Selective Language Maintenance in Multilingual Malaysia: April 2020

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/338175925
Selective Language Maintenance in Multilingual Malaysia
Chapter · April 2020

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2959-1.ch009
CITATIONS READS
0 1,328
2 authors, including:
Selim Ben Said

National Sun Yat-sen University
33 PUBLICATIONS 237 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Language, Identity, and Faith Practice: Narratives of Muslim Domestic Helpers in Hong Kong View project
Creativity and Language Play in Multilingual Advertising in Taiwan View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Selim Ben Said on 10 October 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

207
Chapter 9
Selective Language Maintenance
in Multilingual Malaysia
Teresa Wai See Ong
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6723-589X
Griffith University, Australia
Selim Ben Said

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8940-077X
National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
ABSTRACT
Aiming to understand the phenomena of language maintenance and shift in Malaysia, this chapter focuses
on efforts by Penang’s Chinese community to maintain Penang Hokkien alongside other Chinese com-
munity languages. The Malaysian Government has explicitly allowed the teaching of Mandarin Chinese
in Chinese-medium schools, which resulted in the reduced use of Penang Hokkien and other Chinese
community languages among the Malaysian Chinese community. Such a situation has caused socio-
linguistic realignment in many Malaysian Chinese families, including in Penang, and raised questions
about the survival of these languages in Malaysian society. Based on interviews with participants from
Penang’s Chinese community, the findings reveal that although past studies have demonstrated a decline
in the use of Chinese community languages, the participants expressed their willingness to regularly
use them in their daily life in various domains. Despite the announced desuetude of these languages,
participants consistently used them and indicated their determination to pass on to the next generation.
INTRODUCTION
Recent globalisation and modernisation trends have brought wider attention to the issue of language
maintenance in the field of sociolinguistics (e.g., Duff & Doherty, 2019; Hatoss, 2013; Pauwels, 2005;
Sallabank, 2013). Many smaller communities are currently facing pressure to maintain their community
languages. In this chapter, the term ‘community languages’ is defined as languages spoken within an
ethnic group for existence continuation purposes. It is often the case that these community languages
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-2959-1.ch009
Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

are nonstandard and have no orthographic system for written development. Smaller communities usu-
ally have to rely on their own initiatives and efforts to maintain their community languages so they can
be passed onto the next generation (Ben Said, 2019). The various Chinese subethnic groups in Malay-
sia are among the smaller communities who face such issues in their everyday life. To have a better
understanding of this issue, the present chapter focuses on the efforts initiated by 46 individuals from
the Chinese community in Penang, a city that has a rich Chinese history, to maintain Penang Hokkien
alongside other Chinese community languages in various domains within the multilingual context of
Malaysia. Penang Hokkien is one of the Chinese community languages, which is unique due to it being
a variant of Hokkien and only spoken in Malaysia, mainly in Penang, Kedah, and Perlis. The chapter
begins with a discussion of the concept of domain, which will be used as the conceptual framework for
this study. Subsequently, a background of Malaysia, Penang, and the Chinese community is provided
to characterise the competition of various languages on-the-ground. Following this, the methodological
issues are presented. Finally, the findings discuss the importance of the family domain as a crucial site
for community language maintenance.
The Concept of Domain
Fishman (1964) introduced the concept of domain to study patterns of language use, language attitudes,
and language choices in multilingual settings. He defines a domain as:
A socio-cultural construct abstracted from topics of communication, relationships between communica-

tors, and locales of communication in accord with the institutions of a society and the spheres of activity
of a culture, in such a way that individual behaviour and social patterns can be distinguished from each
other and yet related to each other (Fishman, 1972a, p. 82).
An even earlier characterisation of domain comes from Schmidt-Rohr (1933) who recognised the need
of dominance configurations to study language choices in various domains. He proposed nine domains of
language choice: family, playground and street, school, church, literature, press, military, courts, and the
governmental bureaucracy. Subsequently, different scholars (e.g., Mak, 1935; Frey, 1945) either added
or reduced the number of domains to fit into a particular setting. Regardless of the number of domains,
Fishman (1972b) argues that the concept of domain is vital in helping understand language choices,
because language use in any domains—particularly in family, neighbourhood, and the community—is
ultimately crucial to understand the process of language maintenance.
Fishman’s (1965) question of ‘Who speaks what language to whom and when?’ has become a refer-
ence point for many scholars to describe and analyse patterns of language use and language choices
in relation to the concept of domain mentioned above. These language uses and language choices are
influenced by factors such as gender, age, education, social status, and socioeconomic background. In
one sense, the concept of domain acts as a tool to categorise social settings in a community (Fishman,
1972b), while in another sense, it is related to participants’ role-relations. Different domains draw out
different language choices, even when the settings are similar. For example, in an immigrant society,
the language of the host country is dominant in the governmental domain, yet it may not be used in the
family domain. Immigrants usually prefer to speak their community languages at home, regardless of
their country of relocation. In brief, the concept of domain is important for language maintenance (Boxer,
2002) due to its usefulness for identifying language use and language choices in multilingual settings.
208

Scholars, such as Pauwels (2005), Sims (2006), and Tuominen (1999), employ the concept of do-
main to study language maintenance strategies in multilingual settings. These strategies were used to
assist parents, family members, and communities to maintain their community languages. One of the
most effective strategies for language maintenance is parents’ persistence and consistency in speaking
community languages with each other and with their children in the family domain. In this way, more
opportunities are created for children to learn and speak those languages at a young age. An early start
in the family domain has been identified as a key foundation for a more successful outcome for language
maintenance (McCardle & Hoff, 2006). Children starting to speak community languages at an early age
not only facilitates the process of gaining better linguistic competence, but also establishes bilingual de-
velopment (Pauwels, 2016). Young children do not usually question the language choice of their parents
or their environment. When they ask questions, parents usually provide creative answers to encourage
their children to continue learning and speaking the community languages. Early and consistent exposure
to learning and speaking community languages in the family domain has demonstrated that children are
more likely to grow up as bilingual speakers, even when they are later exposed to environments that do not
favour bilingual or multilingual practices (Pauwels, 2016). In other words, when one of the parents opts
to speak the community language while the other speaks a language of wider communication, children
are able to learn both languages and thus ensure a more fruitful maintenance of community languages
(Gibbons & Ramirez, 2004; Pauwels, 2016).
Beyond the family domain, living in a neighbourhood where members of the community speak the
same community languages usually contributes to a higher chance of maintaining community languages
(Pauwels, 2016). Typically, schools in host countries use the local language of wider communication as
their main medium of instruction, which hinders the learning and speaking of community languages.
Nevertheless, some schools provide after-school or weekend activities that support the learning of com-
munity languages, thereby benefiting immigrant children. In addition to the school and neighbourhood
domains, Pauwels (2016) lists three other domains that are associated with community languages: re-
ligious institutions, cultural groups, and the media. She argues that while these domains may not have
a goal for language maintenance, they still indirectly assist in the learning of community languages.
Based on the above literature, it can be established that the concept of domain, initially theorised by
Fishman, and which was further developed in light of scholarly debates, is crucial for community lan-
guage maintenance. This paper therefore employs this construct as its conceptual framework. Further to
focusing on the investigation of the family domain as argued by Fishman (1972a) as the most important
domain for language maintenance, this paper also probes into other domains that supports the use of
Penang Hokkien alongside other Chinese community languages in Malaysia.
Background of Malaysia
Malaysia is a multilingual, multiracial, and multicultural country situated in Southeast Asia (UNICEF,
2016). With a population of 32.63 million (Department of Statistics, 2019a), there are three main eth-
nic groups: Bumiputra (sons of the soil referring to Malays and Indigenous people) (69.3%); Chinese
(22.8%); and Indians (6.9%), and the remaining 1% is formed of other ethnic groups. The official religion
of Malaysia is Islam but other religious denominations, such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism,
are also practised. As a multilingual country, there are 134 languages spoken and two that are extinct,
Wila’ (Lowland Semang) and Ple-Temer (Simons & Fennig, 2018).
209

