저 시 2.0 한민

는 아래 조건 르는 경 에 한하여 게

l 저 물 복제, 포, 전송, 전시, 공연 송할 수 습니다.

l 차적 저 물 성할 수 습니다.

l 저 물 리 목적 할 수 습니다.

다 과 같 조건 라야 합니다:

l 하는, 저 물 나 포 경 , 저 물에 적 된 허락조건 명확하게 나타내어야 합니다.

l 저 터 허가를 면 러한 조건들 적 되지 않습니다.

저 에 른 리는 내 에 하여 향 지 않습니다.

것 허락규약(Legal Code) 해하 쉽게 약한 것 니다.

Disclaimer

저 시. 하는 원저 를 시하여야 합니다.

문학석사학위 청구논문

맹글리쉬 담화 첨사에 관한 연구: 말레이시아인 설문 조사를 통하여

A Study of Discourse Particles in Manglish: A Survey on Malaysians

2012 년 2 월

인하대학교 대학원

영어영문학과 (영어학 전공)

Muhammad Firdaus Bin Norhan

어학석사학위 청구논문

맹글리쉬 담화 첨사에 관한 연구: 말레이시아인 설문 조사를 통하여

A Study of Discourse Particles in Manglish: A Survey on Malaysians

2012 년 2 월

지도교수 노은주

이 논문을 석사학위 논문으로 제출함

맹글리쉬 담화 첨사에 관한 연구: 말레이시아인 설문 조사를

통하여

A Study of Discourse Particles in Manglish: A Survey on

Malaysians

By:

Muhammad Firdaus Bin Norhan

A THESIS

Submitted to the faculty of

INHA UNIVERSITY

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of English Language and Literature

February 2012

이 논문을 Muhammad Firdaus Bin Norhan 의 어학석사학위

논문으로 인정함

2012 년 2 월

주심_________________________ (인)

부심_________________________ (인)

위원_________________________ (인)

i

Acknowledgement

The journey which has been a great struggle has finally ended. I am so blessed by

God who has bestowed me with so much happiness, joy, guidance, family and friends who

have been my backbone by supporting me throughout the way. I always believed that after a

rain, there will be a rainbow; after hurdles there will be solace. Thank you very much to my

adviser Prof. Noh Eun-Ju for her support and supervision. There are literally no words that

can express my gratitude for your kindness. Thank you too, Prof. Hong Soon Hyun and Prof.

Lee Byung Choon, for your comments and remarks. To my family, thank you for the

understanding and support, and especially to my sister Norashidah, who is always there

working unofficially as my part time counsellor.

Thank you to NIIED and Inha University who have given me the opportunity to further

studies in South Korea, I am forever in your debt. To all my Korean friends, especially those

from Open Sesame: Park Sangwon, Lee Gi Se, Lee Jin Sung and the rest, thank you very

much for your companionship. Not to mention Mr. Nurzid and Ms. Bilqis, for always being by

my side cheering me up especially in those darkest hours. Last but not least, thank you for

both Mr. Michael Nelson and Mr. Colin Patinson who have proofread my thesis. I have never

felt so blessed!

ii

국문 요약

맹글리쉬 담화 첨사에 관한 연구: 말레이시아인 설문 조사를 통하여

맹글리쉬는 단어, 숙어 그리고 문장구조 등에서 여러 가지 특별한 특징을 가지고

있어 만은 외국인의 관심을 받아왔다. 맹글리쉬는 말레이어와 영어, 그 밖의 고유의

언어들의 특징을 동시에 포함하고 있는, 말레이시아 여러 언어들의 집합체이다.

그동안 맹글리쉬에 대한 연구는 매우 빈약하였고, 담화 첨사에 대한 연구는 특히

매우 제한적이다. 담화 첨사는 문맥과 상황에 따라 특정한 감정을 강조하는, 화용적

차원의 의미를 전달하는 단일 형태소적인 표현이다.

이 연구의 목적은 현재 맹글리쉬에서 사용되는 이런 담화 첨사들을 연구하는

것이다. 연구 구요 내용은, 맹글리쉬에 대한 일반 말레이시아 인들의 인식을

조사하고, 담화 첨사의 문장 내 위치, 즉, 각 담화 첨사들이 문장의 앞, 중간, 또는

문장의 끝에서 사용될 수 있는가를 조사하는 것이다. 그동안 이들 첨사들의 가능한

위치에 대해서는 지속적인 논의가 있어 왔는데, 대체적그로 문장의 끝에서만

사용된다고 주장한 사람들과 문장의 앞, 중간, 끝 모두에 사용될 수 있다고 주장한

사람들이 있었다. 실험 참가자는 말레이시아인 40명이며, 실험은 이들과의 인터뷰,

설문 조사 등을 통하여 이루어졌다.

본 연구의 결과는 (1) 말레이시아 인들은 대체로 맹글리쉬를 그들의 의사 소통

수단의 하나로 받아들이거나 중립적인 자세를 취하고 있으며, 80%의 응답자가 자주

혹은 때때로 맹글리쉬를 사용하는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 맹글리쉬의 특징으로 담화

첨사를 꼽은 응답자가 가장 많았다. (2) 담화 첨사의 문장 내 사용위치는 첨사의

종류에 따라 다르며, 대체적으로 문장의 끝에 가장 많이 사용되는 것으로 나타났다.

본 연구의 결과를 통하여, 맹글리쉬에 대한 말레이시아 인들의 인식을 파악하고,

그동안 소홀히 취급되었던 가장 빈빈히 사용되는 맹글리쉬의 담화 첨사 10종료의

기능, 문장 내 위치, 사용 의미를 일부 파악하게 되었다. 좀더 포괄적이고 깊이 있는

연구가 요구된다.

iii

M. A Thesis

Abstract

A Study of Discourse Particles in Manglish: A Survey on Malaysians

Ranging from its several distinctive features such as vocabulary, idioms, and syntax,

etc., Manglish has notoriously dazzled many foreigners. Manglish is a portmanteau of many

languages in Malaysia including Malay and many other vernacular languages assimilated

with English at the same time. Research done on Manglish was rather scanty and limited

especially on a subject called discourse particles. Discourse particles are monomorphemic

expressions used to encode meaning on pragmatic level in which it emphasises certain

emotive locutions based on contexts and circumstances.

The purpose of this study was to investigate discourse particles, a phenomenon that

has existed in Manglish hitherto. The focus was given to the possible positions of Manglish

discourse particles whether they can be placed at the front, middle and/or the end of a

sentence. There is a continuing argument about the possible positions: some believed that

the particles can only be placed at the final-positions, some on the other hand believed that it

could be placed either at the front, middle or end positions. In an endeavour of finding the

possible positions, the research was done via survey and polls, blended with qualitative

interviews on 40 Malaysians as participants. The raw survey data gathered from the

questionnaire was analysed.

The result of this research shows (1) that most Malaysians accept Manglish as one of

their communicative norms, or have a neutral attitude towards it, and they select discourse

particles as the most important feature of Manglish and (2) that the possible positions in a

sentence vary depending on each discourse particle and the final-position is the most

frequently chosen as the best-fitted position.

Through this research, we came to understand Malaysians’ perception of Manglish and

the functions, meanings, and positions in a sentence of 10 most used Manglish discourse

particles, which have been rarely dealt with until now. Further comprehensive and profound

research is required.

iv

Acknowledgement…………………………………………………………….. Abstract (Korean)………………………………………………………………. Abstract (English)………………………………………………………………... Table of Contents……………………………………………………………….. List of Graphs and Tables……………………………………………………… 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..

1.1 Contextual Overview……………………………………………… 1.2 The Research Questions………………………………………….. 1.3 The Hypothesis……………………………………………………… 1.4 Explanation of Key Items…………………………………………. 1.5 Limitation……………………………………………………………..

2. Languages in Malaysia……………………………………………………. 2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………. 2.2 English in Malaysia………………………………………………….

2.2.1 Background………………………………………………….. 2.2.2 The Current Status of English in Malaysia……………….

2.3 Malaysian English (ME)…………………………………………….. 2.4 Manglish……………………………………………………………….

3. Literature Review…………………………………………………………….. 3.1 Manglish Discourse Particles……………………………………….

3.1.1 Lah………………………………………………………………. 3.1.2 Kan……………………………………………………………… 3.1.3 Ma………………………………………………………………. 3.1.4 Meh……………………………………………………………… 3.1.5 One……………………………………………………………… 3.1.6 What…………………………………………………………….. 3.1.7 Ah………………………………………………………………… 3.1.8 Hor………………………………………………………………... 3.1.9 Man………………………………………………………………. 3.1.10 Liao……………………………………………………………….

3.2 Positions of Manglish Discourse Particles………………………… 4. Research Design and Methodology……………………………………….

4.1 Participants…………………………………………………………….. 4.2 Materials………………………………………………………………… 4.3 Data Gathering………………………………………………………… 4.4 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………

5. Findings and Discussion……………………………………………………… 5.1 Malaysians’ Perception of Languages in Malaysia………………

5.1.1 British English versus American English……………………. 5.1.2 Malaysian English……………………………………………… 5.1.3 Manglish………………………………………………………….

5.2 The Positions of Discourse Particles in Manglish………………….. 5.2.1 Lah………………………………………………………………... 5.2.2 Kan………………………………………………………………..

i ii iii iv vi

1 1 4 4 4 6 8 8 9 9

10 14 15 18 18 20 22 23 23 24 25 26 26 27 27 28 30 30 36 36 37 39 39 39 41 42 44 45 47

v

5.2.3 Ma………………………………………………………………… 5.2.4 Meh………………………………………………………………. 5.2.5 One………………………………………………………………. 5.2.6 What……………………………………………………………… 5.2.7 Hor………………………………………………………………… 5.2.8 Ah…………………………………………………………………. 5.2.9 Man………………………………………………………………. 5.2.10 Liao………………………………………………………………..

5.3 Summary…………………………………………………………………. 6. The Conclusion…………………………………………………………………

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………. Appendix………………………………………………………………………..

