ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A CROSS LINGUISTIC ...
Transcript of ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A CROSS LINGUISTIC ...
ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A CROSS-
LINGUISTIC STUDY
BY
SITI AFIFAH HASHIM
A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
English Language Studies
Kulliyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and
Human Sciences
International Islamic University Malaysia
JANUARY 2018
ii
ABSTRACT
This study mainly examines grammatical signs that convey six verb function messages in
English and Malay; Linguistic Trueness (Factuality), Immediacy, Control, Person, Focus
Number and Purpose and how consistently these grammatical signs convey all the
messages. This cross-linguistic study also seeks to discover if there are similarities and
differences in the use of the grammatical signs and also to discover how much English and
Malay rely on grammatical signs to convey all the six verb functions messages. Knowing
how much the two languages rely on grammatical signs to communicate the various
messages is essential in providing some hints or clues for the researcher to make an
assumption as to whether or not the English and Malay are synthetic in nature. Using a
meaning-based framework proposed by Reid (1991) and Govindasamy (2005), both
advocates of the Columbia School of Linguistics, this study examines the verb features or
grammatical signs in English and Malay from two different genres; academic and
journalistic. Data was culled from 30 English academic articles (TESOL Quarterly), 30
English journalistic articles (The Economist), 30 Malay academic articles (Jurnal
Pendidik/Asia Pacific Journal) and 30 Malay journalistic articles (Dewan Masyarakat).
Results showed that the verb functions Factuality, Immediacy, Control, Person and Focus
Number are supported by grammatical signs in English; English relies on grammatical signs
to convey these messages. It was found that that these verb functions i.e. Factuality,
Immediacy, Control, Person and Focus Number are supported partially in Malay; Malay
does have grammatical signs to convey these messages but fewer compared to English. The
verb function Purpose is supported by grammatical signs in Malay but not in English. There
are grammatical signs that convey the Purpose message in Malay but no specific
grammatical signs were found to convey such message in English. When there are no
grammatical signs found to convey the message, it means that context is needed to help
language users interpret the intended message. It was discovered that there are a few verb
features that interfere the provision of the information on the six verb functions; To+V
(English), Untuk+V (Malay), Modal+V (English, Malay), V+ing (English), V+en (English),
V+ed (English), Syntagmatic Relation (English) and Others (English). It has to be noted that
even though these verb features or grammatical signs do not convey the verb function
messages, they do carry other meanings. The overall results also showed that both English
and Malay do not qualify/do not meet the criteria to be regarded as synthetic languages.
They are both analytical as much context is needed to communicate the verb function
messages.
iii
البحث ملخصABSTRACT IN ARABIC
دراسةعد ت الدراسة النحوي باختلاةتقابلي ةغوي ل ىذه العلامات استخدام مدى وظائفر لإيصال ة
وظائففعليةىي:الصحةة.تقومىذهالدراسةبالنظرفيست ة،والملايوي الأفعالفياللغتينالإنجليزي عددالأطرافالمعنيةبالحدث، (،Immediacy،مدىتزامنالفعل/الحدثمعالنطق)(Factuality)ةغوي الل
الأو الشخص بصيغة المعنية وأفعالالأطراف والمجهول، للمعلوم الأفعال بناء والثالث، والثاني، ل،( وبالإضافةPerformativesالتحقيق التشابو (، مواضع اكتشاف إلى الدراسة ىذه تسعى ذلك إلى
ىاتيناللغتينةللتحققمنأن ة،والملايوي اللغتينالإنجليزي بينةوالاختلاففياستخدامالعناصرالنحوي ( تركيبيتان )Synthetic Languagesلغتان ريد منهج الدراسة ىذه اعتمدت وكوفنداسامي1991(. م(،
قام2002) التحليليالمبنيعلىالمعنى. ة،ةفياللغتينالإنجليزي بتحليلالعلاماتالنحوي ةالباحثت م(الأكاديمي ةيوي والملا الكتابات والإعلامي في تضم ة أكاديمي ة. نصا ثلاثين تحليل البحث ىذا منشوران ا
(The Economist)الاقتصادية،وثلاثينمقالاإعلاميامنمجلة(الإنجليزي TESOL Quarterly) فيمجلةقامالإنجليزي المقابل وفي أكاديمياةالباحثت ة. نصا ثلاثين التربية ملايوي بتحليل مجلة من
Jurnal Pendidik/Asia Pacific Journal))بالل و إعلاميا مقالا الملايوي ثلاثين ةغة مجلة المجتمعمن ديوان(Dewan Masyarakat) التحليل نتائج وأظهرت الل . في الأفعال لوظائف واضح نحوي دعم غةوجود
ةةتعتمدعلىالعلاماتالنحوي غةالإنجليزي الل ،أيأن (Performatives)الإنجليزية،باستثناءأفعالالتحقيقيخصالل فيما أما الوظائف. ىذه الملايوي لإيصالمغزى فكشفغة نحويةالباحثتة، دعم وجود عن
كل ي(Immediacy)(،ومدىتزامنالفعلمعالنطقFactualityة)جزئيلوظائفالدقةاللغوي ،ودعمنحويكماوجدالباحثأنالنحوPerformativesلوظائفبناءالأفعالللمعلوموالمجهول،وأفعالالتحقيق) .)
