)

5.5.4 The special case of missing past tense marking: phonology or morphology? The lack of verbal past tense marking has been ascribed to morphological variation, but also as a phonological consequence of final plosive deletion (Gut 2009: 262). Both explanations have been suggested by researchers. For Singapore English, the morphological explanation is favoured by Ho & Platt (1993) and Ho (2003), who attribute the phenomenon to a lack of verbal tense marking in substrate languages, whereas the phonological explanation is advocated by others (e.g. Tay 1982; Brown 1988; Gupta 1994; Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo 1998; Gut 2005). This lack of unanimity led Gut (2009) to attempt to provide an answer by contrasting past tense marking (or lack thereof) for different groups of verbs, based on the morphological process by which they form the past tense. She finds past tense marking to be retained more often for verbs forming the past tense by suppletion or vowel

71

change than for verbs using affixation (2009: 267-268). However, the per centage of retained single final /-t,-d/ and cluster-final /-t,-d/ in the {-ed} morpheme is not found to be statistically significant when compared to the percentage observed for other lexical words (2009: 271). Overall, the study provides some evidence that a sound change can lead to a morphological variation, as predicted by Bao (1998: 163). It also suggests a morphological change in progress, but cannot confirm that it is phonologically driven (Gut 2009: 276). The unresolved question of phonological versus morphological factors in explaining the variation observed when it comes to missing past tense marking presents a problem for annotating the data. The question arises of whether cases of missing past tense marking involving a deleted affix should be classified as a phonological or morphological feature. As it is not possible to determine with certainty which explanation is more suitable in categorising the lack of past tense marking, the following rule was used in the process of annotation in order to strike a balance: if the final plosive /t/ or /d/ was audible in a reduced form, either [t ̚], [d ̚] or [ʔ], the feature was described as a phonological one, otherwise, i.e. in cases of no audible affix whatsoever, the morphological description was used.

5.6 Performing searches

5.6.1 Annotated format

72

The annotated format contains both the transcribed speech as well as the tags. One type of query performed with this format is the search for tags, for instance by using AntConc (Anthony 2006), whereby the immediate context of each hit will be visible. Thus, both quantitative and qualitative analyses can be performed. A further search carried out with the help of the annotated format is a listing of all the tags present in the data, with a count for each individual tag. A Python script was designed to list and count all tags and produce a CSV file for easy importation in any spreadsheet application. This allows for a quick overview of the number of features, including the most common features as well as isolated cases.

5.6.2 Unannotated format The unannotated format was obtained by stripping the annotated format of all angle bracket ("< >") 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. 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

73

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 cross-tabulations 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: 6869), 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

74

performed using correlation tests (cf. Baayen 2008: 90-91). R2-values (cf. Baayen 2008: 88) are also estimated when relevant.

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 nonstandard 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.1.xls here Normalised values are per 100,000 words, rounded to the nearest integer. Subsequent tables will feature normalised values only, unless specified otherwise. 5

75

76

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

77

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.2.xls here

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 word-internal position as in software [sɒfwɛə], accepted [əsɛptɪd̚]. In contrast, certain consonant clusters are reduced more frequently in one variety than in the other two, e.g. /lt/ t o /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

78

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 In donesian 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 re duced 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.3.xls here 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

79

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.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.1.eps here

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.2.eps here

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

80

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 normalised frequencies for standard realisations (χ 2 = 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], [t̚], [k̚], [b̚], [d̚], 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

@@Insert PER_TAB_6.4.xls here

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-

81

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.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.3.eps here

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

82

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 ob served 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 (χ 2 = 137.9408, df = 3, p < 0.001***) as well as between the two ESL varieties (χ 2 = 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 [fʊʔbɔːɬ], interested [ɪntəɹɛsʔɪd̚] and whatever [wɒʔɛvə].

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.5.xls here

83

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. χ 2-tests performed between Singapore and Malaysian English (χ 2 = 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.

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.6.xls here

Two major tendencies separating the ESL varieties and Indonesian learner English can be observed in Table 6.6. Firstly, the two types of varieties dif-

84

fer 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 [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 n o [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 (χ 2 = 13.7152, df = 2, p = 0.001051**) on the one hand and Singapore English and Indonesian learner

85

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 (χ 2 = 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***).

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/

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.7.xls here

86

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.8.xls here 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. 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]), [d̚] (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 (χ 2 = 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*).

87

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 [d̚] (with [wɪd̚]), [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 [d̚], 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

88

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.

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.9.xls here

The ratios of non-standard realisation of the three types most frequently dis playing 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 nonstandard 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

89

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 (χ 2 = 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 (χ 2 = 66.5773, df = 10, p < 0.001***). For the first two types, Malaysian English displays the highest rates of nonstandard realisation. The most striking differences can be observed for the type this, for which Singapore English shows a clearly lower rate of nonstandard 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/

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.10.xls here

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

90

[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.

Table 6.11 Overview of non-standard realisations of /f/, /v/, and /s/

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.11.xls here

91

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 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 posi tion in the ESL varieties, e.g. because [bɪkɒs], five [faɪf], big [bɪk]. Indonesian learner English also occasionally displays word-internal devoicing (e.g.

92

novel [nɒf] , 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.12.xls here

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.

Table 6.13 Overview of observed types of devoicing

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.13.xls here

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 [t̚], [d̚] 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

93

learner English (feature previously described in 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 (χ 2 = 3.1792, df = 8, p = 0.9226, n.s.), which is not the case for a comparison between Singapore and Malaysian English (χ 2 = 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.

