Sociolinguistic consequences of language contact between multilingual communities in Sarawak, East Malaysia, Borneo Dr Norazuna Norahim Centre for Language Studies Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 2nd Westminster Linguistics.
Download ReportTranscript Sociolinguistic consequences of language contact between multilingual communities in Sarawak, East Malaysia, Borneo Dr Norazuna Norahim Centre for Language Studies Universiti Malaysia Sarawak 2nd Westminster Linguistics.
Slide 1
Sociolinguistic consequences of language contact
between multilingual communities in Sarawak, East
Malaysia, Borneo
Dr Norazuna Norahim
Centre for Language Studies
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
2nd Westminster Linguistics Conference
Language–Contact–Change–Maintenance-and-Loss
22 - 23 July, 2011
Slide 2
Objective of the paper
• Discuss language contact situations in multilingual communities in the
south-western part of Sarawak, with examples drawn from two case
studies:
• (i) contact between two major ethnic communities, Iban and Malay, in
a “rural” setting, and
• (ii) language contact situation in an urban setting with reference to the
Bidayuh, a minority community.
• Provides an alternative research framework to capture language choice
patterns of multilingual communities.
Slide 3
Slide 4
Demography
• Speech communities under study are situated in Sarawak, East
Malaysia on Borneo Island. Borneo, a linguistically and culturally
heterogeneous island constitutes Sabah and Sarawak (East Malaysia),
Brunei, and Kalimantan (Indonesia). (See Map 1 below. Taken from
Ethnologue, 2009).
• Population Census 2010 estimated :
2,420,009
Size: 124, 450
km2
• Has more than 40 ethnic groups with own languages and distinct
culture
• Ethnic composition:
3 large groups (which makes up approx. 76% of the population);
2 larger groups with more than 150,000 speakers;
the remaining groups with less than 1,000 speakers (5.5%) who speak
more than 25 languages
Slide 5
Misconceptions regarding ethnic categories
• Ethnic name or labels for some ethnic groups were “externally
imposed”. The naming of the groups as Iban, Bidayuh etc.
were reinforced with the advent of the Westerners who for
census purposes could not see the natives except in neat ethnic
compartments (Asmah, 1983)
•
Ethnic groups never had nomenclature to label themselves
Groups identify themselves with the place where they live,
e.g. a river basin, river or hill.
Slide 6
Misconceptions regarding ethnic
categories
• Much of the confusion is also contributed
by previous categorisation on the basis of
similar cultural attributes rather than
linguistic groupings (Asmah, 1983).
• E.g. The people in the ethnic category
Bidayuh is linguistically heterogeneous and
speak “closely related languages” (not a
single language).
Slide 7
Languages of Sarawak, and their
relationship to one another
• The linguistic boundaries can be indistinct, and for that
matter, the neutral term “isolect” is preferred by linguists
and anthropologists working on the groups.
• Published work on linguistic groupings may not always
correspond to native speakers’ perceptions of their
languages.
Slide 8
Languages of Sarawak, and their relationship
to one another
1. Malay and Malayic languages (Selako). Family line: Malayo-Sumbawan,
Malayic, Kendayan Iban and Ibanic languages (Remum, Sebuyau) Family line:
Malayo-Sumbawan, Malayic, Ibanic
2. Bidayuhic language family: Biatah, Bukar-Sadong, Jagoi-Singgai, and
Tinggus-Sembaan. Family line: North Borneo, Bidayuhic.
The Lara language spoken in Lundu has a more distance relationship with this
group, and is closer to Bakati’, a Land Dayak language spoken across the
border in Kalimantan.
3. Melanau language family: Melanau Central, Daro-Matu, Kanowit-Tanjong,
Melanau Sibu. Family line: North Borneo, Melanau-Kajang, Melanau
4. Kajang language family: Bukitan, Kajaman, Lahanan, Sekapan, Sian, Ukit,
Seru. Family line: North Borneo, Melanau-Kajang, Kajang.
Slide 9
5. Kayan-Kenyah language family
Kayanic languages: Kayan Baram, Kayan Rejang. Family line: North Borneo, North
Sarawakan, Kayan-Kenyah, Kayanic, Kayan Proper language family lineage. Rejang
Kayan speakers have limited comprehension of Baram Kayan.
Kayanic-Kenyah (Long Wat and Sebop). Family line: North Borneo, North Sarawakan,
Kayan-Kenyah, Kenyah, Kayanic
Kenyah Mainstream. Family line: North Borneo-North Sarawakan, Kayan-Kenyah,
Kenyah
Murik. Family line: North Borneo-North Sarawakan, Kayanic, Murik Kayan
6. Dayic - Kelabitic languages (Kelabit, Lun Bawang, Sa’ban, and Tring); Murutic
language (Okolod Murut). Family line: North Sarawakan, Dayic, Kelabitic-Murutic
7. Penan: Penan, Bah-Biau Family line: North Borneo, Rejang-Sajau
Penan : Eastern and Western. Family line: North Borneo, North Sarawakan, KayanKenyah.