48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 62 67

vi

Illustration: Figures and Tables Page

Figures

Figure 1: Kachru’s Three Concentric Circles Figure 2: Types of English in Malaysia Figure 3: An Example of Particle lah Used as a Design on a T-shirt Figure 4: Gender of Participants Figure 5: Age of Participants Figure 6: Race of Participants Figure 7: The L1 of Participants Figure 8: The Number of Languages each Participant can speak Figure 9: The Usage of English in Daily Life Figure 10: Places which Participants use English Figure 11: English Preference Figure 12: The Frequency of Manglish Usage Figure 13: The possible positions of Particle lah Figure 14: The possible positions of Particle kan Figure 15: The possible positions of Particle ma Figure 16: The possible positions of Particle meh Figure 17: The possible positions of Particle one Figure 18: The possible positions of Particle what Figure 19: The possible positions of Particle hor Figure 20: The possible positions of Particle ah Figure 21: The possible positions of Particle man Figure 22: The possible positions of Particle liao Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5:

Criteria for Participants Participants’ preference for Vocabulary between British English and American English Perception of Malaysian English Features of Manglish Possible positions of the Discourse Particles

11 13 21 31 32 34 34 35 35 36 39 43 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 55 56 57

30 40 41

44 57

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Contextual Overview

English has often been claimed as the real world lingua franca by many. The impact of

English on the rest of the world is indeed undeniable. For instance, many countries

nowadays have employed English as either a Second Language (ESL) or as a Foreign

Language (EFL) into their education system. In the case of Malaysia, English is compulsorily

at school as a second language (ESL).

It is indeed quite intriguing when we think of how language actually works. For instance,

why does it have to be ‘catch a disease’ instead of ‘fall in disease’? And why it has to be ‘fall

in love’ instead of ’catch a love’? In English, ‘fall in disease’ might sound awkward but in

Malay1jatuh sakit or ‘fall in disease’ is taken as a perfect sense to any Malay speakers.

Let’s take another example, in Standard English (SE)2 medicine should be taken and not

eaten. However, in Malaysians views, it is not awkward to say “eat your medicine” because

in Malay they say makan ubat (eat medicine) and not ambil ubat (take medicine). Ambil

ubat is used in a context where a person goes to a chemist/pharmacy to ‘take his/her

medicine’ but it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘to consume the medicine as swallowing it via the

throat’. As naturally as it is, Malaysians put or change the language phonologically,

syntactically, etc. in order to adapt English into their own Weltanschauung3, for example

syntactically, “I also can swim-lah” instead of “I too can swim” or “I can also swim” (Solomon

& Chuah, 2003)

1Malay, bahasa Malaysia and bahasa Melayu are terms used interchangeably to refer to Malaysia’s national language. In this paper, the term Malay will be used to refer to this language. 2 Standard English (SE) refers to whatever form of English used as a norm in an Anglophone country (see 1.4) 3Weltanschauung is a concept widely used in philosophy which means a particular philosophy or view of life - how human relate the universe with humanity. It usually denotes a perspective and interpretation and its event held in a sustained way by an individual or a group. For further information please read: Ashmore, J., 1966. Three Aspects of Weltanschauung, The Sociological Quarterly, 7: 215–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1966.tb01689.x

2

This is rather a small comparison between the two languages. However if we look at the

bigger picture, the question isn’t so intricate especially when we go back to the basics that

language was arbitrarily and conventionally made by its community – the people who use it.

The community agreed upon a ‘social contract’ that a symbol will represent something (c.f.

Tomasello, 2008).

This phenomenon can be seen even amongst varieties of English which we consider

native English – British, American, Canadian, Australian English, etc. English in the United

States and English in the United Kingdom have differences let alone English that has been

used in Malaysia, in view of the fact that English is not even its national language despite it

being widely used as lingua franca.

“Language also reflects one’s self identity and is indispensable for social interactions in a society. We perform different roles at different times in different situations in society. Consciously or subconsciously, we speak differently depending on where we come from, whom we talk to, where the conversation is carried out, what purposes we have, etc. For example, southerners in America tend to speak with an accent different from, say, that of native New Yorkers… All languages are variable, and they reflect our individual identity, as well as social and cultural aspects of a society… (Bergmann, Hall, & Ross, 2007)

Language reflects identity albeit the notion of the identity is still debatable by many. Be

that as it may, language is inevitably interrelated with the culture where it is used. So there is

no way English in Malaysia, which was once claimed to be exactly like British English, would

still sound the same as it was used4 (c.f. Noor Firdaus, 2009). In addition, English in

Malaysia has amalgamated with not only English but various other languages and dialects

spoken in Malaysia hence creating what we know today as Manglish.

Manglish has always been ‘a bone of contention’ to many Malaysians, and has been

laden with many controversies and paradoxical issues. For instance, the Malaysian

government, one of many opponents of Manglish, has strongly discouraged its usage by

fining users $300 for a second offence5. In addition, Manglish has also been criticised by

4According to Wong, 1983 quoted by Noor Firdaus Binti Ramli @ Yusof, 2009, even now standard Malaysian English is near native, which means it is almost similar to the Standard Native English (SE) variety with only a slight variation in terms of pronunciation and lexis 5 CBC News (2006), "Thumbs down on Manglish, Malaysia Says – World, CBC News” Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2006/10/06/manglish.html on 14th December 2011.

3

both Malaysian Anglophiles and Malay language devotees as being an ignominy for both the

English and Malay languages. Countless seminars have been organised in order to re-purify

the sanctity of both languages, especially Malay. These seminars have been one of many

attempts in cultivating awareness about using accurate and grammatical Malay whilst at the

same time preventing Malaysian Colloquial English6, also known simply as Manglish, which

is claimed to have rampantly spread amongst Malaysians (Azahari, 2007).

The Malaysian government is definitely not the only organisation which has essayed

such attempts. The Académie française for example has regularly issued stern injunctions

against using words like weekend and Okay; however no ordinary speaker of French pays

them the slightest bit of attention (B. Kachru et.al, 2009). Similar to the French, many

Malaysians are inclined to use Manglish as a part of their lives. Even if the person does not

use Manglish, many have accepted it as a part of Malaysian culture.

When Manglish comes into the picture, Malaysians and foreigners alike would think of its

discourse particles especially lah. Although having several distinctive qualities, such as

vocabulary and sentence structure, discourse particles are undeniably one of the most

important features of Manglish. This paper is an endeavour of examining the phenomenon of

discourse particles in Manglish.

Particle lah is one of many discourse particles that exist in Manglish. At first glance,

many would consider the particles as innocent little words that do not contribute anything to

the sentence – this is partly true. Discourse particles might not contribute any meaning at

semantics level. However, discourse particles play important roles especially in utterances.

Discourse particles are used by Malaysians as an implicit expression that implies feelings at

paralinguistic levels such as expressing happiness, resentment, astonishment, contempt, etc.

without being explicitly unequivocal about it.

6 Henceforth Malaysian Colloquial English would be referred as Manglish.

4

1.2 The Research Questions

There are three research questions which this study aims to answer.

1) What are the perceptions of Malaysians towards English, Malaysian

English, and Manglish?

2) What are the current attitudes towards Manglish?

3) Could discourse particles be considered as the most important feature of

Manglish? If yes, what is the possible position? Front, middle or at the

end of a sentence? Or do they work arbitrarily?

1.3 The Hypotheses The hypotheses were made based on the research questions. These are the

hypotheses that this research aims to examine:

Hypothesis 1: Malaysians are aware of Manglish as part of Malaysian culture.

Hypothesis 2: Attitudes towards Manglish is generally positive due to

multilingualism that exists in Malaysia.

Hypothesis 3: There are invisible rules regarding Manglish that people are

normally unaware of especially regarding the position of the discourse particles.

1.4 Explanation of Key Items

There is a plethora of research already conducted hence myriads of terminologies and

coin words exist. Many of them overlap and coincide with one another. For simplicity, here is

a list of all the terms employed in this thesis:

i. Discourse Particle: discourse particle is either a lexeme or particle believed to

have no direct meaning semantically. However, discourse particle has a meaning

5

at a pragmatic level for example when emphasising and steering the flow of

dialogues. Sometimes used synonymously with discourse makers.

ii. English as a Foreign Language (EFL): An environment where students

learn English in a formal classroom setting, with limited or no opportunities for

use outside the classroom in which English does not play an important role in

internal communication (China, Japan, Korea etc.)

iii. English as a Native Language (ENL): An environment where English is taught

as a native language. Students acquire the language since early childhood

because it is spoken in the family and/or it is the language of where they are

living.

iv. English as a Second Language (ESL): In a loose sense, English is the second

language for anyone who learns it after learning their first language in infancy

while at home. However, someone who learns English in a setting in which the

language is necessary for everyday life is considered as learning it as the second

language for example an immigrant learning English in the United States (US) or

in a country in which English plays an important role in education, business, and

government (Singapore, Malaysia, India, etc.)

v. First Language (L1): (generally) a person’s mother tongue or the language

acquired first which is often used synonymously with native language.

vi. Malaysian English (ME): Malaysian version of Standard English (SE).

vii. Malay: a language that is spoken in Malaysia as the language of unification and

patriotism. Also known as bahasa Melayu and bahasa Malaysia.

viii. Manglish: an English based Creole used in Malaysia. Normally used at informal

settings such as at a market or on the street.

6

ix. Singlish: a language based on English-based Creole and spoken in Singapore.

Used in informal settings.

x. Standard English (SE): the English language which is accepted as a national

norm in an Anglophone country i.e. British English, American English, etc.

xi. The Positions:

a. Front: Front position implies the initial position or the beginning of a

sentence.

b. Middle: Middle is relatively between the beginning and the end of a

sentence.

c. End: End position is a position situated at the end of a sentence.

1.5 Limitation

Participants’ experience and usages were taken and used to shore up most of

arguments employed in this research hence suggesting the usage of empirical data as

evidence. Many of the data was the result of real usage and most importantly analysed

empirically by the participants themselves. Based on the notion that experience might vary

from one person to another, there might be some differences and arguments between views.

The usage of discourse particles itself is closely related to the places where the

participants live, their surroundings, and many other reasons. For example, Malaysians who

live in East Malaysia used bah instead of lah. Furthermore, Chinese Malaysians have

tendencies to use different versions of pronunciation e.g. lar, la, lor etc. based on two

reasons: mother tongue and choices. Many of the discourse particles which will be

discussed at greater length in the next chapter were believed to be originated from Chinese

dialects. These particles nevertheless would not be treated individually but standardised into

one version for example in the case of lar, la, and lor, the particles would be changed into lah.

7

Furthermore, except for all the particles provided by the questionnaire, some of the

participants did suggest some particles that they use a lot in their lives. For example kot, eh

and dey amongst many others would not be discussed in detail.

Last but not least, this research is done based on survey which implies experimental

exploration of Manglish discourse particles’ position. The results might not be applicable to

all types of sentences but to three sentences provided in the questionnaire.

8

2. Languages in Malaysia

2.1 Introduction

There have been many researches done in the area of Malaysian English (ME), starting

back from the commencement of ME to the recent studies. The introductory of ME such as

its history and background could be found in Asmah Haji Omar (1992), Rajadurai (2010),

and David, M. K. (2004), just to name a few.

Apart from academic papers and theses, few books have been written on ME but there

is only a few specifically written research documents elucidating the phenomenon of

Manglish. Thus, there are at least two major reasons why this study has been considered as

important:

First, related to the usage of particles in Manglish, as far as we understand, there has

been only one M.A thesis written by Lee, P. S. (1982) exists hitherto. In addition, the papers

dealing with Manglish provide only one or two paragraphs explaining the particles.

Second, since Malaysia and Singapore are located next to each other and the fact that

Manglish and Singaporean informal English i.e. Singlish are considered as the ‘same

difference’, Manglish seems to be overshadowed by Singlish most of the time. Singapore

with its great influential power in the region has enticed many researchers to execute studies

on its Singlish rather than on Manglish. This is similar to the phenomenon of American

English and Canadian English, etc. they are always considered as similar with nominal

differences. There is a tendency of say Canadian English is similar to American English

rather than conversely. Manglish too needs to be studied based on its own since Singlish

and Manglish are not entirely the same language. However since research on Manglish

discourse particles is scanty and limited at best, this paper is inclined to use researches

which have been done on Singlish. Lee (1982), who dedicated her thesis on explaining

Manglish discourse particles, did not make any distinction between Singlish and Manglish

since Singlish and Manglish are considered to have ‘a very close relationship’ (Platt & Weber,

1980). Thus, in order to explain the position of Manglish researches about Singlish particles

which can be found in Gupta, A.F (1992) and Wong, J. (2004), etc. will be used.

9

2.2 English in Malaysia

2.2.1 Background

When the European continent was keen on maritime explorations: Portugal with its title

as the first global empire, who had already been to Africa (1419), and the Dutch who had

been to the New World (1492), Great Britain on the other hand has just begun their journey

to the world of Imperialism (Juang & Morrissette, 2008). Here, imperialism suggests the

building of empires, wherein one country rules many other countries. Albeit being quite a late

imperialist, the British Empire has been claimed to be the most extensive empire in world

history. By 1914, the British Empire has already exercised sovereignty over India (population

of 322 million people) and sixty dependent colonies populated by 5.2 million natives (O'Brien,

1988).

Abstractly described in the infamous poem; “the white man burden” by Rudyard Kipling7,

the empire spread their territory and influence to the rest of the world. They did everything on

principle8 and it was their responsibility to make this world a better place. Although some

might think conversely, the vindication is always on their side; it was always for the sake of

civilisation and for humanitarian aid9 (McCrum, 1998).

When the imperialists annexed a foreign land they did not solely build their empire but

spread their culture and language in the process. Naturally as one of the many

consequences, the English language spread throughout the world and became the lingua

franca in many countries especially in its colonies.

7Kipling, R., The White Man's Burden, McClure's Magazine 12 Feb. 1899#.The poem could be read here: http://mrmanos.com/documents/WhiteMansBurden.pdf. 8 This is according to George Bernard Shaws in McCrum, 1998. One can never find “an Englishman in the wrong, everything was done on principle; he (the Englishman) fights on principle, he robs you on business principles; and he enslaves you on imperial principles”. 9Although Kipling's poem mixed exhortation to empire with sober warnings of the costs involved, imperialists within the United States understood the phrase "white man's burden" as a characterisation for imperialism that justified the policy as a noble enterprise. For further information please visit: http://pediaview.com/openpedia/The_White_Man's_Burden

10

“And so the stage was set for the triumphant march of the English language to the ends of the earth. The Age of Discovery transformed the world’s view of horizon and limitation, as the frigates and brigs and men o’war set out under full sail from this tiny island of England and the Union Jack was planted on alien terrain such as India, Australia, Hong Kong, and America. It is inconceivable that in the minds of these captains and men or those who had sent them lurked even an inkling of what their ultimate and most enduring achievement would be”(Kachru, 2006).

In the case of Malaysia, the English language was brought to the Malay Peninsula in the

mid-18th century with the colonisation of the region by the British. Thus, the language spread

into the land and in the late 19th century, the introduction of the English medium schools

made English the language of the elite (Asmah, 2000). Upon independence in 1957, English

was still the medium of instructions in schools. However, to encourage the growth of the

national language i.e. Malay and to promote national unity, the National Education Policy

(1971) was introduced whereby the National Language replaced English as the medium of

instruction in schools in Malaysia and English was relegated to a second language position

(Asmah, 1993 & Abdullah, 2005 quoted from Indira, 2000).

2.2.2 The Current Status of English in Malaysia

According to Kachru, 1992, Malaysia is placed in the outer circle together with

Singapore, India and the Philippines. Most of these countries were ex-colonies of

imperialists back in the imperialism era. Malaysia and Singapore were conquered by the

British whilst the Philippines was once under the rule of the Spanish and then by America.

11

Countries in which the majority of the population consist of native speakers of English

are placed in Kachru’s inner-circle comprising the United Kingdom, the United States of

America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The expanding circle consists of countries

such as Japan and China where English has a foreign language status (EFL). The number

of English learners in many of these countries is rapidly increasing and they are also starting

to learn English at a younger age (Graddol, 2006 quoted from Indira, 2008)

Nevertheless to surmise that English is used as a second language in Malaysia as a

whole is quite a conjecture since in Malaysia, English is widely used at different levels, there

are marked differences in proficiency and different reasons for its usage. Many Malaysians

in the rural interior regions of Malaysia seldom hear or use English apart from their English

lessons in the classroom context. Many in these regions of the country are able to function

without the use of English thus, relegating the language further to function as a foreign

language (EFL) (Choong, 2003; Benson, 1990, quoted from Indira, 2008)

On the contrary, 2% of the entire population used English as their first language (L1)

(Crystal, 2003). These include expatriates from English as a native language (ENL)

countries who are working in Malaysia or who have immigrated, the Eurasian community

(typically those of Portuguese and Dutch descent) and those of mixed parentage (Pillai,

2006). There also exists a small group of mostly Chinese and Indians and some Malays in

the urban areas that use English at home (Asmah, 1991).

Most Malaysians are multilingual or at least bilingual. At a functional level, bilinguals

often switch varieties in order to communicate something beyond the superficiality of their

(Figure 1: Kachru’s Three Concentric Circles)

12

words. Monolinguals can do this also, by switching between dialects, registers, level of

formality, intonations, etc. (Gardner-Chloros, 2009).

English in Malaysia has been categorised into three levels: acrolect, mesolect and

basilect. Based on Baskaran (1987) quoted by Sidhu (2010), acrolect is near native in which

people look upon English as their primary language (L1). Only Malaysians who are educated

in core English-speaking countries from early schooling up to university may be found to

speak the acrolect variety, and only small percentage of Malaysians are proficient at it

(Asmah, 2001). These people can speak English so well that they are impeccably similar to

any English varieties spoken within the country they resided in. On the other hand, people

who speak English at mesolect level are mostly from those who are educated or working

professionally in the English-related fields or/and using the language for communication

means in their daily lives. Most Malaysians who speak the language are from this category.

As for basilect, it is spoken by those who are not fluent in the language, have little grasp of

grammar and are heavily dependent on their L1: Malay or other dialects such as Hokkien,

Cantonese, or Tamil, etc. This is the type of English where people are forced by

circumstances to speak English, for example a sidewalk vendor bargaining with tourists or

those who are suddenly being approached by foreigners asking for directions. It is claimed

that most Malaysians who are living in the urban areas are speaking English at mesolect

level whilst people who are from rural areas are only capable of speaking English at the

basilect level (Sidhu, 2010)

Types of Malaysian English could be summarised into Figure 2:

13

Nonetheless it should be taken into account that some people in Malaysia can speak

English at all levels of proficiency i.e. acrolect, mesolect, and basilect and they choose when

to use which level of proficiency on an occasion and to a different type of people. This

phenomenon can be seen as in Tong, 1974:

“Anyone who has been only a short time in these countries [Singapore and Malaysia] will have had the remarkable experience of listening to a speaker who has been conversing in near-native discourse suddenly switch to a very informal version of English [Singlish and Manglish] when he speaks to someone familiar only with the substandard form, or chats on the telephone with an intimate friend.” Acrolect is the educated model of language, typically regarded as grammatically “correct” and used as a model for teaching in school. Singlish or Manglish, on the other hand, is used in daily social interaction and reflects the speaker’s situational and communicative needs. It is a language, in other words, that is shaped and developed by Singaporeans and Malaysians for their own use in informal situations. It is to this variety that Singaporeans and Malaysians in general fall upon naturally and use in varying degrees when speaking with one another. And it is to this variety of spoken Singlish and Manglish that foreigners are most likely to be exposed, either through listening to local people talking to one another or when addressed by a Singaporean or a Malaysian when the latter is feeling relaxed and friendly.

(Figure 2: Types of English in Malaysia)

14

2.3 Malaysian English (ME)

English, similar to German and Chinese, is a pluricentric language, which means

more than one variety exists, and Malaysian English (henceforth ME) is another variety of

it. The name Anglo-Malay has been used to describe the variety that emerged during

the colonial times amongst expatriates and local elites, serving as the vehicle through

which such words as compound/kampong, durian, orang-utan, and sarong have

passed into SE (McArthur, 1998). Today, it is known as either Malaysian English (ME) or

Malaysian Standard English (MySE).

Malaysian English (ME) is often associated with its neighbouring variant of English

which is Singaporean English, since both have much in common, with the main exception

that English in Malaysia is more subject to influence from Malay (McArthur, 1998). Being

the legacy left by the British, ME was claimed to be similar with the English used in the

UK itself, however after independence (1957) the influx of American pop culture such as

TV programmes, and music via mass media has influenced the usage of ME.

Nonetheless, up until now BrE pronunciations are still preferable and taught in public

schools. Received Pronunciation (RP) or BBC English is used as a model of

pronunciation in the English language curriculum in Malaysia (Jayapalan & Pillai, 2011).

ME differs slightly from Standard English (SE) in terms of pronunciation and

vocabulary. For example, in terms of vocabulary, “outstation” is used instead of “out of

town”, “bus stand” instead of “bus stop” (Holden & Singh, 2006). Pronunciation on the

other hand, is generally different from one race to another race. For example, Chinese

who have Chinese-accent have a tendency to substitute between “l” and “r”, as in ‘craw’

for claw and final laterals, fall as ‘foh’, and bowl as ‘bou’

15

2.4 Manglish

Manglish should not be confused with ME since both are two different entities. ME as

aforementioned is the Malaysian version of Standard English whilst Manglish is a street-

version of it, which is used informally.