Table 6.14 Overview of non-standard stress patterns

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.14.xls here

94

This overview shows two major tendencies. Firstly, Indonesian learner English exhibits a greater variety of patterns. However, non-standard stress pat terns are more frequent in ESL varieties than in the learner variety. Singa pore English shows the highest frequency, almost twice as high as that of Malaysian English and almost 4 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 are not statistically significant (χ 2 = 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

95

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], • 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 dis cernible. 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.15.xls here

96

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’

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.16.xls here

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.

97

Table 6.17 Overview of non-standard realisations of /r/

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.17.xls here

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. Sev eral 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.

98

Table 6.18 Overview of observed phonological features

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.18.xls here

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.19.xls here

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. Ex amples of missing marking are given in sentences (3) to (6), instances of unexpected marking in sentences (7) to (10).

99

(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 ma chines 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 t h e childrens

b e c a u s e childrens

nowadays read novels and they- just some of them do the things that they should do when in their childhood times.

7

[???] marks indecipherable passages.

100

(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. 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

101

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

@@ PER_TAB_6.20.xls here

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 ob served differences between Singapore English and Malaysian English are

102

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.

Figure 6.4 Relative frequencies of plural marking types

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.4.eps here

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 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

103

in the annotation scheme with the parameter 'marker=yes' or 'marker=no' re spectively (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.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.5.eps here

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 (χ 2 = 5.3816, df = 1, p = 0.02035*) as well as Indonesian learner English (χ 2 = 13.849, df = 1, p = 0.0001981***).

6.2.2 Past tense marking

104

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 tu torial? 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 snow I think my pronunciation is not really good.

(15)

Star got come out or not?

105

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 indic ated 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 rel evant 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, result ing 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

106

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.21.xls here

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 (χ 2 = 158.1963, df = 4, p < 0.001***). As the total frequencies of past tense contexts vary across the varieties, a com parison 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.

Figure 6.6 Relative frequencies of past tense marking types

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.6.eps here

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

107

of Singapore 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,

108

but just for that one night before the test day, I watch the whole movie ah. (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 as sume 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.

109

(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 ex ample 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

110

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 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.22.xls here

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

111

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.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.7.eps here 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 cross-comparison of the various possible combinations of absence/presence of adverbial and contextual marking on the horizontal and

112

vertical axes. The overview shows that the ESL varieties display very sim ilar 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 simultan eously, 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 inflec tional marking, while this rate drops to a quarter in Indonesian learner English and falls under 10% in Malaysian English. 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

113

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.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.8.eps here

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 af -

114

fects 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 (χ 2 = 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 ex amples 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.

115

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 ex ample (20).

6.2.3 Third person singular present tense marking

116

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 conjug ated 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 is given in Table 6.23.

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. 8

117

Table 6.23 Types of non-standard third person singular present tense marking

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.23.xls here

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 sin gular 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 (χ 2 = 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 learner English is not significantly different from Singapore English (χ 2 = 2.2485, df = 2, p = 0.3249, n.s.) but is significantly different from Malaysian English (χ 2 = 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 non-standard and standard marking.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.9.eps here

118

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 Eng lish 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 In donesian learner English the rate of standard marking lies below a third. Be sides a greater rate of analytical marking, the learner variety also possesses a small share (approximately 2%) of double marking. Singapore English dif fers 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 ana lytical marking is comparable between the ESL varieties. The differences observed between the three varieties are all statistically significant (χ 2 = 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).

119

(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 cam-

pus 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 a n - s inflection on either verb would yield a non-standard form. Sentence

120

(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 compar able 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).

(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.

121

(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 pre-modifying 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.

122

Table 6.24 Overview of word class and verb form substitutions

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.24.xls here

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 ob served 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.

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

123

the particle more in front of the adjective. The form of non-standard comparative marking observed in the data consists in using both strategies sim ultaneously, 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.

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).

124

(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 codemixing 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

125

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).

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 progress ive in standard English. Cases of missing progressive aspect are not observed for the ESL varieties.

126

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 Ime 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 ac tion, but instead to the moment of the utterance. However the verb to mean

127

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 Eng lish 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.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.10.eps here

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 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

128

use the progressive aspect mainly as expected in standard usage, while In donesian 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 ex ample (44).

(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 per fect. In example (44), speaker A retells the fate of a batch of kittens, and

129

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 re garded 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 Eng lish. 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.25.xls here

130

6.3 Syntactic features

The most frequently observed syntactic feature in the three varieties is dele tion. Table 6.26 gives an overview of the features observed.

Table 6.26 Overview of observed syntactic features

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.26.xls here

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).

Table 6.27 Elements affected by deletion

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.27.xls here

(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.

9

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

131

(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.

132

When considering the totals for each variety, deletion appears to be approx imately 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 (χ 2 = 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 dele tion 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.

Figure 6.11 Relative frequencies of deletion types

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.11.eps here

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 preposi tion deletion. The overall differences in proportional distribution of deletion

133

types across the three varieties are not statistically significant (χ 2 = 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 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.

134

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 discoursenew 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.28.xls here

Noun phrase subject deletion only occurs in the learner variety on four occa sions. 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 pre-

135

viously been introduced 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 4 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?

136

(61)

B:

I think ∅ got la people like that, there right, like wait ing 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).

137

(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 experi ence, 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.29.xls here

138

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.

Figure 6.12 Relative frequencies of verbal deletion subtypes

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.12.eps here

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 de letion covers the majority of verb deletion in Malaysian English and Indone sian 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 deletions appear to play a more im -

139

portant part in the learner variety than in the ESL varieties. As observed pre viously, modal auxiliary deletion is only attested for Indonesian learner Eng lish.