Before independence, Malaysia was colonised by the British. To expand the production sector and
colonial economy, the British welcomed the migration of Chinese and Indians. Initially, the Chinese
worked in the tin mining industry. They continued to thrive and soon became the economic engine of
Malaysia. Andaya and Andaya (2016, p. 146) explain the reason that “the Chinese who came to the
Malay world were intent on one thing: to escape the life of grinding poverty they had known at home”.
Having previously colonised India, the British believed the Indians were “more accustomed to British
rule, more amenable to discipline than the Chinese, more willing to work for wages than Malays” (An-
daya & Andaya, 2016, p. 186). The Indians were placed in the rubber plantations and thus, confined to
the estates. The Malays largely remained in the rural areas, mostly as farmers and fishermen, and their
socioeconomic status was marginalised. Consequently, the Malaysian society became fragmented because
it was divided along economic lines and provided no incentive for national integration (Chai, 1977).
Despite lack of socialising between ethnic groups (Asmah, 2007), linguistic diversity prospered in
the local networks. As the official language of the country, English was used as the language of admin-
istration and education among the wealthy Malays, Chinese businessmen, and Indian merchants. Bahasa
Melayu remained the lingua franca of Malaysia as it was the language of trade for Malaysia, Singapore,
and Brunei (Ostler, 2005). The Chinese and Indian communities retained their community languages;
the former spoke Hokkien, Hakka, Cantonese, Teochew, Hainanese, Fuzhou, and Taishan, while the
latter spoke Tamil, Hindi, Punjabi, and Malayalam. They continued to speak these languages until today.
After independence in 1957, Malaysia adopted Bahasa Melayu as its national language, which was
enacted in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution. The purpose of this enactment was to reduce the role
and status of English, which provided no advantage to the Bumiputras (Noor & Leong, 2013). Never-
theless, English continued to be officially used, which was a source of inconsistency within the society.
To circumvent this policy aberration, the National Language Acts 1963/1967 were passed, and Bahasa
Melayu became the sole national and official language of Malaysia. Bahasa Melayu was thus established
as the language of administration, education, and the law courts. With the establishment of Bahasa
Melayu as the country’s sole national and official language, the Bumiputras were given more privileges
when compared to the other ethnic groups (Albury, 2017). As a result, riots took place due to racial ten-
sions. Following these riots, the National Language Acts 1963/1967 guaranteed the teaching, learning,
and use of other languages besides Bahasa Melayu, to accommodate all ethnic groups and embrace the
country’s diverse ethnolinguistic make up. English remains an important language of communication
in many private sectors (Ng & Lee, 2019), while other ethnic groups retain their community languages.
The Chinese Community in Malaysia
The Chinese first arrived in Malaysia in the 15th century (Vollmann & Soon, 2018), where they conducted
trading business in the straits of Malacca with traders from India and other islands in Southeast Asia.
Many of the Chinese traders were from Zhangzhou, China and thus, they spoke Hokkien. The Chinese
traders eventually married local Malay women and formed the Peranakan culture, whose Hokkien was
heavily influenced by Bahasa Melayu.
From the end of the 18th century to the early 20th century, more Chinese migrated to Malaysia to
work. They arrived in three settlement (Yen, 2000): (1) urban port settlement, (2) mining settlement,
and (3) rural agricultural settlement. When Sir Francis Light founded Penang in 1786, the urban port
settlement grew rapidly because the free-trading port he established provided opportunities for many
210

Chinese traders to interact with European traders and expand their commercial activities. The mining
settlement was first established in Sarawak and continued in Negeri Sembilan, Perak, and Selangor. The
rural agricultural settlement developed in Johor, where the focus of cash crop industry was on pepper
and gambier plantations. In all these settlements, the Chinese formed clan associations to stay close
with those from the same villages in China. The clan associations provided services such as arranging
accommodation and funerals, as well as writing and posting letters back to China.
When the British colonised Malaysia, they did not take responsibility for setting up educational fa-
cilities for the Chinese immigrants. The Chinese immigrants had to raise funds to start sishu, a type of
small schools set up by clan associations to teach students traditional subjects such as Confucian classics.
These school used Chinese community languages, such as Hokkien, as their medium of instruction (J.
Y. Y. Tan, 2015). In the early 20th century, Chinese-medium education started spreading in Malaysia
where schools adopted a similar curriculum to their counterparts in China (Yen, 1992). These schools
gradually expanded due to the increased number of Chinese children born in Malaysia after the Chinese
immigrants permanently settled there (L. E. Tan, 2000). After the Japanese invasion, the British forced
Chinese schools to convert to English-medium schools, which resulted in a social movement to maintain
Chinese-medium education in Malaysia. Chinese educationalists produced new textbooks to replace those
imported from China. By 1957, Chinese-medium primary schools were accepted in the national educa-
tion of Malaysia. However, Chinese-medium secondary schools lost their battle in the social movement
and had to switch their medium of instruction to English, then Bahasa Melayu, while retaining Mandarin
Chinese as a subject. In the 1996 Education Act, the Malaysian Government explicitly stated that the
Chinese language taught in the national education system of Malaysia is Mandarin Chinese. Chinese
community languages are not taught in the Chinese-medium schools.
For many Chinese parents living in Malaysia, Chinese-medium education has been regarded as im-
portant for their children because its function is to assist in partially maintaining the Chinese culture,
language, identity, and heritage (Wang, 2016a). As a result, a large number of Chinese parents sent their
children to Chinese-medium primary schools (Lee & Ting, 2016; Wang, 2014). This initiative was based
on the belief that children would learn to appreciate the Chinese culture, which is part of the school’s
curriculum, in addition to developing a strong sense of Chinese identity (Lee & Ting, 2016). In recent
years, there has also been an increase in the number of students from non-Chinese backgrounds attending
Chinese-medium primary schools (Wang, 2014). This growth is linked to the importance of Mandarin
Chinese in today’s globalised world and China’s position as a global leader in the economic sector
(Gill, 2014). Moreover, many Chinese and non-Chinese parents alike are motivated by the fact that their
children will become multilingual speakers if they are sent to Chinese-medium primary schools where
the emphasis lies on teaching three main languages—Bahasa Melayu, English, and Mandarin Chinese.
As a result of the strong emphasis on Chinese-medium education in Malaysia that uses Mandarin
Chinese as the main medium of instruction, the patterns of language use among the Chinese community
have undergone many changes, which have contributed to language shift (Ding, 2016, Wang, 2016a).
Studies such as Puah and Ting (2013, 2015), Ting, (2006, 2010), and Wang (2005, 2007, 2009, 2010,
2012, 2016b, 2017) have shown that many of the younger generation today are moving towards speaking
Mandarin Chinese rather than their Chinese community languages, including Penang Hokkien, Hakka,
Cantonese, Hainanese, Teochew, and Taishan. Some also treat Mandarin Chinese as their mother tongue,
which is important for claiming their identity as a Chinese Malaysian (Albury, 2017 Vollmann & Soon,
2018; Wang, 2017). Parents also play a role in this shift because they are motivated to provide proper
211