Manglish is a portmanteau of various languages that exist in Malaysia including

Malay, Chinese, Tamil and many others that have been assimilated with English at the

same time. Manglish, also referred to as Colloquial Malaysian English, Rojak Language,

or Maglish, is used by many Malaysians, especially in informal settings where they do not

have to worry about being prescriptively and grammatically correct.

Everything most likely started when two speakers of two different mutually

incomprehensible languages reacted with each other. The speakers tried to complement

each other by borrowing or lending words from their respective languages, hence

eventually creating a pidgin. A pidgin basically is a language that is a mixture of two other

languages, when people who do not speak each other's languages well use to talk to

each other (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 4th Edition, 2006). The

commencement of such a language probably started back when speakers of two mutually

incomprehensible languages tried to have a conversation with each other. In this example,

an analogy will be used.

Two different persons are trying to understand each other’s message. One Chinese

who speaks Mandarin as his mother tongue and also speaks a little bit of English, whilst

another one person, who is Malay, and speaks Malay as his native language, but does

not know any Mandarin and also speaks poor English. To make the conversation a

success, these two persons opt for a language in which both can understand, so they

choose English as the medium of the conversation. Unfortunately, both of these people

have a rather poor grasp of English, but the message is still delivered somehow through

accurate but not fluent English. As a result, in the end the conversation is still considered

a success, since the message was successfully conveyed, but of course with a poor

command of English.

This story iterates over the course of hundreds of years. The poor English regardless

of vocabulary, sentence structure or any linguistics features has been passed on to the

16

next generation. This next generation however has the opportunity to go to school and

acquire a better proficiency of the language. Nevertheless, the poor English that has been

passed throughout the generation has become a culture to the people, and this nativised

culture is known as a Creole language. Instead of thinking the Creole as an incorrect

language, the community usually accepts it as a culture and normally feels nothing wrong

with using it.

Pidgin and Creole can be described as below:

(1) a. Definition of pidgin A pidgin is a language with no native speakers: it is not a first language but rather is a contact language.

b. Definition of Creole In contrast to a pidgin, a Creole is often defined as a pidgin that has become the first language of a new generation of speakers. (Wardhaugh 2006: 61–3)

Manglish can be considered both a pidgin and a creole since Malaysians speak with

different kinds of English proficiency. Those who speak English or Manglish as L1

speakers, make Manglish a creole since they utilise the language to some extent and use

it frequently or occasionally. However, Manglish becomes a pidgin when it is used only as

a contact language amongst different races in Malaysia, for instance a Malay who only

uses Manglish when communicating with a Chinese Malaysian or an Indian Malaysian.

The term Manglish is widely used as a reference to Malaysian Colloquial English.

However, besides that, Manglish is also known and used to denote another concept:

1. The term Manglish10 is also used to refer to colloquial Malayalam - a Dravidian

language spoken in the extreme south-western India11

10 For further information please read Vinod-Chandra S. S. et.al (2011) Linguistic Colouring using Support Vector Machines at http://research.ijcaonline.org/volume31/number4/pxc3875269.pdf 11 The definition is taken from Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, 2006

17

2. The term Manglish also refers to English used in Manga (Japanese comic). The

Manga is originally in Japanese but if someone runs their mouse over the text, they

will get the English translation of it instantly.12

12 Originally the news could be found at http://mdn.mainichi msn.co.jp/entertainment/etc/manglish/index.html. However it seems that the link is currently dead (22nd November 2011)

18

3. Literature Review

3.1 Manglish Discourse Particles

Particles exist abundantly in spoken language rather than in written ones (Stede &

Schmitz, 2000). Particles in language are a unit of speech expressing some general

aspect of meaning or some connective or limiting relation, including the articles, most

prepositions and conjunctions, and some interjections and adverbs (Merriam-Webster

Collegiate® Dictionary, 2008).

Particles refer to a small group of words mostly made up of adverbs and prepositions.

They are closely linked to verbs to form multi-word verbs, for example, sit down, go

away, go astray, look forward to, look down on13. Other particles include not, and to

used with an infinitive (Carter & McCarthy, 2006).

Particles are not a rare occurrence in many languages in the world. Japanese, for

instance, has many particles that exist in its language. In a matter of fact, it also has its

own dictionary explaining particles (Kawashima, 1999). Korean also has particles as a

part of its grammar, with particles such as 은/는 (eun/neun), 이/가, (i/ga) and 을/를

(eul/reul) that are used in order to mark or identify respectively, the subject, object, or the

topic of a sentence (Ihm & Chang, 2001).

However, there is a subtle difference between discourse markers and particles.

Discourse makers are generally used to refer to a class of linguistic elements which are

distinguished by their function of marking relationships between units of discourse and

the meaning they encode. This term is intended to indicate or signal how one unit of

discourse is related to the prior utterance (Schiffrin, 1987 quoted from Choi, 2007).

Discourse makers such as and and well help to indicate the location of utterances within

the emerging structures, meanings and action of discourses, hence helping listener and

speaker to produce a ‘plane of talk’ or in other words coherence (Schriffin, 1987 quoted

from Choi, 2007).

Discourse markers also known by many other terms such as pragmatic expression,

utterance particle, discourse connectives, discourse operators and discourse particles

13 The italic words are the particles

19

(Lay, 2005). These terms are employed to explain the similar phenomenon of particles in

many languages; German (Stede & Schmitz, 2000; Karagjosova, 2000), Japanese (Davis,

2008), and French (Waters, 2000) amongst many others. However, in this paper the term

discourse particle will be employed elucidating the phenomenon of the particles in

Manglish.

The term discourse particle as a reference to Manglish particles itself has roused

many paradoxical issues. Many terms have been coined in order to explain the

phenomenon of the particles. According to Lay (2005), discourse particles are

monomorphemic expression which encode propositional attitude. However, Lee (1982)

chose to simply use ‘particle’ as a term to refer to the same notion.

Tongue (1979) on the other hand, chose to define lah as “this word, or particle, or

syllable or call it what you will”. However, in the same paper, he deals with man and aa?

or ah? under a different category which he called ‘filler’.

“I am using the term ‘filler’ to indicate an item of language which communicates no particular denotative meaning but which is used to indicate emotive, affective attitudes of the speaker, or sometimes simply to ‘fill’ a pause or a moment of hesitation or reflection in the stream of speech” (Tongue 1979, quoted from Lee 1982)

Furthermore, Lee (2005) itemised ah, lah, man, meh, one, and what defining

them as tail words. According to her, all those tail words do not carry any meanings by

themselves but are used in specific contexts. The rules of it are not learnt but come

naturally after being exposed to Manglish for a long time. Consider sentences a, and b

below:

(2) a. Can do me a favour ah?

(Could you be so kind as to do me a favour?)

b. Ei, free come over lah. So long never see you!

(When you are free, do drop by!) (Lee, 1998)

20

Particle ah in (2a) is one of many discourse particles of Manglish. The sentences

in (2) could be comprehended even without the linguistic knowledge of what ah is or

its meaning or function. For any Malaysians, sentences as stated above are very

natural especially in an informal context.

In linguistics, although the particles do not have any direct semantic meaning in

the context of the utterances, they actually have a pragmatic function (Hansen, 1998).

First they are used where speakers have the urge to emphasise their expressions. For

instance, instead of saying “where are you going?” Malaysians in Manglish have the

tendency to put the particle lah or ah at the end of the sentence giving more impact to

the question resulting to the expression of “where (are) you going ah?” etc.

In English the many occurrences of well, oh, let’s see and others are a typical

dialogue phenomenon similar to the Manglish phenomenon. At the first sight, they

seem to be innocent little words that contribute diminutively to the propositional

information conveyed; however, they do play important roles in steering the flow of the

dialogue and in conveying various attitudes and expectations of the speaker. (Stede &

Schmitz: 2000) However, different from English, discourse particles in Manglish are

used in spoken language rather than in written form which implies casualness and in

written form they indicate an informal or jocular tone (Hansen, 1998). Based on this

reason, this paper begs to differ and uses the term discourse particle which shows that

those particles cannot be used in a formal setting by any means.

Based on the questionnaire, the ten most used Manglish particles by participants

are:

3.1.1 Lah

The origin of particle lah in Manglish is still debatable because it exists in Malay,

Cantonese and Hokkien (two of the Chinese dialects). In Cantonese and Hokkien the

character is (啦) /la/. According to Tongue (1974), lah originates from the Malay

language whereas Luke (1990) believed that lah is originated from Cantonese.

Richards & Tay (1977) however had a conclusion that lah in Hokkien and lah used in

Singlish are but two of the same particles, hence he believed that lah in Hokkien

21

penetrated Singapore English because it is used to such an extent where Hokkien

speakers may have felt the need for a final particle even when they are speaking in

English (Lee, 1982).

Lah is the most popular discourse particle of Manglish and it has been discussed

by many writers and researchers. According to Kamus Dewan Bahasa edisi

Keempat (2004), lah in Malay is a particle situated at the end of a word to make the

meaning of the word stronger (emphasis).

The particle lah can be used as a separate item or grafted onto words to add

emphasis. It is a common characteristic of informal conversation, Preshous (2001).

The usage of lah has a variety of reasons, ranging from emphasis to softening the

message, Lee (2005).

Lah is authentically Malaysian because the particle could not be found anywhere

else (except in Singlish). In addition, the particle lah itself is widely used to represent

Manglish. This phenomenon could be seen as in Figure 3 in which it is used as a

design on a t-shirt.

(3) A. Let’s go to JB boleh ah?

B. Okay lah.

(Figure 3: An Example of Particle lah Used as a Design on a T-shirt)

22

In (3) A and B are driving a car heading to a place called Malacca. However

instead of going to Malacca which is the original plan, A asked B if they could go to JB

(Johore Bharu). The particle ah in the sentence implies that A is asking B a question

with hopes that B won’t be angry at him for changing the plan. The particle implies that

the question is just a mere suggestion and not an imperative proposition.

B then answered ‘Okay’ with particle lah attached with it. Lah in this sentence

suggests that it is okay to do so. However, the enunciation of the particle affects the

meaning that goes behind the sentence. If the intonation is rising, it means that it is

okay by doing so but B is not happy with the decision. This is like saying ‘whatever’ in

a sarcastic tone. Nonetheless, if the intonation is monotonous, it implies that B is not

interested in going to Malacca and at the same time does not care about the

destination of which they are heading to in the first place. In addition, if the lah is

pronounced with a falling tone, it means that B is dissatisfied and feels rather sad with

the decision but still inclined with the change.