Eastern Penan related to Western Penan but not mutually intelligible.
Punan Batu 1, North Borneo, Nearly extinct.
Slide 10
Majority and minority languages
Majority languages
• Iban is a majority language both in terms of number of speakers and ethnic population.
It is the language of the largest ethnic community in Sarawak with estimated population
of 738,700 (28.9%) and is a lingua franca in inter-ethnic interaction among rural
population and in Iban-dominated areas.
•
Malay is the language of the third largest ethnic community i.e. the Malay community
with population of 572,000 (22.4%). It is a macro-language, and has a dominant role in
the community; as the national and official language of Malaysia, and a language for
inter-ethnic and intra- and inter-dialectal interactions.
•
English, a global language, enjoys the status of a ‘prestigious’ language. Although
Malay is the only language with official status, acquisition of English is highly
encouraged for international dealings/transactions, and for communication with the
outside world.
•
Mandarin is not the mother tongue of any ethnic group in the community. Nonetheless,
it is perceived as a language that has economic strength. The Chinese community is the
second largest group (643,300 or 25.2%). The fact that Chinese is the economically
stronger group in the community, acquiring Mandarin or dialects of Chinese may be
perceived as an asset by certain members of the community.
Slide 11
Languages with lesser number of speakers
•
The Bidayuh and Melanau community –
Each has population exceeding 100,000 speakers; Bidayuh with of population
204,800 (8%), and Melanau (143,500 or 5.6%).
•
The mother tongues of these communities may be regarded as minority
languages, largely because they remain as “community languages” i.e. they are
only used within the community that speak them.
•
These languages may survive in many years to come provided the traditional
speech community remains intact. Studies on the Bidayuh language has shown
that despite the numerical strength, the language is not safe on the vitality
scale. For one thing, the language is heterogeneous, and mutual intelligibility
between isolects in the Bidayuhic language family can be as low as 33%
(Rensch, et.al, 2006).
Slide 12
Linguistic minorities
• A large number of languages in Sarawak are spoken by
smaller communities with less than 10,000 speakers
subsumed under the “other natives” category (144,400 or
5.6%).
• Many of these languages have little function outside the
communities that speak them, and some are threatened
languages, or already extinct.
Slide 13
EXTINCT LANGUAGES
•Lelak – A North Sarawakan language, spoken in Lower Baram, Teru and Sungai Bunen (at
Loagan Bunut Lake) on Tinjar River. It has no known speakers
•Seru – A Melanau-Kajang language spoken in Kabong, 2nd Division of Sarawak. It has no
known speakers
ENDANGERED & CRITICALLY ENDANGERED LANGUAES:
•Kajang language family: Bukitan (290), Kajaman (500), Lahanan (350), Sekapan
(750), Sian (50), Ukit (120). Seru, a language in this category is already extinct.
•Bintulu (4200); not similar with other languages and is an isolate with North
Sarawakan
•Kayan-Kenyah Language Family: Long Wat (600), Murik (1,120); Sebob (1,730)
• Penan, Bah-Biau (450), Family line: North Borneo, Rejang-Sajau
•Western Penan (3,400) and Eastern Penan (6,455). Family line: Malayo-Polynesian,
North Borneo, North Sarawakan, Kayan-Kenyah, Penan
• Punan Batu 1 (30), North Borneo, Nearly extinct.
•Kelabit and Dayic- Kelabitic language : Tring (550), Kelabit (2,140), Sa’ban (1,960)
•Okolod,: Dayic- Murutic language (1,580)
•Berawan-Lower Baram group: Narom (2,420), Kiput (2,460); Lelak is extinct
•Tabun language in Limbang (not identified by Ethnologue)
Slide 14
The Sociolinguistic Scenario
What does the literature on language shift says about the
linguistic heterogeneity of the region ?
The linguistic diversity is reduced with increasing number of
languages reported to be either threatened and endangered, or
shrinking in use in various domains. This phenomenon is also
observed in many other parts of Borneo (c.f. Margaret Florey,
2011; Martin & Sercombe, 2010; Norazuna, 2010).
The phenomenon of language shift is experienced by
communities with smaller as well as larger number of
speakers.
Slide 15
Linguistic ecology of Sarawak
• Rapid socio-cultural and economic transformation over the last four decades.
• Infrastructure development and agricultural projects have reached the once
remote villages. With tremendous improvement in accessibility, there is hardly
a community that is completely isolated from outside influences.
• The cultural heritage of indigenous communities, which is closely linked to
traditional occupation and way of life in previous environments, may not be
retained in the wake of the transformation.