linguistic education for their children (Vollmann & Soon, 2018). Consequently, the use of Chinese com-
munity languages in several Chinese families has declined, which raises questions about the survival of
these languages among the Chinese inhabitants of Malaysia.
Penang and the Chinese Community
An area in Malaysia that has a strong Chinese community is Penang (see Figure 1). The Chinese ethnic
group constitutes 39.1% of Penang’s total population of 1.77 million (Department of Statistics, 2019b).
As the brief history indicates, the Chinese put down roots in Penang during the 15th century and over
time, established a flourishing-speaking Chinese community that uniquely contributes to the multilingual
mosaic of Malaysia.
Figure 1. Penang.1
According to a written account by Chinese explorer Zheng He during the 15th century, Penang appeared
to be a trading port for Chinese sailors from the Ming dynasty (Ben Said & Ong, 2019). In 1786, Cap-
tain Francis Light landed in Penang and formally seized it. He then established Penang as a free-trading
port in 1788, which attracted Chinese merchants to trade with European merchants. Other merchants
from Siam (currently Thailand), Java, India, and Sumatra were also involved in the trade. The Chinese
212

merchants used this opportunity to expand their commercial activities in Penang where they set up shops
in George Town, the capital of Penang. When the tin mining industry in Taiping was established, more
Chinese labourers were brought over to work. These labourers then sought better economic opportunities
in bigger cities, such as Penang. After some time, they built homes and established families in Penang.
Consequently, the Chinese community grew bigger and became the dominant ethnic group in Penang.
Penang Hokkien
When the Chinese came to Penang, they brought along their community languages. Those who first arrived
were mainly from Fujian, China and they spoke Hokkien because Fujian is home to the Min language.
Some married local Malay-speaking women and formed a creolised culture known as the Peranakan
culture. When these intermarriages took place, a form of Bahasa Melayu that was heavily influenced by
Hokkien was spoken. For those who could not speak Bahasa Melayu or English, they formed clan as-
sociations, which were based on the same village or district in China from which they originated. These
clan associations provided services such as writing letters and posting back to China, providing food, and
arranging accommodation and funerals. As time passed, more Chinese came to Penang to work. This
Chinese diaspora originated from different subethnic groups and spoke different Chinese community
languages, such as Cantonese, Hakka, Hainanese, Teochew, and Taishan. These language groups were
not mutually intelligible, so they ended up speaking the local form of Hokkien, similar to the one spoken
by the Peranakans. As time passed by, the Peranakan Hokkien became more ‘diluted’ because it was
blended with English and Cantonese words. Today, the Hokkien spoken in Penang is known as Penang
Hokkien, a community language that has its own vocabulary, intonation, and grammatical structure that
differs from other varieties of Hokkien spoken around the world. Besides Penang Hokkien, various other
Chinese community languages are still spoken by the Chinese community.
Set of sentences are presented in Bahasa Melayu, English, and Penang Hokkien to illustrate the dif-
ferences between those languages.
Sample sentence: I read books (S-V-O).
1. Bahasa Melayu: Saya baca buku (S-V-O).

2. Chinese: 我读书 (wŏ dú shū) (S-V-O).
3. Penang Hokkien: Wá thàk chhɛk (S-V-O).
Several common words in Penang Hokkien and Hokkien are shown in Table 1 to illustrate the dif-
ferences between both variants.
Table 1. Penang Hokkien lexis versus Hokkien lexis.
Penang Hokkien
English lexis Influenced by Bahasa Melayu lexis Hokkien lexis
lexis
To love/cherish sá-yang sayang ài
A toilet jiam-bân jamban piān-só
A stone bá-tû batu chióh-thâu
An animal bîn-a-tāng binatang khîm-siù
213

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Research Questions
As the sole national and official language of Malaysia, Bahasa Melayu plays an important role as the
language of administration, education, and legislation. English acts as an unofficial language of the coun-
try and is commonly used in different private sectors. Mandarin Chinese is used as the main medium of
instruction in Chinese-medium primary schools and taught as a subject in secondary schools. It is also
spoken by many of the younger generation Chinese who regard it as their mother tongue (Albury, 2017;
Vollmann & Soon, 2018; Wang, 2017). The use of these languages in various domains as languages of
wider communication has caused sociolinguistic realignment in many Chinese families in Malaysia and
has raised questions about the maintenance of Chinese community languages in Malaysian society. This
paper therefore aims to investigate the efforts and initiatives by the Chinese community in Penang in
maintaining Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages. An interview-based qualitative
study was crafted to answer the following research questions:
1. In which domains does the Chinese community in Penang use Penang Hokkien and other Chinese
community languages?
2. How do they use these languages in their everyday life?
Participants and Interviews
This study was conducted in 2016. The participants were recruited using a purposeful sampling strategy
so that only relevant participants were recruited (Flick, 2014). Based on the aims of the study and its
research questions, two criteria were established when recruiting participants:
1. The participants must be able to speak Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages
listed above in their everyday life.
2. He/she has to be from one of the age group below:
a. Group 1—age 70 and above
b. Group 2—age 50—69
c. Group 3—age 30—49
Because past research (e.g., Albury, 2017; Wang, 2017) has shown that many of today’s younger genera-
tion do not speak Chinese community languages, they were not recruited in this study, as they would not
be able to provide relevant information during the interview. In addition, as past studies have recruited
a younger strata of the population as participants, this study will add another perspective by recruiting
older generation participants.
Liddicoat and Baldauf (2008) state that official agents are usually involved in providing funding for
language maintenance, while local communities are engaged with the efforts and initiatives to maintain
community languages. Taking Liddicoat and Baldauf’s statement into consideration, together with the
two criteria above, the participants recruited represented three societal levels of the Chinese community
in Penang:
214