Particle lah conveys many social and culture values that transcends beyond the

superficial of sentences.

3.1.2 Kan

Kan is a particle used in spoken Malay and widely used in Manglish. Kan is

originated from Malay. In Malay kan is a short form of two words – bukan (literally

‘no’), and akan (literally ‘about to’, ‘shall’, ‘would’ etc.) (Kamus Dewan, 2004). It is

normally used to confirm something from the listener or to make sure that listener is

paying attention to what is being discussed at the moment. Despite of widely used,

kan has never been examined by any previous researchers. Nevertheless, based on

the result acquired from the questionnaire kan is the second most used particle

amongst the 10 particles provided by the questionnaire as in (4).

(4) A: You kan? The one that took my burger!?

B: It wasn’t me okay!

23

3.1.3 Ma

Ma comes from Chinese (Mandarin) (吗) /ma/. Gupta (1992) claims that the

particle ma is one of the two contradictory particles on her scales and serves ‘to

correct an interlocutor by presenting what is being said as an absolute and even

obvious fact’ (Lay, 2005). In Manglish ma is normally used at the end of an

interrogative sentence. However, it is also used to emphasise something that is

obvious to both the speaker and listener as in 5, a conversation between A and B:

(5) A: Ei, ini orang, sure nak kena one! (literally ‘hey this person, you will get

what you deserve’)

B: But I didn’t know ma! (‘It is obvious that I did not know about it in the first

place, isn’t it?’)

3.1.4 Meh

Meh comes from a Chinese particle which is derived from the Cantonese dialect:

(咩) /mei/ (Lee, 2005). Meh did not get as much attention as lah or what from

researchers but it is one of the most popular discourse particles in Manglish. Meh is

used as a mild form of questioning (Lee, 2005). Normally used when there is a conflict

or when there exists a disagreement between the speaker and listener.

(6) A: I want to speak with him, cannot meh?

B: Cannot lah, he’s busy ma!

Meh in A implies that there was a disagreement and conflict that happened in the

background. In the questionnaire, many participants translated meh as a symbol of

dissatisfaction and disagreement.

(7) I don’t want to go what! Cannot meh?

24

The translation:

a. I really don't feel like going. Please do not force me.

b. I am not planning to go. Is that a problem?

Previous researches of the particle meh can be found in Gupta (1992), Wong

(2000), and Lay (2005). According to Gupta (1992), the discourse particle meh falls

into the assertive category and ‘serves to express surprise or to question a preposition’.

In addition, a sense of surprise is added by meh to the question.

Wong (2000) on the other hand, considered meh as a concept of having an

invariant meaning, which is the opposite of what was thought to be true. For example,

it is used when A thought that something was true, but was shown by B that the truth

was the opposite of what he had thought (Lay, 2005).

3.1.5 One

One is a particle which can be found in Wong (2005), Gupta (1992), Goh & Woo

(2009) amongst many others. One is derived from Chinese nominalising particles /de/

(的) in Mandarin and /eh/ in Hokkien. It can be attached to both adjectives and verbs

(Goh & Woo, 2009). The particle is normally a result of a direct translation from

Chinese languages (including dialects) to English. Wong (2005),

(8) The particle: This one free one.

The translation of: (zhege mianfei de) (Wong, 2005)

One in Manglish should not be confused with one as in English. One in English is

essential if it is used as a number, pronoun, or determiner. However, in Manglish one

is optional, which is even without it the sentence can be well understood. Consider (9):

(9) This is my one, that is your one.

25

In (9), one is an example of particle one used in Manglish. Grammar of Standard

English should be put aside since in Manglish, grammar is not important. If the

sentence is translated into English, it would be ‘that is mine, and that is yours’.

However in Manglish, “one” is used as an emphatic expression nonetheless. It does

not contribute anything to the sentence semantically. The sentence would be

acceptable even if the particle one is omitted from the sentence.

According to Wong (2005), there is a method of distinguishing one as in Manglish

and one as in English. For instance:

(10) Don’t buy the box one!

In English (10) means ‘don’t buy the box box’. The box is expressed twice, hence

making it irrelevant. However, Manglish speakers use one as an emphatic particle to

stress about the box in the sentence. In this case, one is considered as a discourse

particle that is neither a number nor a pronoun.

3.1.6 What

What is another controversial discourse particle, since it is similar to what in

English. Gupta (1992), mentions that the particle what and the English what “are too

different to equate”. Lay (2005) also mentioned that what as a discourse marker in

English is also different from what which is used in Singlish. She then provides some

examples as in (11):

(11) a. This is Peter, so what one!

b. Don’t know what lah!

c. Going for what?

d. You know what?

26

According to her, if the what is the discourse particle, omitting it does not render

the sentence ungrammatical or change the propositional meaning. For instance (11b)

shall become “don’t know lah” or “don’t know” would be considered acceptable still.

Kwan-Terry (1978) on the other hand, called what as the ‘emotive particle’. The

discussion that she made was that it may be used variously to indicate emphasis,

obviousness, conjecture, disapproval, persuasion, authority or a general softening tone,

according to the context in which they are used and the intonation”

3.1.7 Ah

The particle ah has a wide array of meanings, ranging from emphasis to being

used as a question, depending on the intonation. Like lah it is most likely borrowed

from the vernacular dialects (Lee, 2005). Chang (1982) views ah as ‘highly

automatised element’ which has been transferred by Chinese speakers.

Furthermore, Gupta (1992) has states that ah has the highest frequency of usage

amongst many others discourse particles. Wong (2001) identifies several types of ah:

perlocutionary, vocative, emphatic, and perlocutionary as a question marker. Several

versions of spellings ah exists; hah (Lay, 2005), a (Wong, 2001), and aa? or ah?

(Tongue, 1979). The example of sentences using ah is in (12):

(12) A: Where are you going ah?

B: Wanna go shopping. Wanna come ah?

3.1.8 Hor

Hor has no real meaning, but it is used in two ways: 1) as a sentence break “you

know” or 2) as a tag soliciting one’s occurrence or response (Goh & Woo, 2009).

Gupta (1992) classifies hor as a tentative particle, used tentatively and ‘punctuating’

an utterance. One of Gupta example of Manglish is:

27

(13) That one ah – because ah, like us hor, is Jesus daughter and son ah

(Gupta, 1992).

Hor in the sentence (13) exemplifies the function of punctuating the utterance in the

stream of thoughts.

3.1.9 Man

According to Lee (2005), man did not originated from any vernacular languages

in Malaysia but instead was borrowed from most probably Black English due to

exposure from mass media. Particle man is genderless in which it can be used to

refer to either a male or a female listener.

Man was first mentioned by Killingley (1965). Man is regarded as another

emphatic marker as in (14).

(14) a. You will make a lousy parent man (I’m sure you will make a miserable

parent)

b. This is really too much of them man! (Oh well, they have really gone too

far this time)

3.1.10 Liao

Instead of using the past tense form, a change of state can be expressed

by adding already or liao /liɑ̂u/ at the end of a sentence, parallel to the Chinese

particle 了 /le/ (Zhimming, 1995). The usage of it doesn’t really accentuate past

tense, but more of an aspect, as it does not cover past habitual or continuous

occurrences, and it can refer to a real or hypothetical change of state in the past,

present or future (Zhimming, 1995).

The recurrent use of already (pronounced more like /oreddy/ and which is

often spelt that way) in Singlish and Manglish is probably a direct influence of the

Hokkien liao particle (Alsagoff, 2000). For example (15)

(15) I eat liao (I have eaten, I ate or I have started eating)

28

3.2 Positions of Manglish Discourse Particles

Although discourse particles are inevitably used by some users in Malaysia, they

are not irrationally used by placing the particles at all possible positions within a

sentence. For this elucidation, the particle lah would be employed.

Imagine a situation where a foreigner comes to Malaysia, and for him to adapt or

more interestingly be immersed with his surroundings, he wants to learn spoken

Manglish. To speak such a language, he unavoidably has to learn how to use the

particles, since the particles are some of the most important aspects of the lingo.

There are several possible positions for the particle to be placed.

(16) (1) give (2) me (3) some (4) bread (5)

As shown in (16), there are five possible positions for the particle lah in the

sentence. In this paper, these positions are divided into three, as in (17):

a. Front position: The front position could be understood as the initial

position of the sentence. Based on the example above, this

position is marked with number (1).

b. Middle position: The middle position covers all positions between

the front (1) and the end (5), subjectively amongst number 2 to

number 4 which is (2), (3), or (4).

c. End position: The end position is the last position which is marked

by number (5) in (15).

As mentioned previously, research on Manglish discourse particles is scanty and

limited at best. Lee (1982), who dedicated her thesis on explaining Manglish discourse

particles, did not make any distinction between Singlish and Manglish since Singlish and

Manglish are considered to have ‘a very close relationship’ (Platt & Weber, 1980). Thus,

(17)

29

in order to explain the position of Manglish particle this paper relied on researches which

have been done on Singlish.

Regarding the position of the particles, only casual mention has been made in the

literature. Killingley (1965) explained discourse particles, using the term ‘tags’, as

elements of speech that “always come at the end of a sentence” and “may consist of one

word or several”. She also explained that the ‘tags’ may combine with other ‘tags’ to form

a longer tag, for example, “actually lah”, “you know man”, “you know what”. Many

researchers have claimed that discourse particles could only exist at the end of a

sentence or exist as a tail word (which implies the same notion), for instance, Lee (2005).

In addition, Tay (1977), expressed the same idea in which he tried to explain the

discourse particles by comparing it with ‘sentence-final particles’ in Mandarin.

On the other hand, Wong (1981, quoted from Lee 1982) stated that discourse

particles “can occur either at mid-sentence or at the end” of a sentence. Although the

examples of the particles occur at a sentence-final position, no comments were made

regarding that (Lee, 1982).

Furthermore, Killingley also made a distinction between what she called the

aforementioned ‘tags’ and ‘stop-gaps’. ‘Stop-gaps’ could be placed and “can come

anywhere in the sentence in the form of a phrase or clause (Killingley, 1975). ‘Stop-gaps’

may function either as exclamations, emphasis, to ask for confirmation or even as

interrogative markers (Killingley, 1965). The particle ah is one amongst many other

particles which was defined as one of the ‘stop-gaps’ (Lee, 1982).

‘Filler’ as called by Tongue (1972), used to ‘fill’ a pause or a moment, could also exist

at any position whenever a speaker is hesitated or trying to reflect in the stream of

speech. He used English discourse markers such as old boy and my dear young lady,

to explain those fillers which have been traditionally known as ‘interjections’ that include

‘intimacy signals’.

Based on the studies stated above, there is a need for research examining which

discourse particles could exist at the front, middle and at the end of a sentence. Research

that uses authentic sentences retrieved from ordinary speakers and tests those

sentences on several other ordinary speakers may help identify the possible positions for

the discourse particles in Manglish.

30

4. Research Design and Methodology

In this chapter, the research design and methodology of this study shall be explained.

The nature of this study is descriptive and experimental.

4.1 Participants

The criteria to recruit the participants of this experiment were as in Table 1:

Criteria Elucidation 1. Malaysian 2. Native Language 3. English Proficiency 4. Age

Since Malaysia is a multiracial country, it doesn’t matter which race they belong to as long as the person is a Malaysian and have lived in Malaysia for not less than 15 years. Malay, English or any vernacular languages that exist in Malaysia including Mandarin and Tamil etc. Intermediate, Advanced or have been studying English for more than 10 years. Between 20 to 35 years old.

Many questions espoused were dealt with empirically, which shows the importance of

the participants in this research. Thus, basic information of participants including name, age,

gender, L1, and the number of acquired languages will be discussed in detail.

(Table 1: Criteria for Participants)

31

The discourse particle could be analysed through experiences of any Malaysian.

However, since this research essayed an experimental method, so the participants were

considered as the utmost important portion of the whole research.

a) Names

The Questionnaire is normally done in a discreet manner which did not

include any names or personal information. However, in this research names or

nicknames were used wherever appropriate, such as in explaining the position

based on individual opinions. All names in the ‘Finding and Discussion’ section

belong to participants in this research.

b) Basic Information

As shown below, female participants consisted of 65% and male participants

35% of the whole 40 participants.

(Figure 4: Gender of Participants)

The age of the participants fell within three groups of 20 to 25 years old, 26 to 30

years old and from 31 to 35 years old. Participants from the sample group in this

study were chosen as to offer an account of current usage of discourse particles

used by Malaysians, because the usage is often affected by their generation. For

instance, instead of using the particle man, those who are aged below 20 have

35%

65%

Male Female

32

tendencies of using bro as an alternative to man due to the influx of American Hip

hop and R&B in the country which has made new particles as bro and yo gained

popularities amongst youngsters. Instead of using those new particles, this research

attempts for a more recognised discourse particles amongst Malaysians. Discourse

particles may appear ephemeral and appeal to certain generations only. For example,

by Jove is an exclamation (discourse particle) that has lost its popularity and is

currently almost incomprehensible to casual normal speakers14.

(Figure 5: Age of Participants)

Malaysian history reflects an influence of long sequences of immigrants and

colonialists. The Spice trade was one of many reasons for frequent contact with

foreigners, and this had enticed numerous colinists to come to the land and spread

their wings in this region. Drawn by this rich trade, a Portuguese fleet conquered

Malacca in 1511, marking the beginning of European expansion in Southeast Asia.

Next, the Dutch ousted the Portuguese from Malacca in 1641. The British then

obtained the island of Penang in 1786 and temporarily controlled Malacca with Dutch

acquiescence from 1795 to 1818 in order to prevent it from falling to the French 14 From medieval times, Jove has been used in English as a poetical way of referring to Jupiter. It has also been linked to Jehovah, a form of the Hebrew name of God used in some translations of the Bible. By Jove was a mild oath, an exclamation that indicated surprise or gave emphasis to some comment, which dates from the sixteenth century. It was originally a neat way of calling on a higher power without using the blasphemous by God. Shakespeare used it in Love’s Labours Lost in 1588: “By Jove, I always took three threes for nine”. <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-byj1.htm>

20-25 40%

26-30 50%

31-35 10%

33

during the Napoleonic war. The British gained lasting possession of Malacca from the

Dutch in 1824, through the Anglo-Dutch treaty, in exchange for territory on the island

of Sumatra in what is today called Indonesia. (Kolenko, 2011)

Indigenous races in Malaysia are called Bumiputera (literally “sons of the soil”),

which comprise of Malay and other various minority tribes such as Iban, Kadazan-

Dusun and others. However, since ancient times, Malaysia has been flooded with

traders, immigrants and colonists, thus creating the diversity of races in Malaysia

today. The Chinese and Indians were two of the many races that came to Malaysia

and gave such a big impact on local cultures and languages Chinese, who were

looking for wealth in local mines, were labourers at the beginning, but soon they

dominated the economy and trade. The Chinese brought with them their own unique

culture, and way of life, affecting traditional belief and rituals in the Malaysian scene.

The Indians, on the other hand, came mostly from the southern part of India. They

brought with them their Hindu culture, characterised by Indian festivals and fashion

rich in tradition and colours. Another wave of Indian immigrants came during

colonisation. The Portuguese brought them as cheap labour for the rubber

plantations. Migration was done for many purposes and reasons, and improving the

quality of life was one of them (Kolenko, 2011)

Malaysia is today coloured by a multiracial and multilingual diversity. Mentioned

in the previous section, discourse particles used by a race might not be familiar by

other races and also slightly different versions of certain particles could be found

depending on where the participants lived. Many participants who were not Chinese

expressed that they did not know about particle liao. This particle is heavily

dependent on the Chinese language and used only by Malaysian Chinese.

Participants from different races would definitely affect the usage of discourse

particles. For instance, few Chinese and Indian expressed that they felt rather

awkward using some of the particles at the front of a sentence. A participant in the

study, used dey at the front of a sentence instead of lah as an exclamation

expressing discontent.

Participants who contributed to this research consisted of Malay 52%, Chinese

43%, Indian 5%, but there was no participation from other indigenous races or tribes.

34

(Figure 6: Race of Participants)

c) The Languages

Malaysians speak various kinds of languages normally, though not always, based

on their ancestry as L1 speakers.

(Figure 7: The L1 of Participants)

Based on Figure 7, participants speak different language as their mother tongues

(L1): Malay 45%, Chinese 35%, Manglish 7%, Indian 5%, English 2%, whilst Other

8%. Malay does not denote any distinct difference in dialects although there are

slightly different versions of it depending on the location. Malay that is spoken at the

Malay 52%

Chinese 43%

Indian 5%

Other 0%

Malay 45%

English 2%

Manglish 7%

Chinese (etc.) 33%

Indian (etc.) 5%

Other 8%

35

West Coast is slightly different from the Malay that is spoken at the East Coast.

However, the differences do not make them mutually incomprehensible.

The Chinese language on the other hand consists of many dialects, such as

Mandarin, Hokkien, and Cantonese. Malaysian Chinese consider themselves having

the ability of speaking various languages even if the languages are considered

dialects. In Figure 8, 90% of the participants who could speak more than 4 languages

were Chinese.

(Figure 8: The Number of Languages each Participant can speak)

Figure 9 shows that 87% of all participants used English in their daily lives.

Figure 10 shows that Malaysian used English in various settings; formal and informal.

(Figure 9: The Usage of English in Daily Life)

0%

33%

15%

30%

22%

1

2

3

4

more 5

Yes 87%

No 13%

36

(Figure 10: Places which Participants use English)15

4.2 Materials

Materials used in this research were from both primary and secondary sources were.

The primary source of information was fieldwork. Secondary sources were from previous

papers done by other researchers, including books, theses, and paperwork. Besides

conventional resources, information from online sources was used as well.

4.3 Data gathering

There were three steps of which were used in the process of gathering data.

1. Discourse particles were put together in a list. According to Lee (1982), the

particles are lah, ah, one, man, what, and ha. However, there were some

arguments between the researchers. Lay (2005), for example, combined ah and ha

as the same particle.

15 Participants may select more than one checkbox, so percentages may add up to more than 100%

56

105

106

128

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

home

office…

school/uni.…

everywhere…

Column1

37

2. Based on the list, participants in this research was asked to choose 10

particles that they normally use and the result was lah, kan, ma, meh, one, what,

hor, ah, man, and liao.

3. Based on the particles, 10 participants were asked to make sentences, and

based on these sentences, 3 sentences were chosen for an experiment of finding the

possible positions.

4.4 Data analysis

The questionnaire was divided into several parts:

1. Part 1 covered basic information about the participants such as gender,

age, and native language/mother tongue.

2. Part 2 covered Malaysians’ perception of English, Malaysian English and

Manglish.

3. Part 3 covered the position of discourse particles.

Part 1 dealt with basic information about each participant. The relevance

behind this part was to find information in order to elucidate the opinion regarding

the possible discourse particles in a sentence. Part 2 was made in order to build

upon the momentum of the research. Before they were asked with the main

focus of this research participants were questioned with their overall perception

of English, Malaysian English, and Manglish in general. Furthermore, Part 3 was

made in order to serve the main purpose of the research

a) Polls

Polls were used similarly to the questionnaire aforementioned except that the

execution of it was done online. Facebook16 was a platform which was used

to advertise the research. There are two groups on Facebook that are

16 <http://www.facebook.com>

38

dedicated to Manglish. First, “I can speak Manglish...and its a language!17” and

second “I speak Manglish” 18 can be found on Facebook. Interested

respondents were given a link to the polls via email or Facebook and the polls

were done through Google Docs19.

b) Interview

a) Informal conversational interview was employed for this research. No

predetermined questions were asked, in order to remain as open and

adaptable as possible to the interviewee’s nature and priorities; during

the interview the interviewer “goes with the flow”20. This interview was

done in order to deal with Part 2 of the questionnaire: perception of

English, Malaysian English, and Manglish.

b) Open-ended interview was employed to deal with Part 3, which is

about the position of discourse particles. The same open-ended

questions were asked to all interviewees. For example the participants

were asked about their opinion of appropriate positions of a discourse

particle in a sentence.

(18) (1) that one(2) is a very kacang (3)

Participants were asked whether particle lah could exist at the positions

marked as (1), (2), or/and (3). This approach facilitates faster interviews

that can be more easily analysed and compared.

17 <http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2220785502> Note: The spelling of ‘its’ is retained as the way it is. 18 <http://www.facebook.com/manglish> 19<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?hl=en_US&formkey=dEZwb2VZSmJROWFnZUYxR1lqclBJOWc6MA#gid=0> 20 <http://www.public.asu.edu/~kroel/www500/Interview%20Fri.pdf> Retrieved on 18th December 2011.