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 6 different prepositions affected and Indonesian learner English exhibiting deletion for 12 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 the- throw 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 ...

140

A:

I don’t remember you ∅ [with] brown hair.



Table 6.30 Overview of deleted prepositions

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.30.xls here

The preposition t o 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 i n 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 de scribe 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

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. 10

141

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 (χ 2 = 10.3462, df = 11, p = 0.4995, n.s.), while the differences between 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.

Figure 6.13 Relative values of deleted prepositions

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.13.eps here

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 pre position 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.

142

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.

Table 6.31 Tokens of object deletion by object type.

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.31.xls here

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.

143

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, objectrelative clauses may have their relative pronoun deleted to form a zerorelative 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

144

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.

(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 subject-zero-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

145

pronoun results in a subject-zero-relative clause. The consequence is a sen tence 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 nonstandard 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 ex pected 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.

146

(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.

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 i n in standard usage. Example (76) illustrates a non-standard 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 o r 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,

147

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.32.xls here

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 word classes can also be discerned, as non-standard pre position 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

148

for a visualisation of the major word classes affected by non-standard word choice.

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

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.14.eps here

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 at tached 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 non-standard 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.

149

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.

(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 the 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:

150

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 a t 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 preposi tional 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.

151

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.33.xls here

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,

152

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 nonstandard auxiliary choices, including modal auxiliaries, are given in sentences (86) to (92).

(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 eat ing without spicy like er chilli or something it's not feel like eating.

(89)

L.[name abbreviated] is gone mad.

(90)

I:

Have you heard about the $100 laptop?

153

S:

Ya, I didn't.

I:

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.

S:

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

154

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 indic ates 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 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.

155

Table 6.34 Overview of types of non-standard auxiliary choice

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.34.xls here

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 nonstandard 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.

156

(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.

(96)

And I can work and earn much money to them, and so theythey 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 alternat-

157

ive 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 nonstandard 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.35.xls here

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 en countered 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

158

of the single type found in Malaysian English. The normalised frequency for Malaysian English corresponds to a single token, while the one for Singa pore English represents two tokens. However, these two tokens are produced by the same speaker in two consecutive sentences. As such, nonstandard 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 phe nomenon 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.

159

(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 ex ample (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 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

160

m e 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 VSVC S 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 per mitted 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.36.xls here

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

161

between the three varieties are significant (Fisher's Exact Test: p = 0.03231*).

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, English- English 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.

162

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 or der 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 non-standard order is observed within a noun phrase. In the standard noun phrase structure, an adjective serves as a premodifier 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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.37.xls here

163

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 differ ence is not as stark as for the previously described features. A further difference is that non-standard 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 Malay sian 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.

164

(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, con tains 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 a s 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 in its entirety, it

165

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, o n e 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?

166

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 h e 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 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. Ex-

167

ample (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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.38.xls here

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 (χ 2 = 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

168

other is a non-standard 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.

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

169

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 us age 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

170

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.39.xls here

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 utter ance 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.

171

Table 6.40 Overview of observed syntactic features

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.40.xls here 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. (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

172

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 state ment – 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);

173

• 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 utter ance; • 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/wat11, 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).

(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.

Information on wor being a variant of what/wat provided by Jakob Leimbgruber (personal communication). 11

174

(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.

175

Table 6.41 Overview of discourse particles

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.41.xls here

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 gen erally 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.

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).

176

(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.

177

(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 codemixing/code-switching in which the speakers struggle to find a certain Eng lish 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 de-

178

sired 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 occur rences 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 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 codemixing/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 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. 12

179

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, morpholo gical 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 non-standard features in the three varieties grouped by category. The frequencies of non-standard features given include deleted forms, nonstandard forms and unexpected usage.

180

Figure 6.15 Overall comparison of non-standard features by category

@@ Insert PER_FIG_6.15.eps here

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 discourse. In the category phonology, its frequency exceeds that of the learner variety but is considerably lower than that observed for Malay sian English. The ESL varieties display a certain degree of uniformity in the cat egories 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

181

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 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

182

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 in formal speech, and the Indonesian learner data consist only of formal speech. In the current context, 'formal' does not refer to the level of formal ity one might expect from say a university lecture, yet the recording per formed 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 in deed a sign of a more strongly marked accent in Malaysian English, or instead due to the exclusively informal nature of the Malaysian data in com-

183

parison to the data obtained for other varieties. Such an analysis is per formed 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 nonstandard features grouped by categories, a feature-by-feature examination can yield a more fine-grained picture of the differences and similarities ob served 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 at tested in only one variety. The variety with the highest number of unique features is Indonesian learner English, for which 6 features are not attested 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.

184

Table 6.42 Overview of the number of features attested for each variety, grouped by category

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.42.xls here

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.43.xls here

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 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 Singa pore English. The only feature not attested in all varieties, but found in

185

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 5 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 af fected 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. Com paring all the features that result in different realisations or affect different elements makes it possible to verify whether the tendency of the learner

186

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.

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

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.44.xls here

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 aver age 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 ex planations for these ordered differences, as well as their implications, are discussed in Chapter 8, specifically in Section 8.1. 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 fea-

187

ture concerning non-standard stress patterns (cf. Table 6.14 in Section 6.1.6), for which Indonesian displays a range of 11 non-standard stress patterns against 4 patterns in Singapore English and 3 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 variet ies 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.