1. Official actors representing the macro level—as policymakers and researchers from government
think-tanks, they play a role in managing legislation.
2. Community actors representing the meso level—as language promoters and representatives from
various Chinese clan associations, they play a role in bridging the gap between policy and practice.
3. Grassroots actors representing the micro level—as individuals in the Chinese community, they play
a role in practising policy in everyday life.
In total, 46 participants were recruited to represent the three levels of the Chinese community. The
participants were given pseudonyms to protect their confidentiality. Tables 2 to 4 in the Appendix section
indicate the demographic information of the participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted
with participants either at their homes or at the interviewer’s home. Each interview lasted an hour. The
participants gave their consent for their interviews to be recorded. They were asked about their efforts
and initiatives related to Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community language maintenance in Pen-
ang. After the interview, the recordings were transcribed verbatim. There were no corrections of the
morphosyntax, a step taken to retain authenticity.
The transcripts were analysed using content analysis in the form of thematic examination. They were
first analysed separately by both researchers to look for recurrent themes in the data. Subsequently, both
researchers formed a thematic coding sheet each to align with the theoretical framework of this study.
The data was finally triangulated between both researchers through a series of discussions.
FINDINGS
With respect to the daily maintenance of Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages in
Penang, efforts and initiatives of the participants representing three levels of the Chinese community
are reported in five domains: family, work, education, religious, and entertainment.
Family Domain
In the family domain, all participants from the three groups concurred that the simplest way of maintain-
ing Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages in Penang is through everyday interactions
with their family members. Suzy from the official actors group stated that as a native Penang Hokkien
speaker, using the language is habitual for her as she regularly speaks it with her family members:
I speak about eight languages myself. I speak with my family in Penang Hokkien and I dream in Penang
Hokkien wherever I go, even in my subconscious. Yeah, I dream in Penang Hokkien! It’s just natural for
me, it’s nothing that I need to purposely do because I feel I am quite comfortable and maybe lucky that
people around me, we are able to speak Penang Hokkien.
Jackson from the community actors group described his mother’s and wife’s friends’ experiences learn-
ing Hainanese as a tool for communication with their family members:
215

My mum is a Hokkien but she is married to my dad, a Hainanese. Hence, she has to learn to speak
Hainanese. At first when my dad spoke to her, she couldn’t understand but eventually she listened and
learnt how to speak Hainanese. I also have a friend whose wife is a Cantonese but her Hainanese is
perfect, it’s better than us Hainanese speaking Hainanese! This is because at home, after marriage, her
father-in-law spoke to her only in Hainanese. She had to learn the language for communication purposes.
Jackson’s extract shows that his mother’s and wife’s friends’ experiences of learning Hainanese are as-
sociated with communication purposes in the family domain, which have a more intimate and deeper
effect on the learning process. He added that in the Chinese culture, it is considered disrespectful if a
married woman does not speak her husband’s family language. Thus, for his mother’s and wife’s friends,
learning to speak Hainanese becomes an essential task after marriage, as learning this variety represents
commitment to their family.
Timmy from the grassroots actors group stated that teaching his grandson, who is currently seven
years old, Penang Hokkien is his way of ensuring the language can be passed down in his family. Even
though his grandson is educated in a Chinese-medium primary school and is a fluent Mandarin Chinese
speaker, Timmy encourages him to regularly speak Penang Hokkien with him at home. Agnes, also from
the grassroots actors group, had a similar experience as Timmy. She stated:
We speak Hainanese. Within our family members, we use Hainanese, our community language. We make
sure that we have one next of kin, my niece. She can speak the language very well. All of us can speak
the language. Most of my uncles from my mum’s side and my dad’s side and their children couldn’t
speak the language anymore.
Agnes’s extract highlights her emphasis on making sure her community language is passed on in her
family, as she does not want the language to die, which is what happened in her uncles’ families.
In short, the interactions between participants and their family members demonstrate the importance
of the family domain in maintaining Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages in Penang,
which supports Fishman’s (1964) claim that the family domain is central for both language maintenance
and language shift.
Work Domain
In the work domain, besides using languages of wider communication such as Mandarin Chinese and
English, approximately half of the participants claimed they also have many opportunities to use Penang
Hokkien and other Chinese community languages. Michael from the official actors group described his
use of Chinese community languages:
I am a government legislator, so it’s useful for me that there is a sizable, Cantonese enclave in Penang.
There is a group of Cantonese staying here, their clan associations, you know their grouping, all these
things, whenever they invite me for dinner, societies’ dinners and associations’ dinners, well, I speak in
Cantonese. I deliver my speech in Cantonese. Even the campaigning speech, election campaigns. It’s
a cultural identity.
216

Michael’s description highlights his regular use of Cantonese at work, where he delivers speeches at
Cantonese clan association dinners and election campaigns. His delivery symbolises his respect for the
Cantonese people and his identity as a Cantonese.
As a native Hakka speaker, Andrew from the community actors group mentioned that he always
delivers speeches in Hakka, even when visiting the Hakka association in Meizhou, China:
I even give speeches in Hakka. They (The Hakka association in Meizhou) always say my Hakka is good.
Even the relatives said that my Hakka is perfect, perfect in the sense that they understand, they know.
In fact, consciously, when I talk to them, I don’t use Malay and Hokkien words like liu (money). When
you speak Cantonese, I don’t use pandai (smart), pandai is a Malay word, I don’t use at all these. So,
they cannot pick up any funny words that are used in Malaysia.
Andrew speaks standard Hakka when visiting the Hakka association in Meizhou, China. Due to his ac-
curate pronunciation and vocabulary in Hakka, the Hakka association in Meizhou praised him. In An-
drew’s case, his use of standard Hakka conveys solidarity and rapport, similarly to the use of Singapore
Colloquial English, known also as ‘Singlish’, among Singaporeans (Cavallaro, Ng, & Seilhamer, 2014).
As a Chinese physician, Susan from the grassroots actors group explained that she uses different
community languages with different patients, depending on the language that is most comfortable for
the patient. She gives further explanation in the following extract:
If the patients are from Penang, I normally speak Penang Hokkien. Sometimes I do speak Cantonese
too. Some of the old patients who come here only speak Cantonese, hence I will speak in Cantonese. I
hardly use Hakka because there are not many Hakka speakers unless for those old patients whose Penang
Hokkien isn’t good, then I will speak in Hakka.
Education Domain
Although the use of only three main languages (Bahasa Melayu, English, and Mandarin Chinese) is
permitted in Chinese-medium schools, one of the principals interviewed claimed to have learned Chinese
community languages to communicate with some parents, because they are not fluent in any of the main
languages. Andy explained:
I’m a Hokkien but when I came to Balik Pulau (rural area in Penang), I tried to learn Hakka to become
closer to the people. When people feel that we are from the same clique (same language group), it is
easier for us to communicate and if you want to do something, it becomes easy. People can understand
what you want and they can trust you. In order for us to communicate, we must make sure of the language
we use so that people can trust us. When parents walk in, I want to understand what they actually want,
I must use Mandarin Chinese first. After a while, if they prefer to use Hakka, I will try to use it so that
they can express what they want to me. As a principal, we must try to understand the parents when they
walk in, what is their focus, what they want. If they can’t express what they want, after they walk out,
you still can’t do anything.
217