• The language choice patterns of communities have been altered to a greater or
lesser extent by the impact of these changes in the linguistic ecology of the
area.
Slide 16
How is the transformation affecting LC
patterns of majority & minority speakers
MACRO-VARIABLES & MICRO-VARIBLES IN ASSESSING MINORITY
SITUATION (EDWARD, 1992)
• Macro-variables are “indicative of features which are shared across
large numbers of endangerment situations” and micro-variables are
“characteristics which are unique to specific speech communities”.
(Grenoble & Whaley, 1998:27).
• Micro-variables will account for the differences in the rate, outcome,
and reversibility of language shift between communities, and that the
existence of actual threats to the survival of a language depends on
the circumstances of individual communities i.e. it is a function of
the micro-variables.
Slide 17
Urban setting – The Bidayuh
Predicament
• The pressure to conform to major languages and
urban norms of language use is greater.
• Susceptible to language shift due to proximity to
the capital city
• Often the case, opportunity to speak the
community language limited to “family domain”
• Recessive bilingual practice
Slide 18
Healthy Multilingualism – Iban-Malay
contact in rural setting
• Additive bilingual practice
• Norms of language use in interaction –
community languages and local dialects
• Less pressure to speak major languages
particularly English
• Generally, positive attitudes towards each
other’s languages
Slide 19
Consequences of language
contact
• Language attitudes have changed over the years; To learn each other’s
language was critical then (for older generation) for interaction intergroup interaction at the market place, and govermental transactions.
This is not so, in recent times; community members share a common
language i.e. Malay
• On the whole, bilingual practice is not recessive but addictive
Although multilingualism is generally perceived positively by
community members in Sebuyau, nevertheless the act of
accommodating to the language of Iban interlocutors between peers
among younger generation in inter-group interaction may not be
perceived positively by Malay speakers.
Slide 20
Theoretical Framework
• Edward’s (1992) Framework for typology
of minority language
• Fishman’s (1972) domain analysis
• Gal’s (1996) speaker variation and
implicational scaling technique
• Bilingual practise - Baetens Beardsmore
1982)
Slide 21
Theoretical Framework
• The study utilised relevant literature in two inter-related
fields: (i) the study of language choice and (ii) the study of
social variation in language and linguistic change
• It adopts theories from the macro-sociological construct as
well as the methods of observation from the interactional
approach in data collection and analysis.
• From the study of social variation in language, this study
applies the notion of “speaker variation in language
choice” and the “implicational scaling” technique in its
framework of analysis.
Slide 22
Methodological framework
• Survey on language choice
In-depth interview with the help of a questionnaire which includes (i)
demographic background of the respondent, (ii) competency in languages and
dialects and (iii) “patterns of choice” with various types of interlocutors, and in
inter- and inter-group interactions.
• Participant observation of language choice behaviour of community members
in various settings (coffee shops, wet market etc.)
• In-depth interview with community leaders – To obtain greater insights into the
social, cultural, political and historical background (migration history, and
settlement patterns) of the various communities under study. The cultural
differences (e.g. ethnic pride) between groups, albeit in a subtle way are
identified in these interviews.
Slide 23
The challenge
• In this setting, speaker is likely to have 3-4
languages at their disposal to choose from
in a given social event/situation.
• Language choice at micro-level is primarily
determined by (i) type of interlocutor and
(ii) common language shared between
participants in interaction
Slide 24
Variable in language choice studied
(i) the “interlocutor”- this factor may take precedence over
other factors e.g. domain, topic etc. in determining patterns
of choice, and (ii) speaker variables: social background of
speakers e.g. age-group, profession, social circles.
In these settings, interaction can be between monolingual
and bilingual or between bilinguals, and speakers may
engage in code-switching and code-mixing (c.f. Grosjean,
1982; Romaine, 1995).
Slide 25
Framework of Analysis
Speaker variation and pattern of choice
• It was posited that speakers may share the same language repertoire,
but vary in patterns of language choice.
• Speakers differ in how they utilise languages in interaction, and this
is primarily determined by language attitudes.
• Some speakers would have the tendency to use a particular language
in most situations or in two out of the three main settings
investigated; some would use major languages at the expense of the
mother tongue, and some would employ a “diglossia-like” pattern of
choice.
Slide 26
The contention is
•
“speaker variables” rather than “social variables” (e.g.
age, gender) as major variables in description of the
process of language shift.
• Language shift is a gradual process, and it should be clear
to the researcher before embarking on LSLM study.
• By employing the speaker variation framework, it was
possible to identify the social profiles of speakers that are
initiating changes in language choice patterns in this
community and the motivations leading to shift.
