8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

1/12

This article was downloaded by: [Swinburne University of Technology]On: 05 October 2013, At: 05:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Multilingual andMulticultural DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http: //www.tandfonl ine.com/loi/rmmm20

The sociolinguistic realignment in theChinese community in Kuala Lumpur:past, present and futureXiaomei Wang aa Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, KualaLumpur, MalaysiaPublished online: 01 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Xiaomei Wang (2010) The sociolinguistic realignment in the Chinese communityin Kuala Lumpur: past, prese nt and future, Journal of Multilingual and Multicul tural Development,31:5, 479-489, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2010.505656

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.505656

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions

and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, exp enses, damages, and other liabilities w hatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.505656http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.505656http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/01434632.2010.505656http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

2/12

The sociolinguistic realignment in the Chinese community inKuala Lumpur: past, present and future

Xiaomei Wang*

Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

(Received 28 January 2010; nal version received 28 June 2010 )

The language situation in the Malaysian Chinese community has undergone greatchanges in the past century. This paper aims to account for such changes in theframework of sociolinguistic realignment, which is both descriptive and predictive.The triglossic situation in the colonial period (1859 1957) is described; with thesupport of a language survey in Kuala Lumpur (KL) in 2008, the current triglossiain the Chinese community is presented. Furthermore, the future development of the language situation in KL is predicted based on the hypothesis of sociolinguisticrealignment theory.

Keywords: sociolinguistic realignment; triglossia; Chinese community; Malaysia

Introduction

The sociolinguistic realignment theory (SRT) was proposed by Tsou (1980, 1993; Tsouand You 2001/2003, 2004; Tsou et al. 2007) to account for the sociolinguistic change inmultilingual societies of post-colonial era. This theory emphasises the dynamicrelationship between language and society and hypothesises that the unstable triglossicstructure will be realigned into a relatively stable diglossic structure in the long run. Itis not only a descriptive model but also a predictable one. It starts with a description of the hierarchy of a multilingual society and predicts the future development of thesociolinguistic situation due to various social factors. Different from other models,SRT takes a holistic and dynamic point of view towards the language varieties ina society. It combines the Diglossia (Ferguson 1959; Fishman 1967) concept andlanguage shift concept to describe the linguistic hierarchy in a multilingual society andexplain the change of language status.

Three types of realignment are identified as the following: (1) substitutiverealignment; (2) simple additive realignment; and (3) multiple additive realignment.For Type 1, a new language B replaces language A; for Type 2, a new language B isadded into the existing linguistic repertoire; for Type 3, two or more languagevarieties are added.

The language varieties in a multilingual society have different status and socialfunctions. According to their status and function, these language varieties aredifferentiated into: (1) Supreme language; (2) High language; and (3) Low language.The Supreme language is attached with political power; therefore, it acts as thenational language or official language in the specific country. High language varieties

*Email: wangxm@um.edu.my

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural DevelopmentVol. 31, No. 5, September 2010, 479 489

ISSN 0143-4632 print/ISSN 1747-7557 online# 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/01434632.2010.505656http://www.informaworld.com

D

w

w

U

O

http://www.informaworld.com/http://www.informaworld.com/

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

3/12

are confined to formal domains. Low language varieties are often used in private andhome domains. The concept of triglossia is developed from the classic proposalDiglossia by Ferguson (1959), which was later extended by Fishman (1967). It coin-cides with Polyglossia , which was proposed by Platt (1977) when he studied theChinese community in Singapore and Malaysia.

The case of Singapore may exemplify the process of sociolinguistic realignment.The traditional language situation in the Chinese community of Singapore ispresented in Figure 1 below. English was the Supreme language as the workinglanguage in the colonial government; Southern Min dialect was the High language asthe lingua franca across various dialect groups; Cantonese, Hakka and other Chinesedialects were confined to home domain as Low language varieties. The triglossicsituation was realigned into a relatively stable structure, diglossia, with the politicaland cultural changes after the colonial era. English is still the working language andlingua franca across different ethnic groups; Mandarin replaces Chinese dialects asthe Low language in the Chinese community (cf. Tsou and You 2001; Xu, Chew, andChen 1998); Malay has the so-called dummy status (Platt 1977); all Chinese dialectshave declined due to pro-Mandarin language planning in Singapore.