أكدت بالفعل. الأطرافالمعنية عدد والملايوي اللغتينالإنجليزي نتائجالبحثأن الملايويلايدعم ةة،أنضرورةإيصالمعان ةإلىالباحثتوصلتتعتمدانعلىالسياقالعاملأجلاستيعابمعانيالنصوص.
غتينالل لقارئ.ختاما،أظهرتنتائجالدراسةأن للغويةأخرىقديتعارضمعإيصالوظائفالأفعالوالملايوالإنجليزي تركيبي ي ة، لغات منهما كلا تجعل التي العناصر تمتلكان لا تعد ة فإنهما وعليو منة، ان
.لإيصالرسائللإيصالرسائلوظائفالأفعالغوي ةالتيتعتمدعلىالسياقالل غاتالتحليلي الل
iv
APPROVAL PAGE
The dissertation of Siti Afifah Hashim has been approved by the following:
__________________________________
Subramaniam Govindasamy
Supervisor
__________________________________
Rozina Abdul Ghani
Internal Examiner
__________________________________
Nor Hashimah Bt. Jalaluddin
External Examiner
__________________________________
Stefanie Shamila Pillai
External Examiner
__________________________________
Mohd Feham Md Ghalib
Chairperson
v
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigation, except
where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently
submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.
Siti Afifah Hashim
Signature…………………....………. Date …….……………….
vi
COPYRIGHT
INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF
FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH
ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A CROSS-
LINGUISTIC STUDY
I declare that the copyright holder of this dissertation are jointly owned by the
student and IIUM.
Copyright © 2018 Siti Afifah Hashim and International Islamic University Malaysia. All rights
reserved.
No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder
except as provided below
1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may
be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.
2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print
or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.
3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieved system
and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested by other
universities and research libraries.
By signing this form, I acknowledged that I have read and understand the IIUM
Intellectual Property Right and Commercialization policy.
Affirmed by Siti Afifah Hashim
……..…………………….. ………………………..
Signature Date
vii
DEDICATION
Dedicated to my parents and my teacher,
with love and sincere appreciation.
Thank for your support.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, Praise be to Allah S.W.T. for the strength and patience
He bestowed on me in completing this thesis.
A deep felt appreciation goes to my respected professor cum supervisor,
Assoc Prof Dr Subra Govindasamy, who has been very kind, understanding
and helpful to me in completing this thesis. In fact, my understanding of
this cognitively demanding subject (Semantics) has to be solely attributed to him. His
advice boosted my confidence to attempt difficult tasks and never give up when I
failed in doing certain tasks. As the saying goes, Self-esteem grows from the beliefs of
others. When teachers believe in students, students believe in themselves. When those
you respect think you can, you think you can. Also, my heartfelt gratitude goes to
Assistant Prof Dr Rozina who, as my post-viva supervisor, guided me till the revision
of the thesis was complete. Thanks to my dear professor, Dr Subra for helping me in
preparing for my defense and in refining my writing during the revision period
(despite the fact that he has retired). I have always felt indebted to all my lecturers
from the Department of English Language and Literature, IIUM, for their moral
support and encouragement. Special thanks to Dr Nora Nasir and Dr Haja Mohideen
Thank you for leading me to where I am now.
I must record my thanks to the University, particularly the Scholarship
and Study Leave Committee, MSD IIUM, for the study leave granted to me.
My gratitude to Assoc Prof Dr Engku Haliza (former Dean of CELPAD) and
Assist Prof Dr Faridah (Head of English Language Division) for their support.
Thank you to my good friends, Sr Shamshad (Kak Sham) and Sr
Nazira (KakNazira) for their undying support. Alongside my professor, Dr Subra
and my mum, Pn Zakiah, they have always been there to listen and to give advice and
moral support throughout my journey. May Allah bless and reward all of you.
A million thanks goes to my beloved parents; my late dad who is better-
known as En. Abu Bakar and my mum, Pn. Zakiah for their never-ending
support. Their love, care and understanding have kept me focused in achieving
my dreams and goals. Thanks are due to my aunt, Pn. Zuraidah; my late grandparents,
En. Johari and Pn. Asthma who would always want the best for me. Thank you.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .................................................................................................................... ii Abstract in Arabic .................................................................................................... iii Approval Page .......................................................................................................... iii
Declaration ............................................................................................................... v Copyright ................................................................................................................. vi Dedication ................................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ........................................................................................................... xii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xvii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................ 4 1.2 Statement of the Problem........................................................................ 7 1.3 Significance of the Study ........................................................................ 11
1.4 Research Objectives................................................................................ 13 1.5 Research Questions ................................................................................. 13
1.6 Definition of Concepts ............................................................................ 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 21 2.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 21
2.1 Elements of Communication: Language, Language Users and
Context ................................................................................................... 21 2.2 English Grammar: A Functional Approach ............................................ 27
2.3 Grammar Teaching and Learning ........................................................... 40 2.4 Cross linguistic analysis ......................................................................... 48
2.5 Review of Related Studies on English and Malay Verbs ....................... 52 2.6 Review of the Meaning-based Approach ............................................... 86
2.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 90
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................. 91 3.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 91
3.1 Research Design ..................................................................................... 91 3.2 The Theoretical and Methodological Framework .................................. 94 3.3 Purposive Sampling ................................................................................ 97
3.4 Data Collection ....................................................................................... 98 3.5 Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 98
3.5.1 Linguistic Trueness/Factuality ...................................................... 99 3.5.2 Immediacy ..................................................................................... 101 3.5.3 Control .......................................................................................... 103
3.5.4 Person ............................................................................................ 105 3.5.5 Focus Number ............................................................................... 105 3.5.6. Purpose ......................................................................................... 106 3.5.7 Conversion of Raw Scores ............................................................ 110
3.5.8 Inter-rater reliability (Kappa) using SPSS .................................... 111
x
3.6 Methodological issues and Limitations .................................................. 112
3.7 Summary ................................................................................................. 113
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ............................................................................ 114 4.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 114 4.1 Linguistic trueness/ Factuality in English and Malay............................. 115
4.1.1 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Emphatic .................................. 118 4.1.2 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): High Factuality ........................ 122
4.1.3 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Highly Assuring
Hypotheticality ............................................................................. 125 4.1.4 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Low Hypotheticality ................ 128 4.1.5 Factuality: Context Independency and Context Dependency ....... 134
4.2 Grammatical Immediacy in English and Malay ..................................... 143
4.2.1 Low Immediacy: Past.................................................................... 146 4.2.2 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast ......................................... 149
4.2.3 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast Before ............................. 155 4.2.4 Immediacy: Low Immediacy Past Before ..................................... 159 4.2.5 Immediacy: Context Independency and Context Dependency ..... 163
4.3 Grammatical Control in English and Malay` ......................................... 170
4.3.1 Control: High Control ................................................................... 172 4.3.2 Control: Low Control .................................................................... 176
4.3.3 Control: Context Independency and Context Dependency ........... 180 4.4 Grammatical Person in English and Malay ............................................ 188
4.4.1 Person: First .................................................................................. 190
4.4.2 Person: Second .............................................................................. 192
4.4.3 Person: Third ................................................................................. 194
4.4.4 Person: Context Independency and Contextual Dependency ....... 196 4.5 Grammatical Focus Number in English and Malay ............................... 204
4.5.1 Focus Number: Focus on ONE Entity .......................................... 206 4.5.2 Focus Number: Focus on MORE THAN ONE Entity .................. 208 4.5.3 Focus Number: Context Independency and Context
Dependency .................................................................................. 211
4.6 Grammatical Purpose in English and Malay .......................................... 219 4.6.1 Purpose: High Purpose .................................................................. 222 4.6.2 Purpose: Low Purpose .................................................................. 223 4.6.3 Purpose: Context Independency and Context Dependency .......... 225
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 229 5.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 229
5.1 Linguistic Trueness/Factuality in English and Malay ............................ 229 5.1.1 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Emphatic features .................... 229 5.1.2 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): High Factuality ........................ 233 5.1.3 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Highly Assuring
Hypotheticality ............................................................................. 237
5.1.4 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Low Hypotheticality ................ 241 5.1.5 Factuality: Extent of Grammatical Support .................................. 243 5.1.6 Factuality: Context Independency and Context Dependecy ......... 245
5.2 Grammatical Immediacy in English and Malay ..................................... 250 5.2.1 Immediacy: Low Immediacy Past ................................................. 250
xi
5.2.1 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast ......................................... 252
5.2.3 Immediacy: Low Immediacy Past Before ..................................... 255 5.2.4 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast Before ............................. 256
5.2.5 Immediacy: Extent of Grammatical Support ................................ 258 5.2.6 Immediacy: Context Independency and Context Dependency ..... 259
5.3 Grammatical Control in English and Malay ........................................... 263 5.3.1 Control: High Control ................................................................... 263 5.3.2 Control: Low Control .................................................................... 265
5.3.3 Control: Extent of Grammatical Support ..................................... 267 5.3.4 Control: Context Independency and Context Dependency ........... 268
5.4 Grammatical Person in English and Malay ............................................ 273 5.4.1 Person: First Person ...................................................................... 273 5.4.2 Person: Second Person .................................................................. 273
5.4.3 Person: Third Person ..................................................................... 274 5.4.4 Person: Extent of Grammatical Support ....................................... 276
5.4.5 Person: Context Independency and Context Dependency ............ 277 5.5 Grammatical Focus Number in English and Malay ............................... 281
5.5.1 Focus Number: Focus on ONE entity ........................................... 281 5.5.2 Focus Number: Focus on MORE THAN ONE entity .................. 282
5.5.3 Focus Number: Extent of Grammatical Support ........................... 284 5.5.4 Focus Number: Context Independency and Context
Dependency .................................................................................. 285 5.6 Grammatical Purpose in English and Malay .......................................... 290
5.6.1 Purpose: High Purpose .................................................................. 290
5.6.2 Purpose: Low Purpose .................................................................. 292
5.6.3 Purpose: Extent of Grammatical Support ..................................... 295
5.6.4 Purpose: Context Independency and Context Dependency .......... 296 5.6.5 Summary of the findings based on the Research Objectives ........ 296
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 305 6.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 305
6.1 Summary of the study ............................................................................. 306
6.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 314 6.3 Limitations of the study .......................................................................... 316 6.4 Implication of the Study on Teaching and Learning .............................. 316 6.5 Recommendations for future research .................................................... 318
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 321
APPENDIX 1: LIST OF ENGLISH ARTICLES ANALYSED IN THIS
STUDY ..................................................................................... 330 APPENDIX 2: LIST OF MALAY ARTICLES ANALYSED IN THIS
STUDY ..................................................................................... 332 APPENDIX 3: INTERPRETATION OF KAPPA VALUE .......................... 335
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Huffman‘s (1989) Probability model 63
Table 3.1 Research Design 94
Table 3.2 Huffman‘s (1989) Probability model 95
Table 3.3 Coding and Tallying Worksheet for Linguistic Trueness
(Factuality) verb features in English 107
Table 3.4 Coding and Tallying Worksheet for Linguistic Trueness
(Factuality) verb features in Malay 109
Table 4.1 Distribution of the Emphatic features in English and Malay
texts 119
Table 4.2 The use of the Emphatic features in English and Malay texts
(academic and journalistic texts) 120
Table 4.3 Distribution of High Factuality verb features in English and
Malay texts 122
Table 4.4 Distribution of High Factuality verb features in English and
Malay (academic and journalistic) articles 124
Table 4.5 Distribution of Highly Assuring Hypotheticality verb features
in English and Malay texts 126
Table 4.6 Distribution of Highly Assuring Hypotheticality verb features
in English and Malay (academic and journalistic) texts 127
Table 4.7 Distribution of Low Hypotheticality verb features in English
and Malay texts 129
Table 4.8 Distribution of Low Hypotheticality verb features in English
and Malay (academic and journalistic) texts 130
Table 4.9 Distribution of Highly Assuring Hypotheticality and Low
Hypotheticality verb features in Englishand Malay (academic
and journalistic) texts 132
Table 4.10 Distribution of the Context Independent and Context
Dependent verb features in English and Malay (Factuality) 136
Table 4.11 Distribution of the Context Independent and Context
Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts
(Factuality) 137
xiii
Table 4.12 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+Verb features in English and
Malay texts 139
Table 4.13 Distribution of Verb + en feature 140
Table 4.14 Distribution of the Verb+ing 141
Table 4.15 Distribution of the syntagmatic relation cases 142
Table 4.16 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past in English and Malay 146
Table 4.17 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past verb features in English
and Malay texts (academic and journalistic) 148
Table 4.18 Distribution of the High Immediacy NonPast verb features in
English and Malay 150
Table 4.19 Distribution of High Immediacy NonPast verb features in
English and Malay texts (academic and journalistic) 151
Table 4.20 Distribution of NonPast and Past verb features in English and
Malay texts (academic and journalistic) 153
Table 4.21 Distribution of the High Immediacy NonPast Before in English
and Malay 156
Table 4.22 Distribution of High Immediacy NonPast Before verb features
in English academic and journalistic texts 156
Table 4.23 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past Before verb features 159
Table 4.24 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past Before verb features in
English academic and journalistic texts 160
Table 4.25 Distribution of the Low Immediacy Past Before and High
Immediacy NonPast Before verb features in English texts
(academic and journalistic) 161
Table 4.26 Contextually independent and dependent verb features in
English and Malay texts 164
Table 4.27 Distribution of the Contextual Independent and Dependent
verb features in English and Malay texts 165
Table 4.28 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+verb features in English and
Malay texts 167
Table 4.29 Distribution of VERB + en in English and Malay texts 168
Table 4.30 Distribution of the Verb+ing in English and Malay texts 169
Table 4.31 Distribution of the Syntagmatic Relation cases 170
xiv
Table 4.32 Distribution of High Control verb features in English and
Malay 173
Table 4.33 Distribution of High Control verb feature in English and Malay
(academic and journalistic texts) 174
Table 4.34 Distribution of the Low Control verb feature in English and
Malay 176
Table 4.35 Distribution of Low Control verb feature in English and Malay
(academic and journalistic texts) 177
Table 4.36 Distribution of High Control and Low Control verb features in
English and Malay (academic and journalistic texts) 179
Table 4.37 Distribution of the context independent and context dependent
verb features in English and Malay texts 182
Table 4.38 Distribution of the context independent and context dependent
verb features in English and Malay texts 183
Table 4.39 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+Verb verb features in English
and Malay texts 184
Table 4.40 Distribution of Verb + en verb feature 185
Table 4.41 Distribution of the Verb+ing verb feature 186
Table 4.42 Distribution of the Modal+Verb in English and Malay texts 187
Table 4.43 Distribution of the Syntagmatic Relation cases 188
Table 4.44 Distribution of First Person verb features 190
