Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:07:21.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the World Englishes Paradigm: Agency, Performativity and Malaysian English

Individual language user agency in the Malaysian context indicates the limits of the World Englishes paradigm.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2016

Jeffrey Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As a global language, English is taken up and used in local contexts in ways that cannot be accounted for by limited World Englishes (WE) paradigm. This can be illustrated through an analysis of the performative agency of individuals’ language usage in specific contact contexts. After a brief overview of the WE paradigm, this article offers a consideration of the Malaysian linguistic context and Malaysian English from a ‘post-WE’ perspective. The conclusion is that, rather than think of the respective WE and post-WE approaches as opposed to one another, it is more useful to characterize them as distinctive theoretical prisms that illuminate divergent issues.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 54 - 59
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahearn, L. M. 2012. Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ariffin, K. & Husin, M. S. 2011. ‘Code-switching and code-mixing of English and Bahasa Malaysia in content-based classrooms: Frequency and attitudes.’ The Linguistics Journal, 5(1), 197–219.Google Scholar
Baskaran, L. 1994. ‘The Malaysian English mosaic’. English Today, 37(10), 27–32.Google Scholar
Bolton, K. 2005. ‘Where WE stands: approaches, issues, and debate in world Englishes.’ World Englishes, 24(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock-Utne, B. 2012. ‘Language policy and science: Could some African countries learn from some Asian countries.’ International Review of Education, 58(4), 481–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 2015. ‘Learner agency in language planning: A tripartite perspective.’ Language Problems & Language Planning, 39(2), 171–186.Google Scholar
Butler, J. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chong, P. K. 2015, October 28. ‘English lessons for free as Malaysia tackles drop in proficiency.’ Bloomberg Business. Online at <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-28/malaysia-seeks-more-classes-in-english-as-proficiency-declines> (Accessed October 30, 2015).Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1990. The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. New York: Random House. (Originally published 1978).Google Scholar
Foucault, M. 1991. ‘Governmentality.’ In Burchell, G., Gordon, C., and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
Grapragasem, S., Krishnan, A. & Mansor, A. N. 2014. ‘Current trends in Malaysian higher education and the effect on education policy and practice: An overview.’ International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashim, A. 2009. ‘Not plain sailing: Malaysia's language choice in policy and education.’ AILA Review, 22(1), 36–51.Google Scholar
Hashim, A. & Leitner, G. 2011. ‘Contact expressions in contemporary Malaysian English.’ World Englishes, 30(4), 551–568.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. 1971. ‘The ecology of language.’ The Linguistic Reporter Supplement, 25, 19–26.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1986. ‘The power and politics of English.’ World Englishes, 5(2–3), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1992. ‘Teaching World Englishes’. In, Kachru, B. B. (ed.), The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures, 2nd Edition. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 355–366.Google Scholar
Lee, S. S. & Koo, Y. L. 2015. ‘Examining linguistic proficiency in the multilingual glocal workplace: A Malaysian case study’. Language and Intercultural Communication, 15(1), 46–61.Google Scholar
Liu, A. H. & Ricks, J. I. 2012. ‘Coalitions and language politics: Policy shifts in southeast Asia.’ World Politics, 64(3), 476–506.Google Scholar
Lowenberg, P. 1991. ‘Variation in Malaysian English: the pragmatics of languages in contact.’ In Cheshire, J. (ed.), English Around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–375.Google Scholar
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., Dumanig, F. P. & Naqeebullah, K. 2015. ‘Politics, economics and identity: Mapping the linguistic landscape of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.’ International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 2001. Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, A. 2003. ‘Global Englishes, rip slyme and performativity.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 513–533.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. 2006. ‘Language Policy and Linguistic Imperialism.’ In Ricento, T. (ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 346–361.Google Scholar
Pillai, S. 2008. ‘Speaking English the Malaysian way - correct or not?’ English Today, 24(4), 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajadurai, J. 2007. ‘Sociolinguistic perspectives on variation in non-native varieties of English: The case of Malaysian English.’ Multilingua, 26(4), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, M., Khan, M. H., Ng, L. L. & Cheang, K. W. 2014. ‘Articulation of medium of instruction politics in the Malaysian Chinese press.’ Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2), 206–218.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. 2004. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steger, M. 2013. Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, M. & Lan, O. S. 2011. ‘Teaching mathematics and science in English in Malaysian classrooms: The impact of teacher beliefs on classroom practices and student learning.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
Then, D. C. & Ting, S. 2009. ‘A preliminary study of teacher code-switching in secondary English and science in Malaysia.’ TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 13(1).Google Scholar
Tongue, R. 1974. The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Sourberman, E. (trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, L. F. & Ishak, M. S. A. 2012. ‘Framing controversy over language policy in Malaysia: The coverage of PPSMI reversal (teaching of mathematics and science in English) by Malaysian newspapers.’ Asian Journal of Communication, 22(5), 449–473.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar