Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
PERCEPTIONS OF ENGLISH SYNTACTIC VARIANTS:
A COMPARISON BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN
AND MALAYSIAN TEACHERS
Khaw Li Lian
INTI International University, Malaysia (lilian.khaw@newinti.edu.my)
ABSTRACT
Teachers are a key professional group in the evaluation of language use, and their attitude toward language
variation not only affects the acceptance of a language variety in a classroom, but also in a speech community.
This study seeks to identify the syntactic variants of English used by Malaysian tertiary students in formal
writing and to gauge tertiary teachers’ perceptions of their writing, comparing the perceptions of Malaysian
tertiary teachers and those of their Australian counterparts.
The data collection is divided into two stages, the first generating typical texts – job application letters from
Malaysian final-year tertiary students studying in Australia – which are then assessed by, respectively,
Malaysian and Australian teachers appropriate to the level.
The findings show that there are significant differences in perceptions of language usage between the two
groups of teachers. The findings also corroborate much that has been documented over decades about Malaysian
English, showing essentially that change in what is acceptable English usage is continuing to occur. The
educational implications of these findings within the Malaysian government's espoused position on English and
internationalisation, on the one hand, and the reality of the differences between local and international standards
on the other are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
Like many other countries in Kachru’s (1992) Outer Circle, Malaysia is experiencing a
tension between the process of localisation within its borders and the desire to compete
abroad using Standard English. This is a common dilemma facing New Englishes. As
Anchimbe (2009: 279) aptly puts it,
While it is generally accepted that these are varieties in their own accord, the issue
of them having autonomous standard seem to linger on.
In countries where New Englishes are spoken, there have been moves towards the adoption
of more realistic endonormative de facto standard varieties which are based on the local
norms, instead of on an exonormative standard. The adoption of an endonormative standard,
based on the local acrolect, has been endorsed strongly by Kachru and embraced by many
scholars since 1970s. The proposed moves have sparked off heated debate among scholars for
years, especially in countries classified as in the Outer Circle. The adoption of a local norm is
at issue mainly because of the pull between national identity and international intelligibility
(Crystal, 1997). The debate has also been complicated by the notion of ‘standard’ used by
different scholars, as pointed out by Newbrook (1997). Malaysia, like many countries in the
Outer Circle, is faced with this dilemma.
1
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Schneider (2003b) claims that the English language in Malaysia has deeply progressed into
phase 3 Nativization of his Dynamic Model of the Evolution of New Englishes, the middle of
five phases: Foundation, Enxonormative Stabilization, Nativization, Endonormative
Stabilization, Differentiation. In this phase, English in use acquires significant structural
changes, and many syntactic variants have been identified by ME scholars and researchers
(e.g., Tongue, 1979; Platt & Weber, 1980; Wong, 1983; Baskaran, 1987).
Gill (2002) claims that the English in Malaysia has come to the Pragmatic PostIndependence/Exonormative Phase. However, it is also admitted by Gill (2002:46) that the
codification of an endonormative standard is a process which has not yet begun. Since this is
the case, it can be said that the English language in Malaysia is still in the
Independent/liberation and Expansion Phase of Gill’s model, or in phase 3 nativisation of
Schneider’s model.
The findings of earlier research (Tongue, 1974; Platt & Weber, 1980) reveal that some usages
have been nativised in Malaysians’ linguistic repertoires, but those findings are mostly based
on spoken data. Findings of previous studies have also shown that there is a trend for some
syntactic variants, generally known as Malaysian English, to be accepted in the written mode
(Suppiah,1983; Baskaran, 1987). Soo (1990) has even predicted that full acceptance of the
mesolect in the written mode is just a matter of time. However, in terms of the written
language, the extent of nativisation has not been extensively researched.
Most previous studies focused on the standard for intra-group communication, and the
standard for inter-group communication has not been extensively explored. This study seeks
to identify the syntactic variants of English used by Malaysian tertiary students in formal
writing and to gauge tertiary teachers’ perceptions of their writing, comparing the perceptions
of Malaysian tertiary teachers and those of their Australian counterparts.
METHOD
Substantial empirical examples of ME features provided by researchers more than 20 years
ago (Tongue, 1979; Platt & Weber, 1980) testified that Malaysian English (ME) was indeed
in a state typical of nativization. It can thus be expected that in today’s ME, these features
will be commonly in use in the language of Malaysians. For its first aim, the appearance of
these features in samples of formal language use produced by young, educated Malaysians is
investigated.
Step 1: Generation of Texts
20 Malaysian final-year tertiary students studying in Australian universities were recruited on
a voluntary basis to write a job application letter. Participants were enrolled in MalaysianAustralian 2+1 degree programs which were run in collaboration between Malaysian private
tertiary institutions and their Australian partner universities. From an educational perspective,
students in these courses were in the upper band of their age cohort in Malaysia. They had
completed their first and second years of study in Malaysia, and were undertaking the final
year of their study in Australia. While they had the advantage of a short period of influence
from standard Australian English, none of the students had been long in Australia (all less
than one semester). All had taken 'Business English' – or an equivalent subject – in their
tertiary study and were thus equipped with knowledge of letter format, and the tone and
2
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
language of formal writing in business. The students were asked to write a job application
letter responding to an advertisement.
Step 2: Generation of Data
The second step was to have the letters assessed by Malaysian teachers and by Australian
teachers.
(i) Participants
The scope of this study, and time and cost constraints, did not allow recruitment of the
teacher assessors to be conducted on a nationwide scale, or even from a random sample.
From a different perspective, such an impersonal and remote approach also seemed
potentially counter-productive, as what was required were teachers who might take the task
seriously and be prepared to open up and expose their own learning and linguistic values. As
a result, a networking approach to recruitment through professional and personal contacts in a
sufficiently varied spread of institutions seemed suitable. The basic criteria for acceptance
were:
1. English/ESL teachers
2. Relevant academic qualification (e.g. Master of Education, Master of TESOL)
3. Currently teaching in tertiary institutions
4. At least five years of teaching experience
Twelve teachers teaching in Malaysian higher institutions and eleven teachers teaching in
Australian higher institutions were recruited to assess the 20 letters written by Malaysian
tertiary students.
Because of sampling limitations, the judgements of both groups of teachers were not taken to
represent those of the whole teacher population in each country. However, as professionals in
the field from a spread of institutions, their judgments were taken to reasonably reflect the
professional standard of gatekeepers in the field of education in each country.
(ii) Task
Both groups of teachers were asked to record any usage that they deemed deviated from the
standard they would accept, and also to provide reasons for rejecting those items.
1. Grammar
a. The teachers first noted the grammatical items which they deemed deviated from
the standard they would accept.
b. Then they were to provide reasons why these grammatical items were not
acceptable and give a suitable alternative for each.
2. Vocabulary
a. The teachers were first asked to note the words or phrases they did not understand,
did not accept, or would not use themselves.
b. Then they were to provide reasons why these words or phrases were not
acceptable and give a suitable alternative for each.
3
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The 20 letters assessed by both groups of teachers were first analyzed for content by listing
all the examples of unacceptable syntactic usages recorded by each group. The reasons for
rejection of these usages provided by each group of teachers were also recorded and then
classified into linguistic categories.
In addition to syntactic features, lexical items which the two groups of teachers perceived
differently were also recorded. These items were labelled disputed usages. Teachers’
rejections of these usages were also tallied and converted into percentages. A Spearman rho
correlation test was carried out to examine correlations in the language perceptions of the two
groups.
FINDINGS & DISCUSSIONS
Syntactic Variants
The linguistic items rejected by teachers were categorised and shown in the following table.
There were 31 different types of unacceptable linguistic features identified by the Australian
teachers and the Malaysian teachers, respectively.
Table 1: Unacceptable syntactic features marked by teachers
Unacceptable linguistic features identified
by the Malaysian teachers
No. of
Examples
Unacceptable linguistic features identified by
the Australian teachers
No. of
Examples
1. Absence of articles
2. Use of different preposition
3. Incorrect use of tense
4. No marking of gerund
5. Individualizing or pluralizing
uncountable nouns
6. Wrong word form
7. Wrong verb form
8. Ellipsis of copula
9. Plural form not needed
10. Incorrect use of article
11. No marking of plural-s
12. Misspelling
13. SVA
14. No marking of past tense verbs
15. Unnecessary article
16. Redundant preposition
17. Lack of conjunction
18. Incorrect use of conjunction
19. Wrong use of relative pronoun
20. Plural form not needed
21. Missing word
22. Capital letter needed
23. No marking of present tense singular
verbs
21
19
9
6
1. Absence of articles
2. Use of different preposition
3. Incorrect use of tense
4. No marking of plural-s
19
16
10
8
4
5. Wrong verb form
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6. No marking of gerund
7. Individualizing or pluralizing
uncountable
nouns
8. Ellipsis of copula
9. Wrong word form
10. Plural form not needed
11. Unnecessary article
12. No marking of past tense verbs
13. Incorrect use of article
14. Missing word/phrase
15. Capital letter needed
16. Misspelling
17. Incorrect use of relative pronoun
18. No marking of present tense singular
19.
Incorrect use of conjunction
verbs
20. Redundant preposition
21. Omission of preposition
22. Problematic sentence structure
23. Incorrect use of ‘such as’
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
24. Omission of preposition
25. Incorrect use of ‘such as’
26. Omission of pronoun object it
27. No marking of noun group
28. Wrong word order
29. Incorrect phrase (adj + prep + ing)
30. Wrong use of contraction
31. Past participle required
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24. No marking of noun group
25. Lack of possessive
26. Past participle required
27. Wrong word order
28. Wrong use of contraction
29. Punctuation
30. Incorrect phrase (adj + prep + ing)
31. SVA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Of all the categories of unacceptable syntactic feature marked by teachers, ten ME features at
the mesolectal level were identified, with reference to the literature (Tongue, 1979; Platt &
Weber, 1980; Wong 1981, 1983; Baskaran 1987). The ten mesolectal features were no
marking of past tense verbs, no marking of present tense singular verbs, no marking of
plural-s, individualizing or pluralizing uncountable nouns, absence of articles, use of
different preposition, redundant preposition, omission of preposition, omission of pronoun
object-it, and ellipsis of copula. A syntactic feature no marking of gerund which occurred at a
fairly high level of frequency in students’ letter was classified as quasi mesolectal feature.
Teachers’ rejections of each example of these syntactic mesolectal were tallied and converted
into percentages.
Teachers’ Judgments of Syntactic Variants
A Spearman rho correlation test showed no statistically significant correlation between the
two groups of teachers in terms of their judgments of the mesolectal features. In other words,
the judgments of the Malaysian teachers and Australian teachers differed greatly. In general,
the Malaysian teachers rejected fewer mesolectal features than the Australian teachers did,
and even if both groups of teachers rejected a feature, the rejection rate was often much
higher in the Australian teacher group.
Table 2: Syntactic features rejected by teachers
Syntactic features
MTG
Average
rejection
rate (N=12)
MTG
Ranking
ATG
Average
rejection
rate (N=11)
ATG
Ranking
1. No marking of past tense verbs
2. No marking of present tense singular verbs
3. No marking of plural-s
4. Individualising or pluralizing uncountable nouns
5. Absence of articles
37.5%
45.9%
15.6%
16.7%
33.7%
6
4
10
9
7
70.5%
63.6%
73.3%
72.7%
52.8%
6
7
4
5
9
6. Use of different preposition
7. Omission of preposition
8. Redundant preposition
9. Omission of pronoun object- it
10. Ellipsis of copula
11. No marking of gerund
31.9%
41.7%
12.5%
58.3%
68.3%
66.7%
8
5
11
3
1
2
42.8%
63.6%
74.6%
0%
76.3%
90.9%
10
8
3
11
2
1
MTG= Malaysian Teacher Group
ATG= Australian Teacher Group
Overall average rejection rate =39%
Overall average rejection rate = 61.9%
5
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Table 3: Scale of Rejection Frequency (syntactical variants)
Syntactic
Features
Very Low
0-10%
MTG
ATG
Low
11-38%
MTG
ATG
Middling
high
39-65%
MTG ATG
High
66%-90%
MTG
ATG
1. No marking of past tense verbs
2. No marking of present tense
singular verbs
3. No marking of plural-s



4. Individualising or pluralizing
uncountable nouns
5. Absence of articles
6. Use of different preposition
7. Omission of preposition


8. Redundant preposition
9. Omission of pronoun object-it
10. Ellipsis of copula
11. No marking of gerund


ATG






MTG= Malaysian Teacher Group
MTG



Very High
91-100%






ATG= Australian Teach
A majority of teachers (>60%) from both groups rejected ellipsis of copula, but the rejection
rate was 8% higher in the Australian group than in the Malaysian group. Likewise, a majority
of teachers from both groups rejected the quasi mesolectal feature, no marking of gerund, but
the rejection rate in the Australian group was about 24% higher than that in the Malaysian
group.
Four mesolectal features had low rejection by the Malaysian teachers but high rejection by
the Australian teachers: no marking of past tense verbs, no marking of plural-s,
individualizing or pluralizing uncountable nouns and redundant preposition.
Differences in judgment between the two groups of teachers were particularly salient with
respect to several mesolectal usages. The most striking example concerned the use of seek
for. This usage was marked unacceptable by 91% of the Australian teachers but by only
16.7% Malaysian teachers. Another example was the use of the term academic qualification.
82% of the Australian teachers marked the usage unacceptable and insisted that the plural
form qualifications was needed, but not even one Malaysian teacher rejected the word in the
singular form. In addition, the Malaysian teachers’ judgments of individualizing or
pluralizing uncountable nouns were also very different from the Australian teachers’
judgments. The use of softwares and employments was rejected by 73% of the Australian
teachers, but was fully accepted by the Malaysian teachers. Another strong contrast was
apparent in the teachers’ judgments of the use of experiences for work experience. This was
rejected by 73% of the Australian teachers but only by 33% of the Malaysian teachers.
Tongue (1979) and other researchers have claimed that omission of pronoun object-it is a
typical feature in ME writing, However, the findings showed that it was tolerated by all the
Australian teachers, but rejected by 58% of the Malaysian teachers.
6
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
The judgments of both groups were both inconsistent with respect to use of different
preposition, omission of preposition and absence of articles. Contradictions were evident
from example to example within each group.
On average, the mesolectal features attracted a rejection rate of 39% in the Malaysian teacher
group and 61.9% in the Australian teacher group, indicating that the mesolectal features were
perceived as unacceptable by more Australian teachers than the Malaysian teachers.
In sum, the Malaysian teachers rejected fewer mesolectal features than the Australian
teachers and the rejection rate of each mesolectal feature, except omission of pronoun objectit, was higher in the Australian teacher group than in the Malaysian teacher group. With this
evidence, we can thus conclude that in this study the Malaysian teachers were in general
more accepting than the Australian teachers of the mesolectal features.
Teachers’ Judgments of Lexical Variants
In addition, phrases such as fresh graduate, working experience, work experience, post and
for your inspection were judged very differently by the two groups. The phrase working
experience was not rejected by any of the Malaysian teachers but it attracted an average
rejection rate of 90.9% among the Australian teachers. The phrase work experience attracted
a rejection rate of 25% among the Malaysian teachers but it was not rejected by any of the
Australian teachers. The phrase fresh graduate was not rejected by any of the Malaysian
teachers but it attracted an average rejection rate of 72.7% among the Australian teachers.
The phrase for your inspection was not rejected by any of the Malaysian teachers but it
attracted a rejection rate of 45.5% among the Australian teachers. Both fresh graduate and
working experience were rejected by the majority of the Australian teachers but were fully
accepted by the Malaysian teachers. It implies that the two expressions may be treated as
norms in the Malaysian sociolinguistic context.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Pedagogical Recommendations for Teaching Formal Writing
Attitudes toward mesolectal features have been sought in several research studies (Suppiah,
1983; Baskaran, 1987; Soo, 1990). All found that teachers were generally positive toward the
use of the mesolect in the spoken mode, and they had also accepted certain mesolectal usages
in the written mode. In addition, some mesolectal features have also been found in the major
English newspapers and public notices in Malaysia (Newbrook, 1997; Schneider, 2003b).
The syntactic variants detected in this study are in line with some syntactic features of
Malaysian English at the mesolectal level found from various sources (Tongue, 1979; Platt &
Weber, 1980; Platt, 1982; Wong, 1983; Baskaran, 1987).