Andy had to learn Hakka to communicate with the parents in the rural area because in that area, the
majority of the parents speak only Hakka. It is vital for him to ensure he understands the parents and
vice-versa to effectively communicate. Andy’s explanation supports Keraf’s (1997) argument that lan-
guage functions as a tool for interaction between members of the community.
While Chinese-medium schools do not teach Chinese community languages during school hours,
some Chinese-medium schools have made an effort to work with Chinese clan associations to conduct
Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community language classes after school hours. Luke, another
principal, described the programme:
This is the first year we try to start this programme. The first step is we collect from our students, how
many students are Hokkien, Teochew and Hakka. So we have the amount. Then the second step is we
are seeing who are interested to learn their mother language. Then we have the figures. After that we
hold a meeting with the hui kuan (clan associations). We had a meeting already about how to run this
programme. So now with the first step is we try to find those can teach Penang Hokkien or teach Teochew.
Then we can start a class. Maybe once a week, maybe two hours. Not too many times. So we call up the
students to understand first, what is beautiful about their language. So the other step is we can have a
competition. Maybe singing competition. Penang Hokkien, Hakka, or Cantonese competition. So the
students will try to sing their language. There’s how the school to run it.
Luke’s school has started to run Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community language classes in
conjunction with various clan associations for students who are interested in learning their community
languages and those wanting to improve their fluency. Because these community languages do not have
written orthography (cf. Vollman & Soon, 2018), the classes would mainly involve listening and speak-
ing skills. The programme was set up to encourage students to appreciate their community languages,
which represent their subethnic group identity.
Religious Domain
Two participants from the community actors group and four from the grassroots actors group explained
that they use Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages in their religious practices, which
align with findings from Carstens’ (2018) and Wang’s (2016b) studies that senior members in a Catholic
church in Sabah and Penang still use Hakka for Bible reading. In a Christian church, Robert from the
grassroots actor group highlighted that he preaches in Penang Hokkien and Cantonese:
I will see the church’s needs. If I go to Kuala Lumpur or Hong Kong, I preach in Cantonese. And when I
go to Medan (a city in Indonesia), there are a lot of Chinese people and they speak in Hokkien. I speak
in Penang Hokkien to them because they understand Penang Hokkien. I see the needs of the church. If
it’s a Penang Hokkien church, I will definitely preach in Penang Hokkien. For Chinese church, I preach
in Mandarin Chinese and English church, I preach in English.
Based on Robert’s extract, it is understood that his language choice for preaching depends on the audi-
ence. He emphasised his versatility in preaching using several languages because of his multilingual
repertoire. In addition to preaching, the worshippers in his church also sing hymns in Penang Hokkien.
He explained that they have Hokkien composers from Taiwan who composed the hymns in Taiwanese
218

Hokkien. When these hymns are brought to Penang, the local composers edit the lyrics to suit Penang
Hokkien because some vocabulary in Penang Hokkien differ from Taiwanese Hokkien. Annette, also
from the grassroots actors group, mentioned that she holds weekly prayer group in Penang Hokkien for
her friends because they could not read English or Mandarin Chinese but were interested in Christianity.
She argued that when praying in Penang Hokkien, the terminology used differed from everyday con-
versation. In order to learn these terminologies, she borrowed a Penang Hokkien hymn book from her
friend’s church and started singing. When she first started, the hymns sounded like a vulgar language
due to different intonations in comparison to speaking. She took several months to accurately sing the
hymns according to Penang Hokkien pronunciation.
With respect to Buddhism, Cliff from the grassroots actors group described his temple’s initiatives
in using Penang Hokkien and Teochew:
In this temple, the older generation usually use Penang Hokkien for chanting. The chanting script is
written using English alphabet. When I speak to the devotees, I will use my own community languages.
Like to the Teochew devotees, I will use Teochew to explain about Buddhism. When we chant, we use
Mandarin Chinese as main language so that it won’t confuse the devotees. Mandarin Chinese is seen
as a common language now for most people. But when we conduct a lecture, community languages are
used and it depends on the crowd and locality. At Penang Buddhist Association, the monks speak in
Penang Hokkien.
Cliff’s description demonstrates that although Mandarin Chinese is used for chanting in his temple,
Penang Hokkien and Teochew are used for conducting dharma talks. This also depends on the language
choice of the devotees and the locality. In relation to dharma talks, Elizabeth and Bolton, both from the
community actors group, disclosed that they listen to Buddhist sutra and dharma talks in Penang Hokkien.
Entertainment Domain
In addition to the domains mentioned above, Chinese community languages are also used in the entertain-
ment domain. One participant from the official actors group and four from the grassroots actors group
mentioned that they enjoy watching Cantonese or Hokkien dramas on television as a way of learning
the languages. Emily from the grassroots actors group described her experience:
Actually, one of the ways is really to speak the language because I remember I don’t have formal educa-
tion in Penang Hokkien and I don’t have formal education in Cantonese. One of the ways how I picked
up Cantonese beside just speaking, I also watch those movies, or those Hong Kong dramas. I remember
when I was young, at that time, my grandfather likes to switch on the radio. Then you’ll hear, there will
be a short story. Then it will continue the next day. So somehow I rather, I manage to, while waiting
for the bus, I know that my grandfather will actually switch it on, so that’s where I actually pick up the
language, by listening.
Emily’s experience of learning Cantonese is through watching Cantonese dramas and listening to
Cantonese podcasts. Michael from the official actors group also mentioned that he learned Cantonese
through watching Cantonese dramas and practising the language with his father. Conversely, Lynn from
219