Slide 27
The Bidayuh Predicament
• The Bidayuh is the fourth largest ethnic group in Sarawak,
and has a total population approximately 204,800 speakers.
Despite the numerical strength, the Bidayuh community
depicts one that is experiencing an on-going language shift.
• Members of Bidayuh community observed in this study are
the educated ones (61 respondents), and they may speak at
least three languages: Malay, English and Bidayuh or/and
Chinese/Iban.
Slide 28
• The language choice patterns of educated Bidayuh have indicated the existence
of a trend towards the use of English in this community.
• The “superiority” of the English language perceived as a language
crucial for social mobility and economic advancement has motivated
community members inculcate the use of English at home.
•
This view has its roots in the changing mindset of members of the
community.
Bidayuh community leaders view advancement in education as
fundamental to
further socio-economic progress of the community. This view is
promoted
through various community activities anchored to two main
organisations,
Dayak Bidayuh National Association (DBNA) and Bidayuh Graduate
Association (BGA).
•
However, the trend has proven to be detrimental to the continuous
survival of
the community language in families of educated Bidayuh. It deprives
Slide 29
Evidences of language shift
• Encroachment of Malay and English in the domain
traditionally reserved for the use of the community
language seems inevitable because of widespread
occurrences of inter-ethnic and inter-dialectal marriages.
• A common language is needed not only between couples
and their children within the core family, but also in
communication among extended family members. These
circumstances do not support retention of the mother
tongue
Slide 30
Recessive bilingual practice
• Recessive bilingualism; Assuming urban norms in social
behaviour including language behaviour at the expense of the
mother tongue.
• Ambivalent attitude of the Bidayuh speakers towards the Bidayuh
language to symbolise ethnic identity. Many community members
have come to view loosely the link between community language
and one’s ethnicity particularly if they are less attached to the
community. Community language is not essential for group
membership.
Slide 31
Changes in norm of language use
in home domain
• The norm of language use in the home domain is
changing, and is threatening inter-generational
continuity of the Bidayuh language.
• The social norm whereby the community language is
spoken to express solidarity with group members is
changing for urban Bidayuh. This norm is only adhered
to when they visit Bidayuh villages.
Slide 32
Societal bilingualism influence
on individual practise
• Societal bilingualism is a major influence on bilingual
practice at the micro-level.
• Individual bilingual practice to a large extent is dictated by
community norms. Community norms may be maintained
through institutional norm enforcement agencies e.g.
workplace, school, media etc. So, the use of language
specific to a domain is a form of norm-enforcement.
• Minority communities has little choice in the matter but to
succumb to norms of language use in various domains.
Slide 33
Summation
•
The multifunction of Malay and English in this community has placed the community
language in a disadvantaged position. Malay is assigned the status as the “national
language” and English enjoys the status as a “prestigious” language in socio-economic
sense. In addition, they are used as “linking languages” (Mulhausler, 1977:10) in interethnic as well as inter-dialectal interactions.
•
This “imbalance” in the language ecology of the region is partly a consequence of the
national policies adopted in the typically ex-colonial countries which require a national
language for unification purpose and a language of international standing for rapid
economic growth.
•
It is partly a consequence of widespread occurrence of mixed marriages, and
unintelligibility between various isolects within the Bidayuh speech system which
prevent community members from communicating in the Bidayuh language.
Slide 34
• In view of these constraints in the use of the community
language, it is proposed that perhaps the idea of having a
single dialect for intra-ethnic interaction could be worked
on. This move may reduce the community’s dependency
on Malay and English in inter-dialectal communication
although linguistic diversity of the Bidayuh speech system
can be adversely affected.
• The Bidayuh has not agreed on which language to be
developed as the standard. In recent times, the Bidayuh has
started multilingual education project in the various
Bidayuhic languages.
Slide 35
Summation
• Societal bilingualism can assert a greater pressure to
linguistic assimilation by speakers and bilingual practice.
• The degree of individual bilingualism varies between
speakers which is how languages are put to use by the
speakers. The various forms of bilingual practice among
individual speakers in communities reflect the attitudes and
perceptions speakers have towards languages, which are
also influenced by societal form of bilingualism.
Slide 36
Table 1.1: Edward’s (1992) framework for the typology of minority languages
Note: * Literacy is added to the list of variables by Grenoble and Whaley
Categorisation A
Speaker
Categorisation B
Language
Setting
Demography
1
2
3
Sociology
Linguistics
Psychology
History
Politics/law/government
Geography
Education
Religion
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
5
8
11
14
17
20
23
26
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
Economics
The Media
*Literacy
28
31
34
29
32
35
30
33
36
Slide 37
Micro and Macro variables in
language contact
• Grenoble and Whaley (1988) have also stressed the importance of
distinguishing between macro- and micro-variables in assessment of
viability of a minority language.