39

5. Findings and Discussion

5.1 Malaysians’ Perception of Languages in Malaysia 5.1.1 British English Versus American English

English is a pluricentric language. This implies that more than one variety exists. BrE and

AmE are two major variants of English. Participants’ preference for these two variants were

analysed based on the questionnaire.

(Figure 11: English Preference)

In Figure 11, 57% prefer BrE, whilst the rest 30% prefer AmE and 13% chose neither as

preference. Even though the differences of BrE and AmE consist of several linguistic

features such as spelling, vocabulary, grammar and etc., only vocabulary was analysed.

Consider Table 2:

Words (BrE/AmE)

a) Film/Movie b) Queue/Line c) Jug/Pitcher

3/37 23/17 18/2

7.5% 57.5% 85%

92.5% 42.5% 15%

BrE 57%

AmE 30%

Neither 13%

BrE vs AmE

40

d) Chips/French fries e) Autumn/Fall f) Bonnet/Hood g) Petrol/Gasoline h) Car park/Parking lot i) Lift/Elevator

10/30 30/10 23/17 38/2 30/10 30/10

25% 75%

57.5% 95% 75% 75%

75% 25%

42.5% 5%

25% 25%

(Table 2: Participants’ preference for Vocabulary between BrE and AmE)

Except for items a) and d), more than 50% of Malaysians preferred BrE vocabulary. The

average 12-year old knows about 12,000 different English words21 (Shakespeare used about

37,000) (McCrum, 2002). This may look like a large number to learn to spell if each is to be

memorised by rote, but the task becomes more manageable when memory is supported by

understanding. Pupils need to be able to call upon their knowledge of patterns and

conventions in order to support their spelling. They also need a range of learning strategies,

knowledge and the skill to spell words they want to use but have not seen in print before.22

Thus, the participants of this research have already been accustomed to the spelling of BrE

since it is taught at school. Consequently, according one of the participants, he was already

accustomed to the British vocabulary from a younger age. When something becomes a habit

it will happen naturally and sometimes even extemporaneously. Spelling then influences

morphology and vocabulary.

Morphology and vocabulary are two of the most basic elements in any language in the

world. Since the participants have started their education ever since they were children, it

was easier to assume that the usage had become a habit. The result has shown, BrE variant

is still preferable except for “french fries” and “movie”. According to one of the participants,

this phenomenon is explainable since most of the fast food franchises in Malaysia are from

the United States such as McDonald’s and KFC, and the influence of “movie” came from

Hollywood. In addition, most of the participants (about 85%) answered via email that they

21 Also see Crystal, 1987. 22 Retrieved and edited from http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/spelling/spelling.htm (4th June, 2010)

41

only used “chips” for a meal called “Fish and Chips” but for other than that they would call it

as “French Fries”.

In conclusion, even though AmE has gained more popularity throughout the years, BrE

is still considered as a bigger influence to all Malaysians. This is basically due to the

historical reason and formal education received in Malaysia which prefers BrE.

5.1.2 Malaysian English

Based on online polls, 3 questions were asked regarding Malaysians perception of ME.

First, 40% of participants strongly believed, 50% agree, and 10% neutral on the notion that

generally Malaysians have a good English proficiency, as in Table 3.

Perception SA A N D SD 1. In general, Malaysians have a good English proficiency

40% 50% 10% - -

2. Malaysian accent does exist and Malaysians should be inclined to it

30% 20% 50% - -

3. Every races in Malaysia speak with a different accent

50% 20% 20% 20% -

(Table 3: Perception of Malaysian English)

Legend:

SA A N D SD

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

Regarding Malaysian accent, 30% strongly agreed, 20% agreed, and whilst the rest

preferred to be neutral on the second question that asked about the existence of Malaysian

English accent and the inclination to the nature.

On the other hand, 50% of participants strongly believed that every race in Malaysia

has a different accent when they converse in English whilst the rest 20% respectively agreed,

neutral or disagreed.

42

5.1.3 Manglish

Below are some of the participants’ perceptions of Manglish:

(19) “Manglish is a unique blend of different cultures that exist in

order to form an understandable language for all Malaysians. This shows the specialty of Malaysia and because of this we are somehow proud of it. However, Manglish is not a universal language that should be recognised by the world; instead we should never forget to emphasis on Malay, English and various other races ‟mother tongues” (Bernard Eng, part.)

Manglish is a unique and different way of speaking English in Malaysia. As long as we use it in the right occasion, I don't have any problem with it. (Kesavan, part)

I know the use of Manglish is somehow discouraged in Malaysia. I have always heard my Malaysian friends use it among themselves and somehow in the middle of the way I am influenced by it. Now I do not have a problem if someone talk to me using Manglish... (Suzy, part.)

Many participants do not have problems with Manglish because it has been accepted

as a norm to them. For instance many Malaysians are inclined to sound Malaysian because

if a Malaysian uses a foreign accent they would be conceived as behaving condescendingly.

(20) “…I am one of those “Malaysians (who) may be thought to be

show-offs if they speak in a very British or American or Australian way.” After spending six years in Edinburgh, I came back to be faced with scrutiny every time I opened my mouth to speak English.

Friends and even strangers voiced out their annoyance over the way I spoke. Sometimes they would pull long faces, claiming that I was putting them down; that they felt inferior when conversing with me. Guys also shied away for the fact that I used English in conversations (regardless of the “language register”). (Nazreen)23

23 Manglish – English Dilemma, thestar online, January 2007: Retrieved from http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?file=/2007/1/31/lifefocus/16686589&sec=lifefocus on 12th September 2011

43

Some participants even answered in Manglish, as in (21). Fikaa (part.) for example:

(21) “I hope that the skema people will not hentam you for

bringing up this manglish issue soon ey hahahah, Manglish is fun!!” (I hope the grumpy prescriptivists will not lambaste you for bringing up this Manglish issue later, Manglish is fun!)

However, there are some arguments about who uses Manglish in Malaysia. Some

participants answered expressed that Manglish is used mostly by Chinese Malaysian.

Others on the other hand, believed that “Manglish is simply an identity for all Malaysians”

hence implying that all Malaysians regardless of their race use it.

According to the result of the survey, all participants are aware of Manglish even if they

do not use it in daily life. A participant for example expressed that she rarely uses Manglish

since all of her colleagues use proper English: foreigners and locals alike. However, she

does not deny that sometimes the discourse particles especially lah and kan are inevitably

used especially when addressing a Malaysian who speaks Manglish to her.

(Figure 12: The Frequency of Manglish Usage)

Based on the result shown in Figure 18, 10% of all participants use Manglish frequently,

70% occasionally, and 20% rarely. Those who expressed that they rarely use Manglish are

currently living or studying abroad. For example a participant mentioned in interview that

Frequently 10%

Occasionally 70%

Rarely 20% Never

0%

44

after she came to South Korea furthering studies she rarely has the opportunity to use

Manglish.

Manglish, has often been called a distinct variety of the English language. Manglish like

any other varieties of English has its own unusual collocations, syntax, vocabulary and its

special brand of idioms and metaphors (Lee, 2005). Amongst five important features of

Manglish, participants were asked to choose the most important feature of Manglish. The

result is in Table 4:

The Feature Most Least

Vocabulary 10% 45% 25% 10% 10% Discourse Particles 65% 10% 5% 15% 5% Syntax 10% 10% 35% 30% 15% Tone and Pronunciation 25% 40% 15% 15% 5%

Mixture 10% 0% 20% 20% 50%

(Table 4: Features of Manglish)

The result in Table 4 shows that discourse particles are indeed one (or the most)

important characteristic of Manglish. 65% of participants chose the discourse particles as the

most important feature of Manglish and expressed that those particles are inexorably used

especially when they are speaking to another Malaysian who speak Manglish as well.

5.2 The Positions of Discourse Particles in Manglish

As already discussed in the previous section, this research aims to analyse the possible

positions of some Manglish discourse particles. In order to do so, 10 of the most used

discourse particles were presented to participants via the questionnaire, interviews and polls.

In order to examine the possible positions, participants were asked to answer based on their

45

empirical knowledge. Prior to answering the questionnaire, almost 65% believed that

discourse particle could only be placed at the final-position, 35% at the middle, and only

about 5% believed that particles could be placed at the initial-position. However, when the

sentences (S1, S2, and S3) were given, the result came out differently. The analysis below

was based on the concept of acceptability rather than grammaticality. This concept suggests

that the intuition of the language users is taken into consideration, thus explaining a certain

phenomenon. Manglish, especially its discourse particles, is not taught at school, though it is

learnt through experience and contact with other users. Discourse particles are items that

are notoriously difficult to describe at all linguistic levels involved (Wilkins, 1992). In this

analysis, a few abbreviations will be used: (1) represents the front, (2) represents the middle

whilst (3) represents the end: S1 represents sentence 1, S2 sentence 2, and sentence 3.

5.2.1 Lah

The sentences used in the experiment were as in (14):

(22) a. S1: (1) that one (2) is a very kacang one (3)

b. S2: (1) you go (2) dulu (3)

c. S3: (1) next time (2) jumpa (3)

The particle lah is the infamous Manglish discourse particle of all time. It has

been discussed by many researchers and participants alike. If Manglish is brought

up in a discussion, lah will be the first particle to be discussed. According to the

result, almost half of the participants believed that lah could be placed at the front of

a sentence (18 for S1, 16 for S2, and 12 for S3)

One participant explained that she uses lah at the beginning of a sentence if it is

stand as an exclamation or interjection. However, the intonation has to be rising and

longer, normally used to express her resentment, as in (23)

(23) A: Hey, it’s getting late...

46

B: Lah~ I told you to go first kan?

In (15), (B) has told her husband (A) to go out first but her husband did not do so

and then later complain that it is getting late. To make her annoyance sounds less

serious she uses the particle.

According to Lay (2005) lah can occur between clause constituents but the main

occurrences are clause-finally. According to her research, that lah need not

necessarily occur in the sentence or clause final positions. It was first shown by Bell

& Ser (1983). Consider (24):

(24) a. Must lah have been cooking.

b. Must have been lah cooking.

c. That great hawker lah from Newton Circus.

d. Normal doctors lah which are on our medical panel.

In the sentences given in the questionnaire, the preceding word is a noun and

the following word is a verb or a preposition.