The transition from triglossia to diglossia in a multilingual society may decreasethe social and cognitive burden of its community members. Taking Singapore as anexample, during the colonial period, a Chinese child had to master his mothertongue, a Chinese dialect, for daily communication with his family members; hehad to speak Southern Min dialect with other Chinese residents outside family; andhad to learn English for a better career prospect. Therefore, language learning is aheavy burden for Chinese children. By shifting to Mandarin or English, they do notneed to choose languages according to different interlocutors within the Chinesecommunity. In this sense, sociolinguistic realignment not only facilitates thecommunication in the society but also decreases the cognitive burden among thespeakers.

In the Malaysian Chinese community after the colonial period, sociolinguistic re-alignment also took place due to the political changes in the society. In this process of change, Mandarin began to spread into more and more domains and gained more andmore speakers. In this paper the sociolinguistic behaviour of the Chinese communityin Kuala Lumpur (KL) under the impact of the sociolinguistic realignment isdiachronically reviewed. To start with, the past linguistic situation of the Chinesecommunity in KL in the colonial period will be reviewed; subsequently, the presentsociolinguistic pattern will be introduced based on a language survey in 2008; based onthe hypothesis of SRT, we will predict the future development of linguistic patterns in

S: English

H: Southern Min dialect realigned into

L1: Cantonese, L2: Hakka Ln

Traditional triglossia

H: English

L: Mandarin

Diglossia

Figure 1. The sociolinguistic realignment in the Chinese community, Singapore.

480 X. Wang

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

4/12

the Chinese community in KL; finally, some properties of SRT will be discussedfollowed by the conclusion.

The past: the colonial period (1859 1957)KL was explored by a group of Chinese in 1859 (Liew 1998) when Malaysia was underBritish control. With the development of the mining industry in KL, it graduallybecame an economic and political centre. The colonial government controlled themining industry and governed the Chinese community through Chinese Captain(Liew 1998). Among them, Yap Ngah Loi , who was from the Hakka group, was themost influential Chinese Captain (Carstens 2005). This made the Hakka groupamong the Chinese immigrants more powerful, as well the Hakka dialect. However,with the abolition of the Captain system in 1901 by the colonial government (Chong2009), the Hakka group lost their prestige in the Chinese community. In place of the

Hakka dialect, those who spoke Cantonese started to gain linguistic as well aseconomic superiority (Wong 2008). Since then the Cantonese group became theprestige dialect group in KL. Consequently, Cantonese was accepted as the linguafranca across various dialect groups. This situation was maintained for a relativelylong period even after the federation of Malaya achieved its independence in 1957.

Keeping the above background information in mind, the language situation in theChinese community in the colonial period in KL could be schematically representedin Figure 2.

English was the Supreme language due to its political status in the colonialgovernment. Chinese leaders and businessmen had to communicate with the Britishofficials in English. This sociolinguistic and economic need of the period made thecolonial government set up English schools where English was used as medium of instruction. These English schools were the first choice of rich Chinese families(Asmah 1982). This was mainly because of the fact that the English-educated childrennot only had more prosperous careers than those who had their education throughChinese but also had access to various social resources and economic viability.

As mentioned above, the sociolinguistic situation at that time maintainedCantonese as the lingua franca within the Chinese community. Therefore, it couldbe regarded as the High language. This prestigious status gained by Cantonese madeeven some of the Malays and Indians fluent in Cantonese.

All other Chinese dialects including Hakka, Southern Min dialect and so on wereconfined to restricted domains such as the home domain, clan schools or clanassociations. During the colonial period, identification with a dialect group wasstrong. Each dialect group had their own clan association and Chinese school.

S: English

H: Cantonese

L1: Hakka, L2: Southern Min Ln

Figure 2. The triglossic situation in the colonial period in KL.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 481

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

5/12

Dialects were used as the medium of instruction in these Chinese schools before the1920s (Mak 1985). Based on the functions of these dialects, they are grouped as Lowlanguages.

These low level languages, owing to their insignificant societal functioning and

failure to get economic power, automatically started losing their status and system-aticallygot removed from the three-layer system indicated in Figure 2. Their functionswould be replaced by Cantonese and Mandarin, which was introduced into Malaysiathrough Chinese education in the 1920s.

The present: after independence (1957 present)The sociolinguistic change in the Chinese community after independence

The federation of Malaya gained its independence in 1957 when the British colonialgovernment passed the authority of this land to the National Front, an alliance of political parties representing different ethnic groups. With this dramatic politicalchange, the language situation in Malaysia has undergone great changes.

(1) Malay was promoted as the national language by the new government inorder to foster nationalism; accordingly, a national education system cameinto being that adopted Malay as the main medium of instruction (Alis2006).

(2) English was totally abandoned as the medium of instruction in schools in1983; it also lost its official language status in 1967 (Asmah 1982).

(3) Mandarin was introduced to the Chinese community through education in

the 1920s as a response to the promotion of Mandarin in China (Asmah1982, 81); Mandarin gained importance in the Chinese community as thelingua franca.

(4) Minor dialects such as Hainan dialect, Fuzhou dialect, Chaozhou dialect,declined to different extents. They either shifted to Cantonese, the prestigedialect in KL, or to Mandarin, the lingua franca of the Chinese com-munity.

A new triglossia in KL

With the above sociolinguistic changes in the Chinese community after inde-pendence, the old triglossic structure in the colonial period was realigned as indicatedin Figure 3.

S: Malay

H: English & Mandarin

L1: Cantonese L2: Hakka L3: Southern Min

Figure 3. A new triglossic situation in KL.

482 X. Wang

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

6/12

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

7/12

account for 84.7% of the total subjects; Chaozhou, Hainan and Fuzhou are the threeminor dialect groups which only constitute 13.1% of the total population.

The language choice in various domains

The home domain. A domain analysis approach (Fishman 1972) is taken to analyse thelanguage choice of the subjects. We focus on two types of domains: (1) the home do-main, and (2) the public domain. In each domain, we investigate the language choiceof different interlocutors. For instance, in the home domain, the interlocutorsare grandparents, parents, older siblings and younger siblings. Table 2 shows thelanguage use in the home domain.

Regarding language use in the home domain, various language varieties could begrouped into four categories: (1) Mandarin and Cantonese are dominant in the homedomain. The use of Mandarin has exceeded Cantonese for parent childrencommunication and between-siblings. (2) Southern Min and Hakka use is decliningrapidly in the home domain. There is a sharp difference in the use of these two dialectsbetween grandparent generation (about 12.5%) and other generations (about 5%).(3) Chaozhou and Hainan dialects are undergoing language loss in the home domain.The use of these two dialects is very limited. They are not spoken between siblings anymore. (4) Fuzhou dialect is experiencing language loss to a greater extent. It is notused between the subjects and their parents and their siblings.

This result confirms the above analysis about the new triglossic situation in KL.For Low languages, Fuzhou, Hainan and Chaozhou dialects have been removedfrom the linguistic repertoire in KL. Hakka and Southern Min dialects will

experience the same change in the near future.

The public domains. The home domain is always related to vernaculars or the lowvarieties. However, public domains are more connected with High language orSupreme language. Table 3 presents the language choice to Chinese interlocutors inpublic domains, which include coffee shops, restaurants, clinics and shopping centres.

Based on Table 3, we find that Mandarin and Cantonese are two dominantlanguage varieties when the subjects interact with Chinese interlocutors in publicdomains. The use of other Chinese dialects such as Southern Min and Hakka is veryrare. The use of English is below 10% in all domains.

Table 2. Language choice in the home domain (%).

Grandparents Parents Older siblingsYoungersiblings

Mandarin 30.7 48.7 48.1 62.2Cantonese 39.8 35.6 37.4 29.2Southern Min 12.6 4.8 4.8 3.1Hakka 12.5 5.1 5.5 3.4Chaozhou 1.8 0.4 0 0Hainan 0.5 0.2 0 0Fuzhou 0.4 0 0 0English 1.4 4.9 3.7 2.1Others 0.3 0.3 0.5 0Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

484 X. Wang

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

8/12

Among the four public domains, coffee shops, locally known as kopi tiam, are themost informal ones where customers may find a variety of Chinese food with cheapprice; shopping centre could be regarded as a relatively formal domain, which islocated in big shopping malls. If we take formality as one parameter for languagechoice, we find that Cantonese is allocated to more informal domains, such as thecoffee shop (50.9%); in contrast, Mandarin is more connected with relatively formaldomains, such as the shopping centre (62.3%). In addition to formality, languagepreference is also an indicator of the prestige of the languages. In the current study,51.8% ( N 314) of the students claim that Mandarin is their preferred language;while only 17.4% ( N 122) of them choose Cantonese.

In general, the subjects tend to speak more Mandarin to Chinese interlocutors inpublic domains except for in coffee shops. The more formal the domain is, the lessCantonese is found in use. This finding may give us some implication for the predictionof the language situation in KL in the future, which will be discussed in the next section.