the grassroots actors group preferred to watch Hokkien dramas while her mother-in-law was fond of
Teochew dramas.
Taking the efforts further, Benjamin from the community actors group explained that the ‘Speak
Hokkien Movement’ organisation has collaborated with an entertainment company to produce a Penang
Hokkien movie entitled Hai Kinn Sin Loo (translated as ‘You Mean the World to Me’). The movie was
released in cinemas throughout Malaysia in May 2017. As the first Penang Hokkien movie, this pro-
duction denotes a step towards encouraging script writers and movie producers to make use of Chinese
community languages in an artistic manner as a way of maintaining them. Adriana, also from the com-
munity actors group, emphasised that the Teochew Opera Museum where she works performs Chinese
operas using Teochew. In big theatres, they even added subtitles so the audiences who do not understand
Teochew are able to understand the language and appreciate the traditional culture.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The literature review above provides evidence that Fishman’s (1972a) concept of domain plays an
important role in the process of language maintenance. Fishman also argues that different domains
are needed for different language uses. As our findings demonstrate, the participants in this study use
Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages in various ways across the five domains of
family, work, education, religion, and entertainment. Their language uses are characteristic of how these
languages are versatile.
In the family domain, participants’ opinions denote regular use of Penang Hokkien and other Chinese
community languages to communicate with family members. While some participants learn the language
as their first language at home, others learn it because they have a utilitarian or functional purpose to do
so. In the work domain, the participants deliver speeches and communicate with colleagues and custom-
ers in community languages. In the education domain, although Bahasa Melayu, English, and Mandarin
Chinese are emphasised as the main languages to learn in Chinese-medium schools, some schools have
started to conduct after-school activities and classes that support the learning of Chinese community
languages and for those who want to improve their fluency. In the religious domain, these languages are
used for chanting, praying, preaching, and singing hymns. In the entertainment domain, the participants
report watching dramas and listening to the radio in Chinese community languages. There are also
on-going efforts for movie production, podcasts, and Chinese opera performances in these languages.
As Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages in Malaysia are mostly spoken and not
performed through the written mode (Vollman & Soon, 2018), their use is mostly ‘constrained’ to oral
interactions, bringing thereby another challenge to language maintenance initiatives. On a par with other
situations, as in the case of indigenous languages of Hawaii, some studies (Galla, 2009; Warschauer,
1998) suggest a more contextualised and dynamic maintenance of indigenous languages through the
use of technology (for instance through their use in electronic communication, the internet, etc), but
there is little to no data to date that ascertains the impactful effects of technology in language learning
(Galla, 2009). As technology plays an important role in today’s modern world, the future of community
languages will depend partly on technology in a world where digital literacies (Gee, 2012; Thorne, 2013)
and electronic communication are thriving.
220

The findings demonstrate that Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages mostly
serve as a family or ingroup language, which aligns with Puah and Ting’s (2013) study that shows Hok-
kien and Fuzhou are used within domains of a particular language group. Despite having no standard
curriculum to learn these community languages in Chinese-medium schools and the fact that language
shift is happening among the Chinese community in Malaysia, the participants have undertaken initia-
tives and ‘community-based’ actions (Ben Said, 2019; Ong, forthcoming) to continue using them in
their everyday life, particularly in the family domain. In addition, even though they do not have perfect
knowledge of these languages and their varieties may have been diluted due to their assimilation into the
mainstream Malaysian culture, there are some parents who are still determined to speak these languages
to their children. Nevertheless, the numbers of such parents are limited because most parents nowadays
focus on their children’s educational advancement where emphasis is placed on learning the three main
languages (Ting, 2010).
In conclusion, the language environment in Malaysia has undergone different changes in recent years,
which has caused sociolinguistic realignment in many Chinese families, including those in Penang.
Mandarin Chinese and English have moved into many domains, and there is no doubt that the use of
Penang Hokkien and other Chinese community languages is in decline—a clear sign of language shift.
However, there are still efforts and initiatives, such as those undertaken by the participants in this study,
to continue using community languages in Penang, in hope of passing these languages onto the coming
generations.
FUNDING
The collection of data for this project was supported by the Griffith University International Postgradu-
ate Research Scholarship (GUIPRS) and the Griffith University Postgraduate Research Scholarship
(GUPRS) under project number GU 2016/409.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Chinese community in Penang for their collaboration time and the
two anonymous reviewers, Dr. Masumi Kai, and Dr. Toru Okamura who helped to improve the original
manuscript. All remaining mistakes are solely the responsibility of the authors. Opinions expressed and
conclusions arrived at are those of the authors.
REFERENCES
Albury, N. J. (2017). Mother tongues and languaging in Malaysia: Critical linguistics under critical
examination. Language in Society, 46(4), 567–589. doi:10.1017/S0047404517000239
Andaya, B. W., & Andaya, L. Y. (2016). A history of Malaysia (3rd ed.). London: Palgrave.
Asmah, H. O. (2007). Malaysia and Brunei. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in
Asia (pp. 337–359). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
221

Ben Said, S. (2019). Revitalizing Tamil in Singapore: Pedagogical caveats and community-based pos-
sibilities. Journal of Second and Multiple Language Acquisition, 7(2), 70–92.
Ben Said, S., & Ong, T. W. S. (2019). Tracing linguistic changes on shop signs in Malaysia: A dia-
chronic examination of George Town, Penang. SOCJOLINGWISTYKA, 33(1), 209–230. doi:10.17651/
SOCJOLING.33.13
Boxer, D. (2002). Applying sociolinguistics: Domains and face-to-face interaction. Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.15
Carstens, S. (2018). Multilingual Chinese Malaysians: The global dimensions of language choice. Grazer
Linguistische Studien, 89, 7–34. doi:10.25364/04.45:2018.89.2
Cavallaro, F., Ng, B. C., & Seilhamer, M. F. (2014). Singapore Colloquial English: Issues of prestige
and identity. World Englishes, 33(3), 378–397. doi:10.1111/weng.12096
Chai, H. C. (1977). Education & nation building in plural societies: The West Malaysia experience.
Canberra: The Australian National University Press.
Department of Statistics. (2019a). Current population estimates, Malaysia, 2018-2019. Retrieved from
https://www.dosm.gov.my/
Department of Statistics. (2019b). Population quick info. Retrieved from http://pqi.stats.gov.my/searchBI.
php
Ding, S. L. (2016). The role of parents in heritage language maintenance in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal
of Chinese Studies, 5(1), 15–27.
Duff, P., & Doherty, L. (2019). Learning “Chinese” as heritage language: Challenges, issues, and ways
forward. In C. R. Huang, Z. Jing-Schmidt, & B. Meisterernst (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Chinese
applied linguistics (pp. 14–164). New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315625157-11
Fishman, J. A. (1964). Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry. Linguistics, 9, 32–70.
Fishman, J. A. (1965). Who speaks what language to whom and when? La Linguistique, 1(2), 67–88.
Fishman, J. A. (1972a). Language maintenance and language shift as a field of inquiry: Revisited (1968).
In S. D. Anwar (Ed.), Language in sociocultural change: Essays by Joshua A. Fishman (pp. 76–134).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fishman, J. A. (1972b). Domains and the relationship between micro- and macro-sociolinguistics. In J.
Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp.
435–453). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research (5th ed.). London: Sage.
Frey, J. W. (1945). Amish ‘triple talk’. American Speech, 20(2), 85–98. doi:10.2307/487398
Galla, C. K. (2009). Indigenous language revitalisation and technology from traditional to contemporary
domains. In J. Reyhner & L. Lockard (Eds.), Indigenous language revitalization: Encouragement, guid-
ance & lessons learned (pp. 167-182). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.
222