• Grenoble and Whaley (1988) deliberate that the variables in the
“speaker” and “language” column are “micro-variables”; they refer to
features of an individual speech community. While the variables in the
“setting” column are “macro-variables” i.e. features of the broader
context where the community is located.
Sociolinguistic consequences of language contact
between multilingual communities in Sarawak, East
Malaysia, Borneo
Dr Norazuna Norahim
Centre for Language Studies
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
2nd Westminster Linguistics Conference
Language–Contact–Change–Maintenance-and-Loss
22 - 23 July, 2011
Slide 2
Objective of the paper
• Discuss language contact situations in multilingual communities in the
south-western part of Sarawak, with examples drawn from two case
studies:
• (i) contact between two major ethnic communities, Iban and Malay, in
a “rural” setting, and
• (ii) language contact situation in an urban setting with reference to the
Bidayuh, a minority community.
• Provides an alternative research framework to capture language choice
patterns of multilingual communities.
Slide 3
Slide 4
Demography
• Speech communities under study are situated in Sarawak, East
Malaysia on Borneo Island. Borneo, a linguistically and culturally
heterogeneous island constitutes Sabah and Sarawak (East Malaysia),
Brunei, and Kalimantan (Indonesia). (See Map 1 below. Taken from
Ethnologue, 2009).
• Population Census 2010 estimated :
2,420,009
Size: 124, 450
km2
• Has more than 40 ethnic groups with own languages and distinct
culture
• Ethnic composition:
3 large groups (which makes up approx. 76% of the population);
2 larger groups with more than 150,000 speakers;
the remaining groups with less than 1,000 speakers (5.5%) who speak
more than 25 languages
Slide 5
Misconceptions regarding ethnic categories
• Ethnic name or labels for some ethnic groups were “externally
imposed”. The naming of the groups as Iban, Bidayuh etc.
were reinforced with the advent of the Westerners who for
census purposes could not see the natives except in neat ethnic
compartments (Asmah, 1983)
•
Ethnic groups never had nomenclature to label themselves
Groups identify themselves with the place where they live,
e.g. a river basin, river or hill.
Slide 6
Misconceptions regarding ethnic
categories
• Much of the confusion is also contributed
by previous categorisation on the basis of
similar cultural attributes rather than
linguistic groupings (Asmah, 1983).
• E.g. The people in the ethnic category
Bidayuh is linguistically heterogeneous and
speak “closely related languages” (not a
single language).
Slide 7
Languages of Sarawak, and their
relationship to one another
• The linguistic boundaries can be indistinct, and for that
matter, the neutral term “isolect” is preferred by linguists
and anthropologists working on the groups.
• Published work on linguistic groupings may not always
correspond to native speakers’ perceptions of their
languages.
Slide 8
Languages of Sarawak, and their relationship
to one another
1. Malay and Malayic languages (Selako). Family line: Malayo-Sumbawan,
Malayic, Kendayan Iban and Ibanic languages (Remum, Sebuyau) Family line:
Malayo-Sumbawan, Malayic, Ibanic
2. Bidayuhic language family: Biatah, Bukar-Sadong, Jagoi-Singgai, and
Tinggus-Sembaan. Family line: North Borneo, Bidayuhic.
The Lara language spoken in Lundu has a more distance relationship with this
group, and is closer to Bakati’, a Land Dayak language spoken across the
border in Kalimantan.
3. Melanau language family: Melanau Central, Daro-Matu, Kanowit-Tanjong,
Melanau Sibu. Family line: North Borneo, Melanau-Kajang, Melanau
4. Kajang language family: Bukitan, Kajaman, Lahanan, Sekapan, Sian, Ukit,
Seru. Family line: North Borneo, Melanau-Kajang, Kajang.
Slide 9
5. Kayan-Kenyah language family
Kayanic languages: Kayan Baram, Kayan Rejang. Family line: North Borneo, North
Sarawakan, Kayan-Kenyah, Kayanic, Kayan Proper language family lineage. Rejang
Kayan speakers have limited comprehension of Baram Kayan.
Kayanic-Kenyah (Long Wat and Sebop). Family line: North Borneo, North Sarawakan,
Kayan-Kenyah, Kenyah, Kayanic
Kenyah Mainstream. Family line: North Borneo-North Sarawakan, Kayan-Kenyah,
Kenyah
Murik. Family line: North Borneo-North Sarawakan, Kayanic, Murik Kayan
6. Dayic - Kelabitic languages (Kelabit, Lun Bawang, Sa’ban, and Tring); Murutic
language (Okolod Murut). Family line: North Sarawakan, Dayic, Kelabitic-Murutic
7. Penan: Penan, Bah-Biau Family line: North Borneo, Rejang-Sajau
Penan : Eastern and Western. Family line: North Borneo, North Sarawakan, KayanKenyah.