As pointed out by Fishman (1965) in his classic paper Who speaks what languageto whom and when? the interlocutor is always an important factor in language choice.Therefore, we investigate the language use by the subjects to non-Chinese 2

interlocutors in the above public domains. Non-Chinese include Malay and Indian.Table 4 shows the results.

As indicated in Table 4, Malay and English are the two main language varieties inwhich the subjects, 16-year-old Chinese students, interact with Malay or Indianinterlocutors in public domains. This is also observed by Asmah (1982, 123).However, she stated that English was confined to the English-educated people onlyand the number of them would decrease. In our study, we find that the interlocutorplays an important role in inter-group communication. The subjects tend to choosedifferent language varieties when they interact with different ethnic groups. Ingeneral, the subjects speak more Malay to ethnic Malays (75 88%) and more Englishto Indians (33 50%). Among the three public domains, Malay is used more often inrestaurants whereas English is preferred in clinics. This indicates that English ismore connected with professional and formal domains. English is still a lingua

Table 3. Language choice with Chinese interlocutors in public domains (%).

Coffee shop Restaurant Clinic Shopping centre

Mandarin 45.3 57.8 59.4 62.3Cantonese 50.9 37.8 29.1 29.1Southern Min 1.1 0 0 0Hakka 0.7 0 0.1 0.1English 1.6 3.4 9.8 6.4Others 0.4 1.1 1.5 2.0Total 709 (100%) 715 (100%) 712 (100%) 714 (100%)

Table 4. Language choice to non-Chinese interlocutors in public domains.

Restaurant Shopping centre Clinic

Malays (%) Indians (%) Malays (%) Indians (%) Malays (%) Indians (%)Malay 88 64.7 82.9 57.1 75.9 49.4English 11.3 33.9 15.4 41.1 22.9 49.6

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 485

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

9/12

franca across ethnic groups. Nevertheless, Malay is absolutely the first choice forcommunication between people from different ethnic groups.

Generally speaking, for Chinese Malay communication, the use of Malay isabove 75%; the use of English is less than 23%. For Chinese Indian communication,

the use of Malay is between 50 and 65%; the use of English is between 34 and 50%.Both Malay and English are languages of wider communication.

The government and school domain. Two specific domains were investigated in thesurvey: the government domain and the school domain. The government domain isalways reserved for the Supreme language or the High language in a multilingualsociety. Schools, as education agencies, belong to governmental or formal domains.Table 5 indicates the students language choice in these two domains.

In the government domain, Malay is the most frequently used language. About87.8% of the respondents speak Malay in government departments. English is the

second choice for official usage. About 56.8% of the respondents use English in thegovernment domain. This result shows that English is still one of the preferredlanguages of Malaysian Chinese for official usage although it was deprived of officialstatus. In schools, we differentiate chatting from topics on studies. The respondentstend to speak Mandarin for topics: 95.7% for topics on study, 93.2% for chatting.Cantonese is their second choice, about 50% or so. Minor dialects such as SouthernMin and Hakka are seldom used in these two domains. The use of Malay andEnglish is 35% or so for topics on study. This result indicates that Mandarin is thedominant language in the school domain.

Although Malay is the medium of instruction in these national schools, it is not the

dominant language on the campus according to our data. This shows that speakingMalay is still not the norm among Chinese students. It is only used when theycommunicate with non-Chinese students 3 . Mandarin is their preferred language notonly for casual chatting but also for academic discussion.

Summary

The survey in KL presents the social functions of various language varieties. Malay isthe language for intergroup communication and reserved for official usage; English isalso a language for intergroup communication but without official status; Mandarinis for intra-group communication predominantly used in the home domain, public

Table 5. Language choice in the government and school domain.

School

Government departments (%) On study (%) Chatting (%)

Malay 87.8 34.3 14.8English 56.8 35.4 22.9Mandarin 24.2 95.7 93.2Cantonese 10.3 49.4 57.3Southern Min 1.4 5.3 8.1Hakka 0.7 4.3 5.4

486 X. Wang

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

10/12

domain and school domain; Cantonese as a major dialect 4 in KL is still actively usedin the Chinese community but more confined to informal domains; minor dialectsare declining rapidly in all domains.

Based on this survey, the present sociolinguistic situation in the Chinese

community in KL is better understood. As shown in Figure 3, Malay is the Supremelanguage with its political power and dominant use in official domains; English andMandarin are the High languages more connected with formal domains; Cantoneseis the Low language used in informal domains; Southern Min and Hakka as the Lowlanguage varieties will be phased out in the near future due to their limited usage.