The findings of this study show evidence that the appearance of certain mesolectal features in
formal writing identified are considered errors by both groups of teachers. However,
Malaysian teachers are more positive towards these so-called errors (some of which are also
known as features of ME at the mesolectal level). Mesolectal features such as no marking of
plural-s are highly accepted by Malaysian teachers. Other mesolectal features are also
becoming acceptable to the Malaysian respondents of this study. It can be concluded that
7
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Malaysian teachers are comparatively much more positive towards these features than the
Australian teachers are. The findings corroborate much that has been documented over
decades about Malaysian English, showing essentially that change in what is acceptable
English usage is continuing to occur.
These have considerable implications for the teaching of formal writing. In Malaysia, because
text books still adhere to the teaching of Standard English as far as syntax is concerned, the
use of mesolectal features by tertiary students and the high acceptance of mesolectal features
by teachers show that there is a gap between pedagogical standard and what people actually
uphold as standard in practice. In her paper analyzing Standard English in the world, Gupta
(2006) has advised that
Learners should be encouraged to get evidence from usage. They should be encouraged to
restrict themselves to Standard English: the deliberate use of non-standard dialects requires
great care. But there should not be an emphasis on areas of disputed usage. Teachers should
do their best to establish what they should correct firmly, what they should correct
tentatively, and what they should accept as correct. It is only by close attention to usage that
this can be established. (2006:108)
There are two things about this, which deserve the attention of educational policy makers in
Malaysia. First, it is imperative to decide the target norm, be it exonormative or
endonormative, which is expected to help achieve the national educational goals, set by the
government. Second, it is necessary to formulate a pedagogical model which states the norm
clearly so that it may be upheld by the speakers and users within the education system
without confusion.
These serve as good guidelines for teachers teaching English, especially writing, not only in
Malaysia but also in other countries across the Inner, Outer or Expanding circles. However, it
is suggested that to do this effectively, teachers need information and support from scholars
and the government.
Only if Malaysians become aware of the reality of local and international norms, can they
choose to use one or the other to their advantage, and not find themselves inadvertently
penalized for their usage. As advised by Kirkpatrick (2007: 197), in the teaching of English,
therefore, the goals set and the models adopted should be appropriate and relevant to the
norms and needs of the learners and users of English.
English for International and -cultural Communications
The existence of English varieties is a fact and the cultural influences embedded in those
varieties are diverse and complex. Even when standards for formal writing as well as spoken
English are set, language variations caused by regional and cultural differences are always
found.
Language is changed, modified and adapted by its users to suit different speech communities
and their respective socio-cultural contexts, resulting in regional usages that are unfamiliar to
others. From time to time, English users will find themselves adapting to local variants to
meet fresh communicative needs. The findings of this study show that there were significant
differences in attitude between the Australian respondents and the Malaysian respondents
8
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
toward certain usages, implying that there are variations and differences in language use
between the two speech communities.
Take ‘fresh graduate’ and ‘working experience’ for examples. These are the expressions
commonly used in Malaysia, and even in advertisements and press; however, they are not
accepted by the majority of the Australia teachers. Likewise, ‘work experience’ is not
accepted by most Malaysian teachers.
In general, views on syntactic variants such as use of different preposition, omission of
preposition and absence of articles are less disputable than views on ellipsis of copula and no
marking of gerund.
A linguistic feature typical of one speech community may not be accepted in the other. As
English spreads across borders, its users need to be sensitive to and aware of the differences
in language use in different sociolinguistic contexts.
REFERENCES
Anchimbe, E.A. (2009). Local or International Standards: Indigenized Varieties of English
at the Crossroads. In F. Sharifian (ed.) English as an International Language: Perspectives
and Pedagogical Issues. Multilingual Matters.
Baskaran, L. (1987). Aspects of Malaysian English Syntax. Unpublished Ph.D, University of
London.
Baskaran, L. (1994). The Malaysian English Mosaic. English Today 37, 10(1), 27-32.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gill, S.K. (1993). Standards and pedagogical norms for teaching English in Malaysia. World
Englishes, 12(2), 223-238.
Gill, S.K. (1999). Standards and emerging linguistic realities in the Malaysian workplace.
World Englishes, 18(2), 215-233.
Gill, S.K. (2002). International communication: English language challenges for Malaysia.
Malaysia: Universiti Putra Malaysia Press.
Gupta, A.F. (1998). Singapore Colloquial English or Deviant Standard English? In J. Tent &
F. Mugler (Eds), SICOL: proceedings of the Second International Conference on Oceanic
Linguistics: vol.1, Language Contact (pp 43-57). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
Gupta, A.F. (2005/2006). Standard English and Borneo. Southeast Asia: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 79-94.