Table 6.45 Count of significant differences observed between varieties with regard to frequencies and ranges of realisations/elements affected

@@ Insert PER_TAB_6.45.xls here

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 vari eties. The second observation is that the number of features that display unity among the ESL varieties are almost as numerous as the differences

188

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 other wise, 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 pos sible substrate explanation is considered; the total amount of potential sub strate 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 fea tures 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 res ulted in a higher degree of formality than the peer-group conversations of

189

190

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' 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 ex tends 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.

191

The last topic to be investigated is the significance of learner profi ciency. 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 lan guage, 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

192

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')

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 pronunci-

193

ation, 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 ac count 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 fea ture, 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).

194

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') final /t/: empat [(ə)mpat̚]/[(ə)mpaʔ] ('four') riset [risɛt̚]/[risɛʔ] ('research') bangkit [baŋkit̚]/[baŋkiʔ] ('to stand up') final /k/: anak [anak̚]/[anaʔ] ('child') kretek [krɛtɛk̚]/[krɛtɛʔ] ('clove cigarette') cantik [tʃantik̚]/[tʃantiʔ] ('pretty') final /b/: sebab [səbab̚]/[səbaʔ] ('reason', 'because') nasib [nasib̚]/[nasiʔ] ('destiny') final /d/:

195

abad [abad̚]/[abaʔ] ('era', 'century') maksud [maksud̚]/[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 a nd 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:

196

/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 Eng lishes, for example in many Caribbean varieties (cf. Schneider 2008a: 389390) 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 em pirical justification. The prospect of solving this problem in a thorough and empirical manner in future research is discussed in Chapter 9.

197

While /eɪ/ is monophthongised in all three varieties under investiga tion (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- i n 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 Indone-

198

sian 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 ex planation is available.

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

199

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:

200

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 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 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'). 13

201

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 con stitute 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 [abdʒad̚]

202

('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 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: A:

What you mean media image [ɪmɪtʃ]? 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

203

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]/[tele. (9 December 2010).

311

Ricklefs, M.C., Lockhart, B., Lau, A., Reyes, P. & Aung-Thwin, M. 2010. A New History of Southeast Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Schneider, E.W. 2007. Postcolonial English: varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider, E.W. 2008a. Synopsis: phonological variation in the Americas and the Caribbean. In Varieties of English 2: The Americas and the Caribbean, E.W. Schneider (ed), 383-398. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 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, E.W. Schneider (ed), 763-776. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schneider, E.W. 2011. English around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schreier, D. 2005. Consonant Change in English Worldwide: Synchrony meets Diachrony. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 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. 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.

312

Smith, B.D. 1991. English in Indonesia. English Today 26: 39-43. Sneddon, J.N. 2007. Indonesian reference grammar. Crows Nest, N.S.W.: 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. Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. 2011. Typological profiling: Learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds). 2011. 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. 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. Tay, M.W.J. 1982. The phonology of educated Singapore English. English World-Wide 3: 135-145. 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

313

conventionalized innovation in African Englishes. In Mukherjee & Hundt (eds). 2011. 189-207. 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, L. Lim (ed), 105-126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Williams, J. 1987. Non-native varieties of English: a special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide 8: 161-199. 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

314

its

ra

St

Indian Ocean

Banda Aceh

Sumatra

Su

Batavia/Jakarta

Palembang

Banten its rt a S a nd

Jambi

INDONESIA

Riau Islands

SINGAPORE

Malacca Johor Lama

Kuala Lumpur

Riau

Madura

Kalimantan

Borneo

Sarawak

BRUNEI

Java Sea

Java

South China Sea

MALAYSIA

Penang Terengganu

ac ca

al

of M

THAILAND

PER_MAP_2.1.eps

Bali

Sabah/ North Borneo

MALAYSIA Johor

MALAYSIA

PER_MAP_5.1.eps

Johor SINGAPORE 20 km INDONESIA Bintan UIB Batam Tanjung Pinang

N

PER_FIG_3.1.tif

PER_FIG_3.2.tif

PER_FIG_3.3.tif

PER_FIG_4.1.eps

Expanding circle

e.g. China, Russia 100-1,000 million

PER_FIG_6.1.eps

st

nt

ŋk

ld

other

SgE (r)

SgE (f)

MalE (r)

MalE (f)

IndonE (r)

IndonE (f)

nd

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

SgE (r)

SgE (f)

MalE (r)

MalE (f)

IndonE (r)

IndonE (f)