Table 4.45 Distribution of First Person verb features in English (academic
and journalistic texts) 191
Table 4.46 Distribution of Second Person verb features 192
Table 4.47 Distribution of Second Person verb features in English
(academic and journalistic texts) 193
Table 4.48 Distribution of Third Person verb features 195
Table 4.49 Distribution of Third Person verb features in English
(academic and journalistic texts) 195
Table 4.50 Distribution of the Context Independent and Context
Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts (Person) 197
Table 4.51 Distribution of the Context Independent markers and Context
Dependency in English and Malay texts (Person) 198
xv
Table 4.52 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+V verb features in English and
Malay texts 200
Table 4.53 Distribution of V + en verb feature 201
Table 4.54 Distribution of the V+ing verb feature 201
Table 4.55 The distribution of the V+ed verb feature 202
Table 4.56 The distribution of the Modals+V in English and Malay texts 203
Table 4.57 Distribution of the Syntagmatic Relation cases 204
Table 4.58 Distribution of Focus on ONE Entity verb features 206
Table 4.59 Distribution of the Focus on ONE Entity verb features in
English academic and journalistic texts 207
Table 4.60 Distribution of the Focus on ONE Entity verb features in
English academic and journalistic texts (Converted scores) 207
Table 4.61 Distribution of Focus on MORE THAN ONE verb features 208
Table 4.62 Distribution of the Focus on MORE THAN ONE Entity verb
features in English academic and journalistic texts 209
Table 4.63 Distribution of the Focus on MORE THAN ONE Entity verb
features in English academic and journalistic texts (Converted
scores) 209
Table 4.64 Distribution of Focus on ONE and Focus on MORE THAN
ONE verb features in English academic and journalistic texts 210
Table 4.65 Distribution of Focus on ONE and Focus on MORE THAN
ONE verb features in English academic and journalistic texts
(Converted scores) 211
Table 4.66 Distribution of the Context Independent and Context
Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts 212
Table 4.67 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+V verb features in English and
Malay texts 215
Table 4.68 Distribution of the Modal+Verb in English and Malay texts 216
Table 4.69 Distribution of Verb + en verb feature 217
Table 4.70 Distribution of the V+ing verb feature 217
Table 4.71 The distribution of the V+ed verb feature 218
Table 4.72 Distribution of the Syntagmatic Relation cases 219
xvi
Table 4.73 Distribution of High Purpose verb features 222
Table 4.74 Distribution of High Purpose verb features in Malay academic
and journalistic texts 223
Table 4.75 Distribution of High Purpose verb features in Malay academic
and journalistic texts (Converted scores) 223
Table 4.76 Distribution of Low Purpose verb feature 224
Table 4.77 Distribution of Low Purpose verb feature in Malay academic
and journalistic texts 225
Table 4.78 Distribution of Low Purpose verb feature in Malay academic
and journalistic texts (Converted scores) 225
Table 4.79 Distribution of the Context Independent and Context
Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts 226
xvii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 The English Differentiation System (singular only) 29
Figure 2.2 The English Kind of Differentiation System 31
Figure 2.3 The Process/Result semantic systems 39
Figure 2.4 The English Focus Number System 78
Figure 4.1 Differing levels of Factuality 116
Figure 4.2 Distribution of Grammatical Factuality verb features in
English and Malay 117
Figure 4.3 Distribution of Grammatical Immediacy in English and Malay 144
Figure 4.4 Distribution of Grammatical Control verb features in English
and Malay 171
Figure 4.5 Distribution of Grammatical Person in English and Malay 189
Figure 4.6 Distribution of Grammatical Focus Number in English and
Malay 205
Figure 4.7 Distribution of Grammatical Purpose in English and Malay 220
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 4000 languages in the world must have many differences that make them unique
and distinctive from one another (Song, 2001). At the same time, because of the
common needs of the people, these languages must also be showing some
commonalities. Just how they differ as well as how they measure up to each other is
an intriguing area of study.
Cross-linguistic studies seek to classify languages according to their structural
features; investigation across languages is filled with the hope that there are more
similarities than differences. This search for commonalities has always been the major
thrust of all linguists associated with carrying out cross-linguistic studies. In such
areas of study, usually one language feature is examined across languages.
Cross-linguistics is an approach to the study of linguistic structure in bilingual/
multilingual contexts, a feature that makes it different from generative and functional
approaches; it is fundamentally comparative in nature (Croft, 2002). Such studies are
conducted with the main aim of discovering universals of language structure and with
a secondary aim of providing some explanations for such occurrences. Analysts‘
search for explanations is to find out the possible functions encoded by different
grammatical forms or the same function signalled by different forms.
If there is a search for language universals or what language in general is like, a
large number of languages are taken to be analysed. Such searches flourished in the
later half of the last century; and, they were further enhanced by linguists adopting the
2
empirical scientific approach and deriving the results inductively (Croft, 2002).