Eastern Penan related to Western Penan but not mutually intelligible.
Punan Batu 1, North Borneo, Nearly extinct.
Slide 10
Majority and minority languages
Majority languages
• Iban is a majority language both in terms of number of speakers and ethnic population.
It is the language of the largest ethnic community in Sarawak with estimated population
of 738,700 (28.9%) and is a lingua franca in inter-ethnic interaction among rural
population and in Iban-dominated areas.
•
Malay is the language of the third largest ethnic community i.e. the Malay community
with population of 572,000 (22.4%). It is a macro-language, and has a dominant role in
the community; as the national and official language of Malaysia, and a language for
inter-ethnic and intra- and inter-dialectal interactions.
•
English, a global language, enjoys the status of a ‘prestigious’ language. Although
Malay is the only language with official status, acquisition of English is highly
encouraged for international dealings/transactions, and for communication with the
outside world.
•
Mandarin is not the mother tongue of any ethnic group in the community. Nonetheless,
it is perceived as a language that has economic strength. The Chinese community is the
second largest group (643,300 or 25.2%). The fact that Chinese is the economically
stronger group in the community, acquiring Mandarin or dialects of Chinese may be
perceived as an asset by certain members of the community.
Slide 11
Languages with lesser number of speakers
•
The Bidayuh and Melanau community –
Each has population exceeding 100,000 speakers; Bidayuh with of population
204,800 (8%), and Melanau (143,500 or 5.6%).
•
The mother tongues of these communities may be regarded as minority
languages, largely because they remain as “community languages” i.e. they are
only used within the community that speak them.
•
These languages may survive in many years to come provided the traditional
speech community remains intact. Studies on the Bidayuh language has shown
that despite the numerical strength, the language is not safe on the vitality
scale. For one thing, the language is heterogeneous, and mutual intelligibility
between isolects in the Bidayuhic language family can be as low as 33%
(Rensch, et.al, 2006).
Slide 12
Linguistic minorities
• A large number of languages in Sarawak are spoken by
smaller communities with less than 10,000 speakers
subsumed under the “other natives” category (144,400 or
5.6%).
• Many of these languages have little function outside the
communities that speak them, and some are threatened
languages, or already extinct.
Slide 13
EXTINCT LANGUAGES
•Lelak – A North Sarawakan language, spoken in Lower Baram, Teru and Sungai Bunen (at
Loagan Bunut Lake) on Tinjar River. It has no known speakers
•Seru – A Melanau-Kajang language spoken in Kabong, 2nd Division of Sarawak. It has no
known speakers
ENDANGERED & CRITICALLY ENDANGERED LANGUAES:
•Kajang language family: Bukitan (290), Kajaman (500), Lahanan (350), Sekapan
(750), Sian (50), Ukit (120). Seru, a language in this category is already extinct.
•Bintulu (4200); not similar with other languages and is an isolate with North
Sarawakan
•Kayan-Kenyah Language Family: Long Wat (600), Murik (1,120); Sebob (1,730)
• Penan, Bah-Biau (450), Family line: North Borneo, Rejang-Sajau
•Western Penan (3,400) and Eastern Penan (6,455). Family line: Malayo-Polynesian,
North Borneo, North Sarawakan, Kayan-Kenyah, Penan
• Punan Batu 1 (30), North Borneo, Nearly extinct.
•Kelabit and Dayic- Kelabitic language : Tring (550), Kelabit (2,140), Sa’ban (1,960)
•Okolod,: Dayic- Murutic language (1,580)
•Berawan-Lower Baram group: Narom (2,420), Kiput (2,460); Lelak is extinct
•Tabun language in Limbang (not identified by Ethnologue)
Slide 14
The Sociolinguistic Scenario
What does the literature on language shift says about the
linguistic heterogeneity of the region ?
The linguistic diversity is reduced with increasing number of
languages reported to be either threatened and endangered, or
shrinking in use in various domains. This phenomenon is also
observed in many other parts of Borneo (c.f. Margaret Florey,
2011; Martin & Sercombe, 2010; Norazuna, 2010).
The phenomenon of language shift is experienced by
communities with smaller as well as larger number of
speakers.
Slide 15
Linguistic ecology of Sarawak
• Rapid socio-cultural and economic transformation over the last four decades.
• Infrastructure development and agricultural projects have reached the once
remote villages. With tremendous improvement in accessibility, there is hardly
a community that is completely isolated from outside influences.
• The cultural heritage of indigenous communities, which is closely linked to
traditional occupation and way of life in previous environments, may not be
retained in the wake of the transformation.
• The language choice patterns of communities have been altered to a greater or
lesser extent by the impact of these changes in the linguistic ecology of the
area.