PER_FIG_6.2.eps

nd

0.0 st

0.1 nt

0.2

ŋk ld

0.3 other

0.4

0.5

PER_FIG_6.3.eps

glottal stop

unreleased

SgE

MalE

IndonE

full

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PER_FIG_6.4.eps

unexpected

standard

SgE

MalE

IndonE

missing

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PER_FIG_6.5.eps

implicit

SgE

MalE

IndonE

analytic

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PER_FIG_6.6.eps

standard

auxiliary

SgE

MalE

IndonE

missing

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

no < adverbial marking > yes

SgE adverbial marking contextual marking

adverbial marking no contextual marking

MalE

0.2

adverbial marking contextual marking

adverbial marking no contextual marking

0.2

IndonE

0.2 0 0.2 no < adverbial marking > yes

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.4

adverbial marking contextual marking

0.4

0.4

0.6

no adverbial marking contextual marking 0.6 0.6

0.2

0.6

0.6

0

0.4

no adverbial marking no contextual marking

0.2

no adverbial marking contextual marking

0.2 no adverbial marking no contextual marking

0.4

no adverbial marking contextual marking

0.6

no adverbial marking no contextual marking

0.6

no < contextual marking > yes

0.4 0.4

0

0.2 0 0.2 no < adverbial marking > yes

no < contextual marking > yes

0.4

0

0.6

0.6

adverbial marking no contextual marking

0.2

0.6

0

0.6

PER_FIG_6.7.eps

0.2

0.4

0.4

0

0.2

no < contextual marking > yes

0.2 0.6

0.2

0.4 0.6

PER_FIG_6.8.eps

irregular

SgE

MalE

IndonE

regular

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PER_FIG_6.9.eps

analytic

double

standard

0.6

0.8

SgE

MalE

IndonE

missing

0.0

0.2

0.4

1.0

PER_FIG_6.10.eps

unexpected

standard

SgE

MalE

IndonE

missing

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PER_FIG_6.11.eps

SgE

MalE

IndonE

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

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

PER_FIG_6.12.eps

copula

lexical

modal

SgE

MalE

IndonE

auxiliary

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

PER_FIG_6.13.eps

SgE

MalE

IndonE

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

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

PER_FIG_6.14.eps

SgE

MalE

IndonE

adjective adverb auxiliary determiner modal noun preposition pronoun lexical verb

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

PER_FIG_6.15.eps

MalE

IndonE

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

SgE

phonology

morphology

syntax

discourse

PER_FIG_7.1.eps

Non−substrate

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Potential substrate

SgE

MalE

IndonE

3500

PER_FIG_7.2.eps

Non−substrate

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Potential substrate

SgE(m)

MalE(m)

IndonE(m)

SgE(s)

MalE(s)

IndonE(s)

PER_FIG_7.3.eps

Potential substrate

Non−substrate

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

IndonE(s)

MalE(s)

SgE(s)

IndonE(m)

MalE(m)

SgE(m)

IndonE(p)

MalE(p)

SgE(p)

PER_FIG_7.4.eps

SgE formal

SgE informal

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

SgE total

phonology

morphology

syntax

discourse

12000

PER_FIG_7.5.eps

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

SgE formal SgE informal MalE IndonE

phonology

morphology

syntax

discourse

8000 6000 4000 2000 0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

isolated plosive reduction monophthongisation other phonological features

10000

12000

PER_FIG_7.6.eps

SgE formal

SgE informal

MalE

IndonE

PER_FIG_7.7.eps

SgE(m)

SgE(c)

MalE(m)

MalE(c)

IndonE(m)

IndonE(c)

phonology

morphology

syntax

discourse

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

5 4 3 2 1 0

number of speakers

PER_FIG_7.8.eps

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

14

0.10 0.00

density

years of learning English

5

10 years of learning English

15

15

17

1000 500 0

normalised frequency

1500

PER_FIG_7.9.eps

4

6

8

10

12

years of learning English

14

16

200 100 0

normalised frequency

300

400

PER_FIG_7.10.eps

4

6

8

10

12

years of learning English

14

16

400 300 200 100 0

normalised frequency

500

600

PER_FIG_7.11.eps

4

6

8

10

12

years of learning English

14

16

300 200 100 0

normalised frequency

400

500

PER_FIG_7.12.eps

4

6

8

10

12

years of learning English

14

16

100 50 0

normalised frequency

150

200

PER_FIG_7.13.eps

4

6

8

10

12

years of learning English

14

16

PER_FIG_7.14.eps

0.8 0.6 0.0

0.2

0.4

TLU score

0.6 0.4 0.0

0.2

TLU score

0.8

1.0

3rd person

1.0

plural

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

4

years of learning English

6

8

12

14

16

years of learning English

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

TLU score

0.8

1.0

article

1.0

past

TLU score

10

4

6

8

10

12

14

years of learning English

16

4

6

8

10

12

14

years of learning English

16

100 50 0

years of learning English

150

200

PER_FIG_7.15.eps

4

6

8

10 words per minute

12

14

16

PER_FIG_8.1.eps

Non-standard realisation of /ʃ/

Non-standard realisation of /ð/

Non-standard realisation of /θ/

Learner features

Non-standard realisation of /ʃ/

Non-standard realisation of /ð/

Non-standard realisation of /θ/

Feature pool

Non-standard realisation of /ð/

Non-standard realisation of /θ/

Nativised variety features

PER_FIG_8.2.eps

[d]

[ʔ]

[ɛ] [e]

lexx. verb

dett.

copula

[ɜ]

[t]

Learner features [f]

Non-standard realisation of /θ/ [ɾ]

[ ]

noun

conjj.

[ɑ]

Monophthongisation of /eɪ/

adverb

aux x. verb

pron n.

Redundant items prep p.

[f]

[ɾ]

[ ]

[ɑ]

aux. verb

n. pron

[d]

[ʔ]

[ɛ]

[ɜ]

lexx. verb

dett.

Nativised variety features

[t]

noun

[t]

dett.

copula

lexx. verb

pron n.

[e]

conjj.

noun

prep p.

[e]

Feature pool

adverb

prep p.