Studies of this nature have largely been concentrated on languages belonging to one
continent, from the same language family. Very seldom have there been attempts to
conduct cross-linguistic studies from entirely different language families, a gap which
this study aims to bridge. This study is an attempt to understand a functional linguistic
feature by bringing together Malay, a member of the Austronesian family, and
English, a Germanic language belonging to the Indo-European fraternity. Both are not
connected in any way; they do not come from the same cognate (Nor Hashimah,
Norsimah & Kesumawati, 2008). However, both share a historical bond over two
centuries together with social, economic and cultural ties; it is thus easy to assume that
there may be some similarities as well as differences between the two languages.
In Malaysia, much has been said about the differences, though. In fact, there
were suggestions that the differences that exist between the two languages have
negatively affected the students‘ understanding of English. A landmark study in the
country (Nor Hashimah, Norsimah & Kesumawati 2008) contended that a
contributing factor to students‘ poor mastery of the English language is because of the
different grammatical structures between Malay and English. Other similar works
have supported this claim (Govindasamy 1994; Haja Mohideen 1991; Marlyna, Tan &
Khazriyati, 2007). It is contended that Malay, an extremely economic language with
reduced redundancy grammaticity, for instance, does not subscribe to subject-verb
agreement features and as a result of the lack of this triggering factor, students tend to
commit grammatical errors in English (Nor Hashimah, Norsimah & Kesumawati,
2008). Additionally, Marlyna, Tan & Khazriyati (2007) claimed that students failed
to use the English copula be due to the difference in the use of the Malay grammatical
features ialah and adalah, the so-called copulas in Malay. The ialah and adalah
3
features appeared to share a similar function as the English copula be but there seems
to be a difference in use – the Malay ialah and adalah are not needed in all contexts.
Where do the similarities in grammatical functions begin and where do they
end appear to be a worthwhile pursuit for a cross-linguistic understanding of the two
languages. Having similarities means that second language learners are benefiting
from the bilingual context; having dissimilarities means they gain extra vision
embedded in the target language. The present study was carried out to examine just
one system: the verb. The accent on verbs in this study is mainly because verbs
involve the processes of having and doing and generally they carry out these multiple
functions:
i. verbs give us an idea of linguistic trueness (Factuality);
ii. verbs show how close they are to the moment of speaking, i.e. the tenses
(Immediacy);
iii. they provide an inkling as to the number of entities involved in the event
(Verb/ Focus Number);
iv. verbs indicate whether or not the entity is a first, second or third Person,
v. they show if the entity is active/passively involved in the event (Control)
vi. and finally, they are used to highlight Purpose.
In other words, the extensiveness of functional deployment of verbs offers a
scope that is larger than any other system for comparison purposes of both English
and Malay. A cross-linguistic study enables linguists to discover not only the
similarities and differences between the two languages but it may also help them to
garner insights into their analytic/ synthetic nature. Analytic and synthetic languages
differ mainly in terms of the inflections used. Generally, it can be said that languages
which make extensive use of inflections or grammatical items are said to be synthetic;
4
those with fewer inflections are more likely to be known as analytic languages. Unlike
highly inflected synthetic languages, analytic languages depend on prepositions,
auxiliary verbs and word order to communicate intended messages (Baugh & Cable
2002). Amid some controversy, contemporary English is claimed as an example of an
analytic language because of its dependence on prepositions and word order. Bybee
(1995) contend that the tenses verb function is highly inflected, especially the Perfect
tense in English, and as a result claim that English is a highly grammaticalized
language. They make a claim for English to be described as a synthetic language. This
study attempts, through empirical observation of the use of verbs in English as well as
Malay, to verify whether or not the two languages can claim to be synthetic.
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
English has become an important language of communication and it is not surprising
that many countries in the world use it for this purpose and for all forms of
international transactions. For some countries, English is seen as a foreign language
with subdued emphasis on its use for official purposes. However, in countries like
Bangladesh, India and Malaysia, English is used alongside the national language for
business, research and international communication purposes and because of that a
reasonable proficiency in English is expected from all their citizens.
In Malaysia, English is used alongside Malay, the national language. At
present, English can be seen as the second most important language in Malaysia after
the national language (Asmah, 2016). The reason has been that it is widely used in
almost all domains in the Malaysian society including governance, education, the
various professions, business, industries and politics. It is not surprising to see official
documents written in both Malay and English (Asmah, 2016).