The future: the prediction of the language situation in Kuala Lumpur

According to the hypothesis of the SRT, the triglossic situation will be realigned into amore stable diglossic situation in a multilingual society. Based on our survey in KL as

discussed in last section, the further development of the sociolinguistic situation in theChinese community is predicted in Figure 4.

It will be a two layer system with Malay as the High language and Mandarin asthe Low language. The status of English will depend on the development of languagepolicy in Malaysia. 5 Malay will be used in official and governmental domains andMandarin will be spoken as the mother tongue in the home domain and linguafranca across various dialect groups. By the simplification of sociolinguistic struc-ture, the community members will thus relieve their cognition burden. As one of theconsequences of sociolinguistic realignment, Chinese dialects will decline and finallydisappear. Mandarin will replace the function of dialects and act as the symbol of

Chinese identity (Wang 2009).

Conclusion

Thus far we have taken the Chinese community in KL as an example to illustrate thesociolinguistic realignment process. The application of SRT is also found in theEuropean context, such as the analysis of linguistic situation in Brussels, Belgium byBaetens Beardsmore (1983). As a macro framework, SRT could explain the internalreason for sociolinguistic change in a multilingual society. In addition to itsexplanatory nature, SRT could also predict the future development of a multilingualsociety as we did in last section. This ability of SRT to predict makes it a moreapplicable theory to account for the dynamic nature of polyglossia .

SRT could complement other frameworks for multilingualism, such as languagemaintenance and shift and language spread. On the one hand, sociolinguisticrealignment could be regarded as the internal force for language shift or language

H: Malay

(English)

L: Mandarin

Figure 4. Possible sociolinguistic realignment in KL in the future.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 487

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

11/12

spread; language shift and language spread could be one of the consequences of sociolinguistic realignment on the other. In the current study, both language shiftand language spread took place in the transition of societal multilingualism. Forinstance, various dialect groups abandoned their dialects and shifted to Mandarin;Mandarin spread its use to more domains 6 and gained more speakers in the Chinesecommunity (cf. Wang 2007). To summarise, the sociolinguistic realignment process inthe Chinese community in KL coincides with the spread of Mandarin.

AcknowledgementsThis paper was presented at 7th Urban Language Seminar (City University of Hong Kong,17 20 June 2009). I would like to thank all the scholars at the conference for their comments.My gratitude also goes to Prof. Benjamin Tsou, Prof. Li Wei and Prof. Sam Mohan Lal fortheir critical comments on the draft paper. I appreciate the suggestions from the anonymousreviewers of the journal and the feedback from the editor, Prof. John Edwards.

Notes1. National secondary schools use Malay as the medium of instruction. The students come

from different ethnic groups, which include Malay, Chinese and Indian. There are othertypes of schools, such as Chinese independent schools, which adopt Mandarin as themedium of instruction. Most of Chinese children will enrol in national secondary schoolsafter they graduate from Chinese primary schools.

2. Malay, Chinese and Indian are the three largest ethnic groups in Malaysia. Theirproportion of the total population is 65%, 25% and 7%, respectively. However, Chinese isthe largest group in KL accounting for 43% of the total population according to Census2000. The proportion of Malay and Indian is 38% and 10%, respectively.

3. As one reviewer pointed out, the students from rural area tend to speak Malay amongdifferent ethnic groups; however, in urban schools they may prefer English or both Englishand Malay for intergroup communication.

4. In the current study, 85.5% of the students report that they can speak Cantonese; 68% of them claim that their prociency in Cantonese is good or very good.

5. English is the second important language in Malaysia. From year 2003, it was used asmedium of instruction for math and science in primary and secondary schools; however,this policy will be cancelled in 2012 as announced by the Malaysian government in 2009.Therefore, the policy towards English is not stable. The status of English in the future willdepend on the government policy on English. Since it is no longer an ofcial language inMalaysia, it may not be able to obtain the same status as Malay in the linguistic hierarchy.However, due to its wide use in private sector and high education, English will continue toplay its role in multilingual Malaysia.

6. Mandarin also spreads in the non-Chinese community. For instance, in 2007 theMalaysian Ministry of Education started to implement the BCSK programme ( BahasaCina Sekolah Kebangsaan , Chinese language for national primary schools). Under thisprogramme, students from ethnic Malay in national schools may learn Mandarin as asecond language.