PER_FIG_9.1.tif

PER_FIG_9.2.eps

spoken

Medium

L

informal

formal

Interlocutor

local

L

EF

L/

ES

Standard English

high level

low level

foreign

Register Educational background

ES

written

Malaysian Mac /matʃ/ polis peti sejuk lobak merah

PER_TAB_2.1.xls

English March police refrigerator carrot

Indonesian Maret polisi koelkas/kulkas wortel

Dutch Maart politie koelkast wortel

Singapore 4.740.737 (July 2011 est.)* Status of English Co-official language

PER_TAB_3.1.xls

Country Total population

Malaysia 28.728.607 (July 2011 est.)* Second language, language of higher education for technical and scientific subjects

Status of Malay

Co-official language National language and national language

Malay speakers

668,444*

18,880,000**

Indonesia 245.613.043 (July 2011 est.)* First foreign language

Regional language, used nation-wide as a second-language lingua franca

22,800,000** (L1) 140,000,000** 200,000,000† (L2) * data from CIA 2011, ** data from Lewis (ed) 2009, † data from Ricklefs et al. 2010:413

NIECSSE

GSSEC

Total

File F1 F4 F6 F7 F16 T3-1 T3-2 T3-3 T4-1 T4-2 T4-3 T4-4 T4-5 T4-6 T7-6 T7-7 16 files

L1 Chinese Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Chinese Chinese 13 M, 3 C

PER_TAB_5.1.xls

Source

Speakers 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 33

Word count 569 649 936 662 568 2.297 1.002 789 1.102 409 1.893 212 254 382 379 959 13.062

L1 Chinese Chinese Chinese Chinese Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay Malay 8 M, 4 C

Speakers 2

2

4

PER_TAB_5.2.xls

File S1A001 S1A002 S1A003 S1A004 S1A005 S1A006 S1A007 S1A008 S1A009 S1A010 S1A011 S1A012 Total

Word count 1.748 1.793 1.768 1.768 1.738 1.780 1.691 1.771 1.773 1.752 1.735 1.725 21.042

PER_TAB_5.3.xls

File L1 Years learning English AGS Javanese 17 BBY Malay 9 DC Malay 5 DI Malay 4 DRA Malay 10 EF Malay 10 ERN Chinese 6 EWS Malay 8 FM Malay 3 HASZ* N/A N/A HF Malay 9 HL Chinese 8 HP Chinese 8 HS Malay 14 JS Malay 17 LH Chinese 17 MA Malay 7 MW Chinese 9 PW Malay 7 SS Malay 8 TC Chinese 8 TU* Malay 12 WW Malay 7 YA Malay 12 YL Malay 15 Total 17M, 6 C, 1 J Mean 9.6 * file recorded with several speakers

Word count 2.690 964 1.726 1.287 1.505 1.779 3.227 2.308 1.599 2.348 815 1.467 2.633 1.912 1.668 2.460 1.323 1.924 1.371 2.463 2.278 506 2.405 2.048 3.272 47.978

Source NIECSSE+ GSSEC ICE-Malaysia Own recordings -

PER_TAB_5.4.xls

Variety Singapore Malaysia Indonesia Total

Total 13.062 21.042 47.978 82.082

L1 Malay 11.155 13.965 26.603 51.723

L1 Chinese 1.907 7.077 16.337 25.321

Attributes origin, result origin, result origin, result origin, result origin, result origin, result origin, result origin, result origin, result

PER_TAB_5.5.xls

Feature cluster devoicing length monophthong phoneme sandhi spell stop stress

Additional information location (initial, internal, final) location (initial, internal, final) vowel location (initial, internal, final) -

Attributes missing, analytic, double origin, result origin, result missing, double missing, analytic missing missing missing missing, double

PER_TAB_5.6.xls

Feature 3rdperson case class comparative past perfect plural progressive superlative

Additional information verb adjective verb, adverbial, context verb marker verb adjective

Attributes item item missing missing item

PER_TAB_5.7.xls

Feature choice deletion inversion order passive redundant

Additional information -

PER_TAB_6.1.xls

Feature Consonant cluster Devoicing Vowel length Monophthongisation Other phonemes Plosive in isolation Sandhi Spelling pronunciation Stress

Tokens Normalised SgE MalE IndonE SgE MalE IndonE 341 597 1.470 2.611 2.837 3.064 19 28 189 145 133 394 1 2 4 8 10 8 135 373 43 1.034 1.773 90 82 302 863 628 1.435 1.799 431 1.102 905 3.300 5.237 1.886 1 6 8 8 29 17 0 5 57 0 24 119 52 43 49 398 204 102

PER_TAB_6.2.xls

Cluster reduction SgE MalE IndonE st → s 697 965 871 nd → n 467 575 727 nt → n 796 803 629 ŋk → ŋ 222 214 463 ft → f 15 14 19 ld → l 54 162 54 lt → l 15 5 106 rd → r 0 0 13 8 0 21 rt → r sk → s 38 19 23 ks → k 0 0 8 ks → s 23 0 6 kt → k 61 10 40 other 215 71 83 TOTAL 2.611 2.837 3.064

SgE 0,82 0,67 0,48 0,4 0,74 1 0,51 0,52 0,56 0,41 0,24 0,46

MalE 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

PER_TAB_6.3.xls

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

IndonE 0 0,18 0,5 0,5 0,71 0 0,54 0,5 0,61 0,22 0,38 0,32 0,48

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

PER_TAB_6.4.xls

Realisation /p/ → [ʔ] /p/ → [p̚] /t/ → [ʔ] /t/ → [t̚] /t/ → ∅ /k/ → [ʔ] /k/ → [k̚] /k/ → ∅ /b/ → [ʔ] /b/ → [b̚] /d/ → [ʔ] /d/ → [d̚] /d/ → ∅ /g/ → [ʔ] /g/ → [g̚] TOTAL

IndonE 0 42 467 713 13 110 283 10 2 17 69 144 0 6 6 1.882

SgE 367 666 0 0

PER_TAB_6.5.xls

Diphthong affected /əʊ/ /eɪ/ /aɪ/ /aʊ/

MalE 737 1.036 0 0

IndonE 33 35 15 6

/əʊ/

/eɪ/

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

SgE 79,17 % 2,08 % 18,75 % 98,85 % 1,15 % -

PER_TAB_6.6.xls

Diphthong

MalE 95,48 % 4,52 % 100,00 % -

IndonE 62,50 % 12,50 % 12,50 % 12,50 % 5,88 % 58,82 % 23,53 % 5,88 % 5,88 %

SgE 61 61

MalE 181 5 5 190

PER_TAB_6.7.xls

Realisation [t] [tʰ] [t̚] [d] [d̚] [ʔ] [ɾ] [f] [s] [ʃ] [ts] ∅ TOTAL

IndonE 148 35 6 2 10 13 4 4 8 2 6 240

SgE 505 505

MalE 1.069 5 1.074

PER_TAB_6.8.xls

Realisation [d] [d̚] [t] [ɾ] [ʔ] [s] [v] [z] TOTAL

IndonE 786 6 2 4 2 2 4 4 811

SgE 0,00 % 23,53 % 0,00 % 11,04 % 12,31 % 1,56 %

MalE 7,69 % 61,54 % 15,63 % 19,50 % 14,38 % 15,38 %

PER_TAB_6.9.xls

Type think three thing the they this

IndonE 15,41 % 30,00 % 15,00 % 13,71 % 9,91 % 16,56 %

SgE 8 8

MalE 0

PER_TAB_6.10.xls

Realisation [s] [z] TOTAL

IndonE 448 6 454

PER_TAB_6.11.xls

furtherFricativesNorm Phoneme

/f/

/v/

/s/

Realisation [v] [ʔ] [p] [p̚] [p] [p̚] [s] [w] [ʃ] [z] [x] [ʔ]

SgE MalE 5 8 -

IndonE 17 2 6 2 6 10 4 6 4 2 2

Page 1

SgE 145 145

MalE 133 133

PER_TAB_6.12.xls

Position Final Internal Initial TOTAL

IndonE 365 27 2 394

g gz v z

Realisation p t θ ts tʃ ts k ks f s

SgE 8 8 15 31 84

PER_TAB_6.13.xls

Standard b d ð dz dʒ

MalE 33 5 5 19 5 57 10

IndonE 2 40 2 17 33 19 8 2 117 154

'xxxx x'x x'xx x'xxx xx'x xxx'xx TOTAL

Observed pattern x'x x'xx xxx'x x'xx xx'x xxx'x xx'xx 'xx xx'x xxx'x x'xx xxxx'x

PER_TAB_6.14.xls

Standard pattern 'xx 'xx'x 'xx'xx 'xxx

Example money ['mʌni] → [mʌ'ni] one of four ['wʌnəv'fɔː] → [wʌn'ɒvfɔː] kilometres ['kɪlə'miːtʰəz] → [kɪləmɪ'tʰɛəz] foreigner [ˈfɒrɪnə] → [fɒˈrɛɪnə] badminton [ˈbædmɪntən] → [badmɪnˈtʌn] naturally ['nætʃɹli] → [natʃəɹə'lɪ] criticising [ˈkrɪtɪsaɪzɪŋ] → [krɪtɪˈsaɪzɪŋ] machine [məˈʃiːn] → [ˈmɑʃin] semester [sɪ'mɛstʰə] → [sɪməs'tɛə] accessories [ək'sɛsəɹiz] → [əksəsə'ɹiːz] Japanese [dʒæpəˈniːz] → [dʒaˈpaniz] encyclopedia[ɛnˌsʌɪkləˈpiːdɪə] → [ɛnsʌɪklopeˈdɪa]

SgE 337 46 8 8 398

IndonE 56 2 4 13 6 2 4 6 2 4 2 102

PER_TAB_6.14.xls

MalE 185 14 5 204

Example needs [nits] card [kɑd] talk [tʰɔk]

SgE 8 8

PER_TAB_6.15.xls

Type iː → i ɑː → ɑ ɔː → ɔ TOTAL

MalE 5 5 10

IndonE 8 8

SgE 8 8

MalE 29 29

PER_TAB_6.16.xls

Type an → a a → an TOTAL

IndonE 10 6 17

SgE 15 15

MalE 43 5 48

PER_TAB_6.17.xls

Realisation [r] [l], [ɬ] TOTAL

IndonE 46 2 48

PER_TAB_6.18.xls

Feature Consonant cluster reduction Final isolated plosive reduction Monophthongisation

Observed in 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

Significant differences between 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

SgE 322 145 107 69 8 0 0 0

PER_TAB_6.19.xls

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

MalE 238 665 413 166 10 10 0 0

IndonE 736 473 313 604 52 8 4 13

SgE 322 31 1.309

MalE 238 62 1.725

PER_TAB_6.20.xls

Type missing unexpected standard

IndonE 736 156 244

PER_TAB_6.21.xls

Type missing inflectional marking marked auxiliary standard marking TOTAL

SgE 130 15 1.631 1.776

MalE 651 14 1.706 2.371

IndonE 469 4 398 871

SgE 8 15 77 46 23 92 145

MalE 143 100 361 62 242 461 665

PER_TAB_6.22.xls

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

IndonE 131 33 192 117 165 225 473

SgE 100 8 0 107

MalE 390 24 0 413

PER_TAB_6.23.xls

Type missing analytic double TOTAL

IndonE 236 69 8 313

PER_TAB_6.24.xls

Expected adjective

Observed adverb noun verb (past participle) adverb adjective other noun adjective verb (base form) verb (present participle) other verb (base form) adjective noun preposition verb (past participle) verb (present participle) verb (past participle) verb (base form) verb (present participle) other verb (present participle) verb (base form) verb (past participle) other other other TOTAL