Gee, J. P. G. (2012). The old and the new in the new digital literacies. The Educational Forum, 76(4),
418–420. doi:10.1080/00131725.2012.708622
Gibbons, J., & Ramirez, E. (2004). Maintaining a minority language: A case study of Hispanic teenag-
ers. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853597428
Gill, S. K. (2014). Language policy challenges in multi-ethnic Malaysia. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
94-007-7966-2
Global Administrative Areas (GADM). (2018, February 15). Penang [map]. 1: 300,000. Retrieved from
https://www.gadm.org/download
Government of Malaysia. (1957). Federal Constitution of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: The Commissioner
of Law Revision, Malaysia.
Government of Malaysia. (1963/1967). National Language Acts. Kuala Lumpur: The Commissioner of
Law Revision, Malaysia.
Hatoss, A. (2013). Displacement, language maintenance and identity: Sudanese refugees in Australia.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/impact.34
Keraf, G. (1997). Komposisi [Composition]. Ende-Flores: Penerbit Nusa Indah.
Lee, D. P. Y., & Ting, S. H. (2016). Tracing ethnic socialisation of Chinese in Malaysia to Chinese-
medium school. Global Chinese, 2(2), 163–187. doi:10.1515/glochi-2016-0016
Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2008). Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and
interactions. In A. J. Liddicoat & R. B. Jr. Baldauf (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Language
planning in local contexts (pp. 3-17). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Mak, W. (1935). Zweisprackigkeit und Mischmundart in Oberschlesien. Schlesisches Jahrbuch für
deutsche Kulturarbeit, 7, 41-52.
Malaysia country report: Language education and social cohesion (LESC) initiative. (2016). UNICEF
East Asia and Pacific Region Office.
McCardle, P., & Hoff, E. (2006). An agenda for research on childhood bilingualism. In P. McCardle & E.
Hoff (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 157–165). Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853598715-012
Ng, L. L., & Lee, S. L. (2019). Translanguaging practices and identity construction of multilingual Malay-
sian university graduates in digital media. English Language Teaching, 43, 105–123. doi:10.100742321-
019-00021-6
Noor, N. M., & Leong, C. H. (2013). Multiculturalism in Malaysia and Singapore: Contesting models.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(6), 714–726. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.09.009
Ong, T. W. S. (forthcoming). Safeguarding Penang Hokkien in Malaysia: Attitudes and community-
driven efforts. Linguistics Journal.
Ostler, N. (2005). Empires of the world: A language history of the world. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
223

Pauwels, A. (2005). Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles
for families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(2), 124–131.
doi:10.1080/13670050508668601
Pauwels, A. (2016). Language maintenance and shift. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9781107338869
Puah, Y. Y., & Ting, S. H. (2013). Home ground notions influencing Foochow and Hokkien speakers’
language use in Kuching, Sarawak. Paper presented at the ‘Konferensi Antar Universiti Se Borneo Ka-
limantan Ke-7’. University Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia.
Puah, Y. Y., & Ting, S. H. (2015). Malaysian Chinese speakers’ attitudes towards Foochow, Hokkien
and Mandarin. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(5), 451–467. doi:10.1080/
01434632.2014.936875
Sallabank, J. (2013). Attitudes to endangered languages: Identities and policies. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139344166
Schmidt-Rohr, G. (1933). Muttersprache. Vom amt der sprache bei der volkwerdung. Jena: Diederichs.
Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2018). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (21st ed.). Dallas,
TX: SIL International. Retrieved from http://www.ethnologue.com
Sims, C. P. (2006). Language planning in American Indian Pueblo communities: Contemporary chal-
lenges and issues. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2-3), 251–28. doi:10.2167/cilp097.0
Tan, J. Y. Y. (2015). Malay parents’ perspective on admission of their children to Chinese primary schools
in Kelantan, Malaysia. Researchers World, 6(1), 26.
Tan, L. E. (2000). Chinese schools in Malaysia: A case of cultural resilience. In K. H. Lee & C. B. Tan
(Eds.), The Chinese in Malaysia (pp. 228–254). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Thorne, S. L. (2013). Digital literacies. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially
situated views and perspectives (pp. 192–218). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ting, S. H. (2006). A case study of language use with the younger generation in Foochow families. In
Proceedings of the 8th Biennial Conference of the Borneo Research Council. Kuching: Borneo Research
Council.
Ting, S. H. (2010). Intercultural communication in Sarawak: Language use of the Chinese-speaking
communities. In D. Mukherjee & M. K. Davids (Eds.), Speaking in many tongues: Language shift in
Malaysian minority communities and the effects of national language planning (pp. 151–162). Amster-
dam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Tuominen, A. (1999). Who decides the home language? A look at multilingual families. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language, 140(1), 59–76. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1999.140.59
UNESCO. (2003). Language vitality and endangerment. Paper presented at the UNESCO Programme
Safeguarding of Endangered Languages, Paris, France.
224

Vollmann, R., & Soon, T. W. (2018). Chinese identities in multilingual Malaysia. Grazer Linguistische
Studien, 89, 35–61. doi:10.25364/04.45:2018.89.3
Wang, X. M. (2005). Mandarin spread and mass media: Focusing on Muar and Batu Pahat in the state
of Johor, Malaysia. The Journal of Chinese Sociolinguistics, 2, 185–195.
Wang, X. M. (2007). The interaction of ethnic identification and language spread in the context of Ma-
laysian Chinese community. The Journal of Chinese Sociolinguistics, 1, 40–53.
Wang, X. M. (2009). The spread of Mandarin in Malaysia: Evidence in language choice in public set-
tings. Journal of Modern Languages, 19, 207–224.
Wang, X. M. (2010). The sociolinguistic realignment in the Chinese community in Kuala Lumpur: Past,
present and future. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(5), 479–489. doi:10.10
80/01434632.2010.505656
Wang, X. M. (2012). Mandarin spread in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.
Wang, X. M. (2014). Chinese education in Malaysia: Past and present. In L. C.-C. Xiao & A. Hancock
(Eds.), Learning Chinese in diasporic communities: Many pathways to being Chinese (pp. 139–157).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wang, X. M. (2016a). The Chinese language in the Asian diaspora: A Malaysian experience. In G.
Leiner, A. Hashim, & H. G. Wolf (Eds.), Communicating with Asia: The future of English as a global
language (pp. 205–215). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, X. M. (2016b). Language maintenance or language shift? The role of religion in a Hakka Catholic
community in Malaysia. International Multilingual Research Journal, 10(4), 273–288. doi:10.1080/1
9313152.2016.1192850
Wang, X. M. (2017). Family language policy by Hakkas in Balik Pulau, Penang. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language: Special Issue on Language Planning and Multilingual Malaysia, 224,
87–118. doi:10.1515/ijsl-2016-0058
Warschauer, M. (1998). Technology and indigenous language revitalization: Analyzing the experience
of Hawai’i. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(1), 140–161. doi:10.3138/cmlr.55.1.139
Yen, C. H. (1992). Studies in overseas Chinese history. Singapore: Singapore Society of Asian Studies.
Yen, C. H. (2000). Historical background. In K. H. Lee & C. B. Tan (Eds.), The Chinese in Malaysia
(pp. 1–36). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
ADDITIONAL READING
Asmah, H. O. (1992). The linguistic scenery in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.
Clyne, M., & Kipp, S. (1997). Trends and changes in the home language use and shift in Australia, 1986-1996.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(6), 451–473. doi:10.1080/01434639708666334
225