ReferencesAlis, P. 2006. Language and nation building: A study of the language medium policy in Malaysia .

Pertaling Jaya: Strategic Information and Research Development.Asmah, O. 1982. Language and society in Malaysia . Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan

Pustaka Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.Baetens Beardsmore, H. 1983. The Supreme Language Hypothesis applied to Brussels. InGegenwa rtige Tendenzen der Kontaktlinguistik [Current trends of contact linguistics], ed.P.H. Nelde, 15 29. Bonn: Du mmler.

488 X. Wang

D

w

w

U

O

8/10/2019 01434632%2E2010%2E505656

12/12

Carstens, S.A. 2005. Histories, cultures, identities: Studies in Malaysian Chinese worlds .Singapore: Singapore University Press.

Chong, S.L., and X.M. Wang. 2009. Jilongpo huayi zhongxuesheng de yuyan xuanze[Language choice by Chinese students from national secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur].In Discovering the language: Issues in the use of the Chinese language , ed. S.L. Chong, X.M.Wang, W.J. Tang, and S. Chiah, 185 211. Kuala Lumpur: United Publishing House.

Chong, S.W. 2009. Huaren fangyanqun de xiaozhang yu bangquan zhengzhi de fazhan. InIntra-ethnic relations among Chinese in contemporary Malaysia , ed. B.C. Tee and H.H. Por23 38. Kajang: New Era College.

Ferguson, C.A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15: 325 40.Fishman, J.A. 1965. Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique 2: 67 88.Fishman, J.A. 1967. Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without

bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23: 29 38.Fishman, J.A. 1972. The relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics in the study

of who speaks what language to whom and when. In Sociolinguistics , ed. J.B. Pride andJ. Holmes, 15 32. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Liew, K.B. 1998. Jilongpo jiabidan: Ye Ya Lai [The Captain in Kuala Lumpur: Yap Ngah Loi].Kuala Lumpur: The Kuala Lumpur Chinese Assembly Hall.

Mak, L.F. 1985. Dialect group identity: A study of Chinese sub-ethnic group in early Malaya .Taipei: Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.

Platt, J. 1977. A model for polyglossia and multilingualism with special reference to Singaporeand Malaysia. Language in Society 6, no. 3: 361 78.

Tsou, B. 1980. Critical sociolinguistic realignment in multilingual societies. In Patterns inBilingualism , ed. E. Afrendras, 261 86. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Tsou, B. 1993. Some issues on law and language in the Hong Kong Special AdministrativeRegion (HKSAR) of China. In Language, law and equality , ed. K. Prinsloo, Y.J.D. Peeters,J. Turi, and C. van Rensburg, 314 31. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Tsou, B., A. Chin, J. Ouyang, K. Mok, and W. Yang. 2007. Critical multilingual shift inSanya, China: Accelerated urbanization and possible sociolinguistic repair. In Proceeding of FEL XI, Working together for endangered languages , ed. M.K. David, N. Ostler, and C.

Dealwis, 67

73. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.Tsou, B., and R.J. You. 2001. Hanyu yu Huaren Shehui [Chinese language and society].Shanghai: Fudan University Press.

Tsou, B., and R.J. You. 2001/2003. Hanyu yu Huaren Shehui [Chinese language and society].Shanghai and Hong Kong: Fudan University Press and City University of Hong KongPress.

Tsou, B., and R.J. You. 2004. Shehui yuyanxue jiaocheng [Introduction to sociolinguistics].Shanghai: Fudan University Press.

Wang, X.M. 2007. Roufozhou sandaitongtang huaren jiating de yuyan zhuanyong[Language shift among the three-generation Chinese families in the state of Johore]. InDiscovering the language: Diversity, variation and standardization , ed. S.L. Chong andS. Chiah, 142 55. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.

Wang, X.M. 2009. Malaixiya huaren zuqun rentong yu yuyan chuanbo zhijian de hudong[The interaction between ethnic identity and language spread among Malaysian Chinese].In Intra-ethnic relations among Chinese in contemporary Malaysia , ed. B.C. Tee and H.H.Por, 175 87. Kajang: New Era College.

Wong, W.B. 2008. The formation of Chinese community in Kuala Lumpur and theparticipation of the Hakka (1859 1920). Asian Culture 32: 103 26.

Xu, D.M., C.H. Chew, and S.C. Chen. 2005. A survey of language use and language attitudes inthe Singapore Chinese community . Nanjing: Nanjing University Press.

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 489

D

w

w

U

O