Slide 16
How is the transformation affecting LC
patterns of majority & minority speakers
MACRO-VARIABLES & MICRO-VARIBLES IN ASSESSING MINORITY
SITUATION (EDWARD, 1992)
• Macro-variables are “indicative of features which are shared across
large numbers of endangerment situations” and micro-variables are
“characteristics which are unique to specific speech communities”.
(Grenoble & Whaley, 1998:27).
• Micro-variables will account for the differences in the rate, outcome,
and reversibility of language shift between communities, and that the
existence of actual threats to the survival of a language depends on
the circumstances of individual communities i.e. it is a function of
the micro-variables.
Slide 17
Urban setting – The Bidayuh
Predicament
• The pressure to conform to major languages and
urban norms of language use is greater.
• Susceptible to language shift due to proximity to
the capital city
• Often the case, opportunity to speak the
community language limited to “family domain”
• Recessive bilingual practice
Slide 18
Healthy Multilingualism – Iban-Malay
contact in rural setting
• Additive bilingual practice
• Norms of language use in interaction –
community languages and local dialects
• Less pressure to speak major languages
particularly English
• Generally, positive attitudes towards each
other’s languages
Slide 19
Consequences of language
contact
• Language attitudes have changed over the years; To learn each other’s
language was critical then (for older generation) for interaction intergroup interaction at the market place, and govermental transactions.
This is not so, in recent times; community members share a common
language i.e. Malay
• On the whole, bilingual practice is not recessive but addictive
Although multilingualism is generally perceived positively by
community members in Sebuyau, nevertheless the act of
accommodating to the language of Iban interlocutors between peers
among younger generation in inter-group interaction may not be
perceived positively by Malay speakers.
Slide 20
Theoretical Framework
• Edward’s (1992) Framework for typology
of minority language
• Fishman’s (1972) domain analysis
• Gal’s (1996) speaker variation and
implicational scaling technique
• Bilingual practise - Baetens Beardsmore
1982)
Slide 21
Theoretical Framework
• The study utilised relevant literature in two inter-related
fields: (i) the study of language choice and (ii) the study of
social variation in language and linguistic change
• It adopts theories from the macro-sociological construct as
well as the methods of observation from the interactional
approach in data collection and analysis.
• From the study of social variation in language, this study
applies the notion of “speaker variation in language
choice” and the “implicational scaling” technique in its
framework of analysis.
Slide 22
Methodological framework
• Survey on language choice
In-depth interview with the help of a questionnaire which includes (i)
demographic background of the respondent, (ii) competency in languages and
dialects and (iii) “patterns of choice” with various types of interlocutors, and in
inter- and inter-group interactions.
• Participant observation of language choice behaviour of community members
in various settings (coffee shops, wet market etc.)
• In-depth interview with community leaders – To obtain greater insights into the
social, cultural, political and historical background (migration history, and
settlement patterns) of the various communities under study. The cultural
differences (e.g. ethnic pride) between groups, albeit in a subtle way are
identified in these interviews.
Slide 23
The challenge
• In this setting, speaker is likely to have 3-4
languages at their disposal to choose from
in a given social event/situation.
• Language choice at micro-level is primarily
determined by (i) type of interlocutor and
(ii) common language shared between
participants in interaction
Slide 24
Variable in language choice studied
(i) the “interlocutor”- this factor may take precedence over
other factors e.g. domain, topic etc. in determining patterns
of choice, and (ii) speaker variables: social background of
speakers e.g. age-group, profession, social circles.
In these settings, interaction can be between monolingual
and bilingual or between bilinguals, and speakers may
engage in code-switching and code-mixing (c.f. Grosjean,
1982; Romaine, 1995).
Slide 25
Framework of Analysis
Speaker variation and pattern of choice
• It was posited that speakers may share the same language repertoire,
but vary in patterns of language choice.
• Speakers differ in how they utilise languages in interaction, and this
is primarily determined by language attitudes.
• Some speakers would have the tendency to use a particular language
in most situations or in two out of the three main settings
investigated; some would use major languages at the expense of the
mother tongue, and some would employ a “diglossia-like” pattern of
choice.
Slide 26
The contention is
•
“speaker variables” rather than “social variables” (e.g.
age, gender) as major variables in description of the
process of language shift.
• Language shift is a gradual process, and it should be clear
to the researcher before embarking on LSLM study.
• By employing the speaker variation framework, it was
possible to identify the social profiles of speakers that are
initiating changes in language choice patterns in this
community and the motivations leading to shift.
Slide 27
The Bidayuh Predicament
• The Bidayuh is the fourth largest ethnic group in Sarawak,
and has a total population approximately 204,800 speakers.
Despite the numerical strength, the Bidayuh community
depicts one that is experiencing an on-going language shift.