5
As mentioned earlier, Malay language is the national language of Malaysia.
The fact that English is used extensively in the country does not take away the status
of Bahasa Malaysia as the national language of Malaysia. This is clearly documented
in Article 152 of the Constitution of Malaya (Asmah, 2016). Malay was made the
medium of instruction after Malaysia gained independence. Before independence
particularly during the British colonial period, English was the medium of instruction
in all secondary schools. English primary schools were also highly sought after
although there were Malay, Chinese, and Tamil primary schools. Those attending
vernacular schools would have to enrol in a two-year transition programme if they
wished to continue their studies in secondary schools. At the secondary level, all
subjects were taught in English, and Malay was an elective subject. The status of these
two languages changed in a progressive manner after independence.
Just prior to independence, the Barnes Report (1950) recommended that the
Malay language be used as the medium of instruction in the national schools alongside
English. It was thought that this would promote the teaching of Malay at the national
level. This proposal was rejected, however. In 1956, a year before independence, a
committee set up to make recommendations completed its work; the detailed
document set the pace of change for a decade after independence. The Razak Report
(1956) proposed a national education system with Malay as the national medium but
at the same time, languages and cultures of other races were recognized. The standard
(primary) schools would have Malay as the medium of instruction whereas the
standard type (primary) schools would have a language other than Malay (i.e. Chinese
or Tamil) as the medium of instruction. In 1960, the features of the Rahman Talib
committee report were incorporated into the Education Act 1961. Malay was made a
compulsory subject in primary and secondary schools as well as in training
6
institutions; Malay language began to be used as the medium of instruction for all
subjects in English secondary schools and became the dominant language. After the
formation of Malaysia in 1963, Bahasa Melayu was changed to Bahasa Malaysia (the
language of Malaysia). In 1969, the remaining English-medium schools were
progressively converted into Malay-medium schools. English was still given
recognition as the second language (Thirusanku & Yunus, 2014) and it served as the
language of business and transactions.
The 70s saw the establishment of many teacher training colleges offering
training programme for the teaching of Malay. The language had also started to be
used widely in public universities as the medium of instruction and almost every
university had a Malay language department or Malay language centre to train
students to have a high level of proficiency in Malay.
When globalisation became the catch phrase towards the end of the last
century, there were complaints among educators that students were not able to use the
English language well despite making the teaching of English compulsory in all
Malaysian primary and secondary schools. National leaders and the Ministry of
Education were very aware of the falling standards in English. Two strategic moves
followed from this awareness. There was a liberalisation of the use of English as a
medium of instruction at the tertiary level. And, secondly, in a bold move, the
Education Ministry initiated a policy making English the medium of instruction for
two additional subjects in the schools: Mathematics and Science. For reasons less well
understood, the latter policy was discontinued from 2013.
A new policy was introduced which gives importance to both Bahasa Malaysia
and English. The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 emphasized bilingual
proficiency; students are expected to be proficient in English and Malay. The
7
implementation of this policy means that the number of hours of English classes is
increased and students are expected to use more English in their co-curricular
activities (Asmah, 2016). This new emphasis in bilingualism provides the background
for the present study.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In the early years, the teaching of languages was based on the traditional grammar
paradigm; language learners were taught ways to combine features from different parts
of speech in order to produce grammatically correct sentences. Both English and
Malay were brought to the classroom using this approach. In the 1980s, the
communicative way of learning language made its presence felt and is still popularly
used though the approach has come under severe criticism recently for its lack of
application for academic and professional uses (Govindasamy, 2004). Despite the
approach‘s lack of depth, learning a language should be made communicative to assist
language users, as speakers, to know and adopt various ways to communicate precise
messages. This is also to enable listeners to get the intended messages conveyed by the
speakers. As mentioned by Finch (2003), ―Communication is a two-way process‖
(p.36) and that it requires both speakers and listeners to know the functions of
language features to convey and understand the intended messages. In the last two
decades, functionalists such as, Govindasamy (2005), Reid (1991) and Tobin (1990)
analysed language using a quantitative methodology and helped in providing meaning-
based explanations for the deployment of lexical/grammatical items for English and
other languages in the world. This functional approach has helped to increase language
users‘ understanding of the target language. When a user is initiated into looking at
language functionally, s/he notices different functions of language features (Rianto,