Gupta, A.F. (2006). Standard English in the World. In R. Rubdy & M. Saraceni (Eds.),
English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles (pp. 95-109). London: Continuum.
9
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Hashim, A. (1998). Memorandum writing in a banking organization. In P. Robinson and N.
Jungheim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Pacific Second Language Research Forum (pp. 1523). Tokyo: Pacific Second Language Research Forum.
Hashim, A. (2003). Grammar and Identity in Malaysian Discourse. In J. E. James (Ed.),
Grammar in the Language Classroom (pp. 91-116). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional
Language Centre.
Kachru, Braj B. (1992). Teaching World Englishes. In Braj B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other
Tongue: English across Cultures (2 ed. pp. 355-365). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kirkpatrick, A. (2007). World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and
English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry of Education. (2003). Curriculum Specifications for English, Form Five. Malaysia:
Curriculum Development Centre.
Morais, E. (1997). Talking in English but thinking like a Malaysian: Insights from a car
assembly plant. In M. S. Halimah & K. S. Ng (Eds.), English is an Asian Language: The
Malaysian Context (pp. 90-105). Kuala Lumpur: Persatuan Bahasa Moden Malaysia, Sydney:
Macquarie Library.
Morais, E. (1998). Language choice in a Malaysian car-assembly plant. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language, 130, 89-105.
Morais, E. (2001). Lectal varieties of Malaysian English. In V. Ooi (Ed.), Evolving Identities:
The English Language in Singapore and Malaysia (pp. 33-52). Singapore: Times Academic
Press.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (1994). Standard English
Anachronistic Definitions and Current Relevance.
the International English Language Education
Challenges and Responses (pp. 322-330). Bangi:
Malaysia.
and English Language Education: Of
In S. K. Gill et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of
Conference-National and International
Language Centre, Universiti Kebangsaan
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2000a). Language Choice and Communication in Malaysian Business.
Bangi: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Newbrook, M. (1993). Which English? Institutionalised second-language varieties of English
in Asia and the implications for educators: The cases of Singapore and Hong Kong. Journal
of Intercultural Studies, 14(1), 1-17.
Newbrook, M. (1997). Malaysian English: status, norms, some grammatical and lexical
features. In E. Schneider (Ed.), New English: studies in honour of Manfred Görlach (pp. 229256). Amsterdam; New York: John Benjamins Pub Co.
Newbrook, M. (1998). The attitudes and beliefs of some educated Malaysians with respect to
grammatical and lexical features of Malaysian English. Te Reo, 41, 163-177.
10
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Ngeow, Y.H., Soo, K.S. & Crismore, A. (2003). Workplace perceptions and attitudes toward
standard English use: the case of Malaysia. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 13(2),
231-267.
Platt, J. (1982). English in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. In R. Bailey & M. Görlach
(Eds.), English as a World Language (pp. 384-414). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur; Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Platt, J., Weber, H. & Ho, M. L. (1984). The New Englishes. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Puvenesvary, M. (2003). English language proficiency at the workplace: expectations of bank
officers in Malaysia. Asian Englishes, 6(2), 64-81.
Schneider, E.W. (2003a). The dynamics of New Englishes: from identity construction to
dialect birth. Language, 79(3), 233-281.
Schneider, E.W. (2003b). Evolutionary patterns of New Englishes and the special case of
Malaysian English. Asian Englishes, 6(2), 44-63.
Soo, K.S. (1990). Malaysian English at the crossroads: some sign-posts. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 11(3), 199-214.
Suppiah, s. o. R. (1983). Attitudes of teachers towards the new variety of Malaysian English.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Tongue, R.K. (1974). The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern University
Press.
Tongue, R.K. (1979). The English of Singapore and Malaysia (2nd ed.). Singapore: Eastern
University Press.
Wong, I.F.H. (1981). English in Malaysia. In L. Smith (Ed.), English for Cross Cultural
Communication (pp. 94-107). New York: St. Martin's Press
Wong, I.F.H. (1983). Simplification features in the structure of Colloquial Malaysian
English. In R. B. Noss (Ed.), Varieties of English in South East Asia (pp. 125-149).
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
11