• Members of Bidayuh community observed in this study are
the educated ones (61 respondents), and they may speak at
least three languages: Malay, English and Bidayuh or/and
Chinese/Iban.
Slide 28
• The language choice patterns of educated Bidayuh have indicated the existence
of a trend towards the use of English in this community.
• The “superiority” of the English language perceived as a language
crucial for social mobility and economic advancement has motivated
community members inculcate the use of English at home.
•
This view has its roots in the changing mindset of members of the
community.
Bidayuh community leaders view advancement in education as
fundamental to
further socio-economic progress of the community. This view is
promoted
through various community activities anchored to two main
organisations,
Dayak Bidayuh National Association (DBNA) and Bidayuh Graduate
Association (BGA).
•
However, the trend has proven to be detrimental to the continuous
survival of
the community language in families of educated Bidayuh. It deprives
Slide 29
Evidences of language shift
• Encroachment of Malay and English in the domain
traditionally reserved for the use of the community
language seems inevitable because of widespread
occurrences of inter-ethnic and inter-dialectal marriages.
• A common language is needed not only between couples
and their children within the core family, but also in
communication among extended family members. These
circumstances do not support retention of the mother
tongue
Slide 30
Recessive bilingual practice
• Recessive bilingualism; Assuming urban norms in social
behaviour including language behaviour at the expense of the
mother tongue.
• Ambivalent attitude of the Bidayuh speakers towards the Bidayuh
language to symbolise ethnic identity. Many community members
have come to view loosely the link between community language
and one’s ethnicity particularly if they are less attached to the
community. Community language is not essential for group
membership.
Slide 31
Changes in norm of language use
in home domain
• The norm of language use in the home domain is
changing, and is threatening inter-generational
continuity of the Bidayuh language.
• The social norm whereby the community language is
spoken to express solidarity with group members is
changing for urban Bidayuh. This norm is only adhered
to when they visit Bidayuh villages.
Slide 32
Societal bilingualism influence
on individual practise
• Societal bilingualism is a major influence on bilingual
practice at the micro-level.
• Individual bilingual practice to a large extent is dictated by
community norms. Community norms may be maintained
through institutional norm enforcement agencies e.g.
workplace, school, media etc. So, the use of language
specific to a domain is a form of norm-enforcement.
• Minority communities has little choice in the matter but to
succumb to norms of language use in various domains.
Slide 33
Summation
•
The multifunction of Malay and English in this community has placed the community
language in a disadvantaged position. Malay is assigned the status as the “national
language” and English enjoys the status as a “prestigious” language in socio-economic
sense. In addition, they are used as “linking languages” (Mulhausler, 1977:10) in interethnic as well as inter-dialectal interactions.
•
This “imbalance” in the language ecology of the region is partly a consequence of the
national policies adopted in the typically ex-colonial countries which require a national
language for unification purpose and a language of international standing for rapid
economic growth.
•
It is partly a consequence of widespread occurrence of mixed marriages, and
unintelligibility between various isolects within the Bidayuh speech system which
prevent community members from communicating in the Bidayuh language.
Slide 34
• In view of these constraints in the use of the community
language, it is proposed that perhaps the idea of having a
single dialect for intra-ethnic interaction could be worked
on. This move may reduce the community’s dependency
on Malay and English in inter-dialectal communication
although linguistic diversity of the Bidayuh speech system
can be adversely affected.
• The Bidayuh has not agreed on which language to be
developed as the standard. In recent times, the Bidayuh has
started multilingual education project in the various
Bidayuhic languages.
Slide 35
Summation
• Societal bilingualism can assert a greater pressure to
linguistic assimilation by speakers and bilingual practice.
• The degree of individual bilingualism varies between
speakers which is how languages are put to use by the
speakers. The various forms of bilingual practice among
individual speakers in communities reflect the attitudes and
perceptions speakers have towards languages, which are
also influenced by societal form of bilingualism.
Slide 36
Table 1.1: Edward’s (1992) framework for the typology of minority languages
Note: * Literacy is added to the list of variables by Grenoble and Whaley
Categorisation A
Speaker
Categorisation B
Language
Setting
Demography
1
2
3
Sociology
Linguistics
Psychology
History
Politics/law/government
Geography
Education
Religion
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
5
8
11
14
17
20
23
26
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
Economics
The Media
*Literacy
28
31
34
29
32
35
30
33
36
Slide 37
Micro and Macro variables in
language contact
• Grenoble and Whaley (1988) have also stressed the importance of
distinguishing between macro- and micro-variables in assessment of
viability of a minority language.
• Grenoble and Whaley (1988) deliberate that the variables in the
“speaker” and “language” column are “micro-variables”; they refer to
features of an individual speech community. While the variables in the
“setting” column are “macro-variables” i.e. features of the broader
context where the community is located.