SgE 0 15 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 69

MalE 0 19 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 105 14 0 0 166

IndonE 21 135 4 33 6 102 25 8 2 4 4 0 2 0 94 8 2 54 13 6 79 604

PER_TAB_6.25.xls

Feature Missing or unexpected plural marking

Observed in Significant differences observed between SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE (overall) SgE, other varieties (analytically marked vs. implicit plurality in cases of missing inflectional plural marking)

Missing inflectional past tense marking

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 SgE, MalE, IndonE (overall) MalE, other varieties (regular vs. irregular verbs affected) SgE, MalE, IndonE MalE, IndonE

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

SgE 1.018 23 15 8 23 77 0 8

PER_TAB_6.26.xls

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

MalE 1.046 128 52 52 233 67 19 10

IndonE 2.093 454 423 79 13 0 6 23

PER_TAB_6.27.xls

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

SgE 52 0 0

PER_TAB_6.28.xls

Deleted subject type personal pronoun noun phrase existential there

MalE 52 0 12

IndonE 324 4 2

SgE 107 107 23 0 237

MalE 67 185 19 0 271

PER_TAB_6.29.xls

Type auxiliary copula lexical modal TOTAL

IndonE 96 254 69 15 434

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

PER_TAB_6.30.xls

Deleted preposition about as at during for from in like of on to with TOTAL

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

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

SgE 11 0 100 %

PER_TAB_6.31.xls

Deleted object type personal pronoun noun phrase Rate of personal pronoun

MalE 9 2 81,82 %

IndonE 59 3 95,16 %

SgE 8 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 23

MalE 0 5 24 5 0 62 14 19 128

PER_TAB_6.32.xls

Word class adjective adverb auxiliary determiner noun preposition pronoun lexical verb TOTAL

IndonE 6 42 54 44 10 248 33 17 454

PER_TAB_6.33.xls

Observed preposition Replaces standard about against between at in on to with back up for as at from on to with from by for in than to with in at for from of on to with into to of about as at for from on in over at for out since until to for in of for with until to upstairs on top with as by for from in

MalE 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 5 10 -

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 8 4 2 2 2 13 4 2 17 6

Observed auxiliary do be be have perfect, have be do future, will do conditional, would will deontic, can could lexical, have be other TOTAL

PER_TAB_6.34.xls

Function, standard auxiliary copular, be interrogative, do negation, do

MalE 5 14 5 24

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

SgE 15 15

PER_TAB_6.35.xls

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

MalE 5 5

IndonE 23 6 6 8 44

SgE 8 8 15

PER_TAB_6.36.xls

Redundant item adjective adverb auxiliary verb conjunction copular verb determiner lexical verb noun pronoun preposition TOTAL

MalE 19 14 5 5 10 52

IndonE 2 10 19 8 77 165 8 19 19 96 423

SgE 8 8

MalE 19 33 52

PER_TAB_6.37.xls

Type adverb compound constituent noun phrase other TOTAL

IndonE 35 8 13 15 8 79

SgE 54 23 77

MalE 43 24 67

PER_TAB_6.38.xls

Question tag is it or not TOTAL

SgE 8

PER_TAB_6.39.xls

Inversion status absent unexpected

MalE 10 -

IndonE 23

Inversion

PER_TAB_6.40.xls

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

Observed in 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)

Significant differences observed between SgE, MalE, IndonE SgE, MalE, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE ESL varieties, IndonE MalE, other varieties MalE, other varieties MalE, other varieties

SgE 796 865 46 8 8 31 1.753

MalE 143 5 5 323 81 128 5 5 5 699

PER_TAB_6.41.xls

Particle ah dah deh eh kan lah/la loh/lo mah/meh ni saja/aja/aje wah wor TOTAL

IndonE 2 2 40 4 48

SgE 10 6 7 23

SgE % 67 % 67 % 70 % 68 %

PER_TAB_6.42.xls

Category Phonology Morphology Syntax TOTAL

MalE 12 7 8 27

MalE % 80 % 78 % 80 % 79 %

IndonE 14 9 7 30

IndonE % 93 % 100 % 70 % 88 %

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

PER_TAB_6.43.xls

Category

Attested in IndonE IndonE IndonE MalE, IndonE MalE MalE, IndonE IndonE IndonE MalE, SgE IndonE MalE MalE

Phonology

Morphology

Syntax

Mean phonology Mean morphology Mean syntax Total mean

PER_TAB_6.44.xls

Category

Feature SgE Plosive reduction Monophthongisation Realisation of /θ/ Realisation of /ð/ Devoicing Stress Sandhi Realisation of /r/ Past Third person {-s} Word class Progressive Deletion Word choice Redundant items Word order Inversion

MalE

10 5 1 1 5 4 1 1 2 2 4 1 6 2 2 1 1 3,5 2,3 2,4 2,9

IndonE 12 3 3 2 7 3 1 2 2 2 7 1 10 6 5 2 1 4,1 3 4,8 4,1

13 11 11 8 10 11 2 2 2 3 18 2 12 8 10 5 1 8,5 6,3 7,2 7,6

PER_TAB_6.45.xls

Category Phonology Morphology Syntax TOTAL

Significant differences observed between all varieties ESL vs. IndonE other 3 6 4 3 2 4 2 2 3 8 10 11

Expected same as

PER_TAB_7.1.xls

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

Malay 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

PER_TAB_7.2.xls

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

MalE 8 5 61,54 %

IndonE 76 42 64,41 %

SgE 154 95 234

PER_TAB_7.3.xls

Variety Mean ROS Lowest ROS Highest ROS

MalE 171 156 198

IndonE 105 60 143