David, M. K., Naji, I. M. H., & Kaur, S. (2003). Language maintenance or language shift among the
Punjabi Sikh community in the Klang Valley, Malaysia. International Journal of the Sociology of Lan-
guage, 161, 1-24. doi: 0165-2516/03/0161-0001
David, M. K., & Noor, F. N. M. (1999). Language maintenance or language shift in the Portuguese
settlement of Malacca in Malaysia? Migracijske teme: A Journal for Migration, 15(4), 465-481.
Hatoss, A. (2005). Do multicultural policies work? Language maintenance and acculturation in two
vintages of the Hungarian diaspora in Queensland, Australia. In J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad
& J. MacSwan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1001-1009).
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Kow, K. Y. C. (2003). Language shift and language maintenance in mixed marriages: A case study of a
Malaysian-Chinese family. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 161, 81–90. doi:10.1515/
ijsl.2003.030
Lee, E., Wong, S. P., & Laxman, L. (2014). Language maintenance and cultural viability in the Haina-
nese community: A case study of the Melaka Hainanese. Athens Journal of Humanities and Arts, 1(2),
157–168. doi:10.30958/ajha.1-2-6
Meek, B. A. (2011). We are our language: An ethnography of language revitalisation in a Northern
Athabaskan community. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Pauwels, A. (2008). Language maintenance. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied
linguistics (pp. 719–737). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Zhang, D. (2010). Language maintenance and language shift among Chinese immigrant par-
ents and their second-generation children in the U.S. Bilingual Research Journal, 33(1), 42–60.
doi:10.1080/15235881003733258
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Chinese Community Languages: Chinese languages, also known as Chinese dialects, traditionally
brought by Chinese immigrants when they came to Malaya for trade and work.
Language Maintenance: The process by which languages continue to be spoken by a speech com-
munity despite facing competition from dominant or global language(s).
Language Shift: The process of replacing a language with another as the means of communication
and socialisation for both an individual and a speech community.
Language Use: The process of making meaning through the usage of language(s) for communica-
tion and socialisation purposes.
Languages of Wider Communication: Global languages, such as Mandarin Chinese and English,
that are learnt and spoken by majority of the population in the world.
Penang: A state located in northern Malaysia and consisted of two parts: Penang Island and Seberang
Perai, with George Town as its capital. In this study, Penang refers to Penang Island.
Penang Hokkien: The variety of Hokkien that was formed after the Chinese immigrants settled in
Penang. It has a distinctive accent and incorporated vocabulary of Bahasa Melayu, Cantonese, and English.
226
APPENDIX
Table 2. Participant Profile for Official Actors
Name Gender Age Group Languages Spoken Origin

Michael M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Cantonese
Marco M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien Malay
Naresh M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Teochew Teochew
Daniel M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Hokkien
Adrian M 2 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Teochew
Michelle F 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka Hakka
William M 2 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Teochew Hokkien
Nicholas M 2 Malay, English, Tamil Indian
Craig M 2 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka Hakka
Sam M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Teochew
Adam M 1 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Cantonese
Kenneth M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Cantonese, Hakka Hakka
Suzy F 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Thai, Swedish Hokkien
Table 3. Participant Profile for Community Actors
Name Gender Age Group Languages Spoken Origin

Stephan M 2 Malay, English, Penang Hokkien Hokkien
Benjamin M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Teochew
New
Elizabeth F 3 English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien
Zealander
Steven M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Hokkien
Bolton M 1 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Hokkien
Wayne M 1 English, Penang Hokkien Hokkien
Lisa F 2 Malay, English, Penang Hokkien Hokkien
Andrew M 1 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka Hakka
Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hainanese,
Neil M 2 Cantonese
Taishan
Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hainanese,
Smith M 3 Hainanese
Korean, French
Gareth M 1 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Teochew
Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew,
Jackson M 2 Hainanese
Hainanese
Adriana F 3 Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Hokkien
227
Table 4. Participant Profile for Grassroots Actors
Age
Name Gender Languages Spoken Origin
Group
Emily F 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Hokkien
Damien M 2 Malay, English, Penang Hokkien, Hainanese Hainanese
Toby M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Taishan Cantonese
Irene F 1 Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Cantonese
Jack M 1 Malay, English, Penang Hokkien Hokkien
Ian M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Hokkien
Timmy M 1 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Teochew Teochew
Danny M 1 English, Mandarin Chinese, Cantonese Cantonese
Mary F 1 Malay, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Cantonese
Cliff M 2 Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hainanese Hainanese
Robert M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Hokkien
Annette F 2 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Hokkien
Lynn F 2 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Teochew
Gary M 2 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Hainanese
Andy M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Hakka, Teochew Hokkien
Luke M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka Hakka
Susan F 3 Malay, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka Hakka
Heather F 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese Taishan
David M 3 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Cantonese, Teochew Teochew
Agnes F 2 Malay, English, Mandarin Chinese, Penang Hokkien, Hainanese Hainanese
1
Source: Generated by Kretzer, M. M. (2018), using Global Administrative Areas (GADM).
228
View publication stats

Selective Language Maintenance in Multilingual Malaysia: April 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selective Language Maintenance in Multilingual Malaysia: April 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Selective Language Maintenance in Multilingual Malaysia: April 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Selective Language Maintenance in Multilingual Malaysia

Chapter · April 2020

Selim Ben Said

Creativity and Language Play in Multilingual Advertising in Taiwan View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Selim Ben Said

The Concept of Domain

A socio-cultural construct abstracted from topics of communication, relationships between communica-

The Chinese Community in Malaysia

Penang and the Chinese Community

1. Bahasa Melayu: Saya baca buku (S-V-O).

Table 1. Penang Hokkien lexis versus Hokkien lexis.

Participants and Interviews

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Table 2. Participant Profile for Official Actors

Name Gender Age Group Languages Spoken Origin

Table 3. Participant Profile for Community Actors

Name Gender Age Group Languages Spoken Origin

Table 4. Participant Profile for Grassroots Actors

View publication stats

You might also like