According to Lay (2005), lah can occur at the end of a sentence if it is attached

to declaratives, imperatives, and some interrogative sentences. However, 100% of all

participants found it awkward in the interrogative sentence. It is only possible that if it

is used as a repetition to a question prior to that interrogative question e.g.:

(25) A: Hey, what are you cooking ah?

B: What did you say?

A: What do you cook lah?

A asked B about what she’s cooking but B was unable to grasp the question first

so she asked A to repeat the question. Here, A can use lah in his second question.

However, half of the participants still considered it as awkward.

The result of the experiment on lah is in Figure 13.

47

(Figure 13: The possible positions of Particle lah)

5.2.2 Kan

The sentences used in the experiment were as in (26):

(26) a. S1: (1) semalam I dah did (2) that one (3)

b. S2: (1) dulu (2) I was a soldier you know (3)

c. S3: (1) Ya lah (2) that one very expensive (3)

There is no prior research regarding kan. However, many participants have

expressed that they use this particle frequently in their lives. According to the result

acquired from the questionnaire. Kan is a flexible discourse particle because it can

be placed at almost every positions of a sentence as long as it is used to confirm

something.

The result of the experiment on kan is in Figure 14:

18

22

38

16

26

34

12

32 34

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

48

(Figure 14: The possible positions of particle kan)

5.2.3 Ma

The sentences used in the experiment were as in (27):

(27) a. S1: (1) that one (2) very mahal (3)

b. S2: (1) aiyoh (2) full already (3)

c. S3: (1) dulu kan (2) I dah belanja (3)

Ma is always used in an interrogative sentence hence it is just natural for it to be

at the end of a sentence. Nevertheless, some of the participants agreed that ma

could be place at the middle of the sentence.

According to the result, ma cannot be placed at the front of a sentence.

According to one participant if ma is placed at the front of a sentence it can only

mean two things. First, you are calling your mother (ma, short form of mama) or

calling someone name (ma short form of Mariana for example). Ma in these two

cases are not a discourse particle.

26 26

38

23 26

36

20

34 32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

49

The particle could not be placed at the middle of a sentence, either. However,

there is an exception for S1 (17a) “That one ma, very mahal” (expensive).The ma in

this sentence plays a role as an emphasis and should be pronounced with a rise

intonation as to emphasise that the price is expensive.

If it is an interrogative sentence, the particle can be placed at the end of a

sentence without a hitch. Gupta (1992) also mentions that the particle is used as an

indicator that someone finds the answer obvious. For example, consider (28):

(28) A: Hey why o-oi (lit sleep) like that one?

B: Why? Sideways ma. (Why are you asking me? Isn’t it obvious that this

is sideways?)

In (20B), ma is used at the end of a sentence. The result of the experiment on

ma can be seen in Figure 15:

(Figure 15: The possible positions of particle ma)

2

29

34

3 7

38

2

7

36

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

50

5.2.4 Meh

The sentences used in the experiment were in (29):

(29) a. S1: (1) you (2) got money (3)

b. S2: (1) is it (2) raining (3)

c. S3: (1) this one (2) very mahal (3)

Meh is similar to ma, which can only be placed at the end of a sentence. The

difference between these two is that meh is speaker-oriented but ma is a listener-

oriented particle (Lay, 2005). For example in S2 (29b): Is it raining meh? The

speaker challenges the listener manifest assumption. “It is not raining obviously,

why do you say it was?) This is similar to S1 (29a) (You don’t have money, why did

you say you had?). The result of the experiment can be seen in Figure 16.

(Figure 16: The possible positions of particle meh)

1

9

36

0

5

35

1

6

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

51

5.2.5 One

The sentences used in the experiment were (30):

(30) a. S1: (1) your (2) is over there (3)

b. S2: (1) that (2) is a very easy (3)

c. S3: (1) don’t play (2) play (3)

One could not be placed at the front of a sentence. According to a participant

literally “no one in Malaysia uses one as an exclamation”. Based on the result as in

Figure 17, we could conclude that the particle could be place at the middle and/or at

the end of a sentence. This particle could exist more than once, for instance: S2 (30b)

(that one is a very easy one).

(Figure 17: The possible positions of particle one)

1

30

14

1

33 30

3

28 28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

52

5.2.6 What

The sentences used in the experiment were:

(31) a. S1: (1) are (2) you crazy (3)

b. S2: (1) you know (2) that one is my auntie (3)

c. S3: (1) that one (2) was the best (3)

What could be placed at any position but it is not consistent. Context and

sentences really affect the position of particle what. Furthermore, many participants

commented that they could not differentiate between what in English and in

Manglish. In English what is used as either a pronoun or a determiner but in

Manglish it is a particle which does not affect a sentence semantically but rather

pragmatically. For instance in (31b) “You know what ah, that one is my auntie”

“If we dispose what in this sentence, the sentence would change into “You

know, that one is my auntie” and it is still comprehensible. Nevertheless, if we

dispose what as in “what is that?” it becomes ‘is that’ which can lead us to an

incomprehensible sentence unless the context is given simultaneously. The result of

the experiment can be seen in Figure 18.

53

(Figure 18: The possible positions of particle what)

5.2.7 Hor

The sentences used in the experiment were (32):

(32) a. S1: (1) sure (2) kena hantam (3)

b. S2: (1) going (2) where (3)

c. S3: (1) I (2) goreng only (3)

Particle hor could be placed at the end of a sentence as the best-fitted

position, middle as in acceptable and barely acceptable at the front of a sentence.

Just like lah, particle hor used in the front position also serves as an interjection

steering the flow of dialogues. The result of the experiment is in Figure 19.

36

0

8

2

28 30

6

16

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

54

(Figure 19: The possible positions of particle hor)

5.2.8 Ah

The sentences used in the experiments were:

(33) a. S1: (1) can (2) or not (3)

b. S2: (1) boss (2) sky juice ada (3)

c. S3: (1) you (2) I so fed up with you (3)

Particle ah can be placed at the three positions. It can be used either at the front,

middle or at the end of a sentence in an appropriate context. However, front position

seems a bit inconsistent. Result of the experiment can be seen as in Figure 20.

20 22 23

10

16

27

7 4

32

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

55

(Figure 20: The possible positions of particle ah)

5.2.9 Man

The sentences used in the experiment were:

(34) a. S1: (1) that one (2) is a very kacang (3)

b. S2: (1) she (2) is so quick (3)

c. S3: (1) how (2) have you been (3)

Particle man can be positioned at the front and at the end but is barely

acceptable at the middle position. This is according to only 30 of the 40 participants,

since the rest did not provide any answers. The result of the experiment is in Figure

21:

7 10

31

20 22

24

12

28

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

56

(Figure 21: The possible positions of particle man)

5.2.10 Liao

The sentences used in the experiment were:

(35) a. S1: (1) I (2) eat (3)

b. S2: (1) this new game you play (2) or not (3)

c. S3: (1) he (2) throw (3)

Liao is a bit controversial since it is a discourse particle mainly used in

Chinese Malaysian community. Nevertheless, as we could see in Figure 22, liao

could be placed the end of sentence but barely could be placed at the middle. This

result is based on 30 participants’ answers, the rest did not provide any answers.

17

13

29

16 15

24 22

2

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

57

(Figure 22: The possible positions of particle liao)

5.3 Summary

Based on the findings and discussion above, the possible positions of the discourse

particles can be concluded as in Table 5 below:

Discourse Particle Front Middle End

i. lah O √ √

ii. kan √ √ √

iii. ma X O √

iv. meh X X √

v. one X √ √

vi. what O O √

vii. hor O O √

viii. ah O √ √

ix. man O O √

x. liao X O √

2

5

27

3

28

11

0 2

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Front Middle End

S1 S2 S3

58

(Table 5: Possible positions of the Discourse Particles)

√ O X

Best-fitted Acceptable

Unacceptable

As can be seen in Table 5, all of the Manglish discourse particles can be placed at the

end of a sentence. Nine of the discourse particles, which are lah, kan, ma, one, what, hor,

ah, man and liao, can be placed at the middle position. Nevertheless, only four of those

nine can be placed at the position without a problem, whilst the rest can only be placed there

after meeting certain conditions, such as emphasis, context, and situation. Those discourse

particles are ma, hor, man and liao. On the other hand, according to the results, the

particle meh cannot be placed at the middle-position at all.

Furthermore, seven of all discourse particles examined in this research showed that

they can be placed at the front position, with three in the best-fitted position, and those are

kan, one, and what, whilst lah, hor, ah, and man are also considered to be acceptable.

Nonetheless, ma, meh and liao cannot be used at the front of a sentence and used as an

interjection.

59

6. The Conclusion

Manglish has a long history, starting back from the era of British colonialism until the

present day. Despite being banned by the government and many formal institutions, it is still

used by many Malaysians. This study was conducted in a descriptive and empirical manner.

Ten of the most widely used discourse particles of Manglish were presented to 40

Malaysians in order to examine the possible positions of all the discourse particles. This

analysis was apparently insufficient to analyse all discourse particles at once, nevertheless

this research is the beginning of a larger field of study that will give the basic idea of

discourse particles in Manglish.

This study started with general perception of Malaysians towards British English (BrE)

and American English (AmE) and the focus was on vocabulary. Of the participants, 57%

preferred British English and this was also proven by the vocabulary that they chose. Nine

words comprised of both BrE and AmE were chosen in the experiment. The result showed

that the predilection was on BrE where seven out of the nine vocabulary list were chosen by

participants.

Regarding Malaysian English, participants have shown positive responses as well.

Participants are well aware of the existence of Malaysian English accent which is slightly

different from both BrE and AmE and the inclination to the nature. While conversing in

English, 50% of participants strongly believed that every race in Malaysia had a different

accent, whilst the rest, 20% respectively, agreed, were neutral or disagreed with that idea.

On the other hand, it was proven that 100% of all the participants were aware of

Manglish as being a distinctive and unique part of Malaysian culture. Manglish in Malaysia is

undeniably different from English spoken in the UK, the USA, and other English speaking

countries. At some point, however, it does not mean that it is incorrect English that is widely

off the mark. Language is a tool of communication, and it is shaped by the community that

uses it. In fact, Middle English and Modern English are not entirely the same, because the

language has evolved and changed throughout time.

60

Furthermore, this study has also proven that most Malaysians are either accepting of

Manglish as one of their communicative norms, or are seen as having a neutral feeling about

it. Some believed that it is a unique identity of all Malaysians however some also expressed

that the usage of it should be neither discouraged nor encouraged. Nonetheless, there are

some who have opposed the usage of such Creole, claiming that it has destroyed the

sanctity of languages both Malay and English. Malay is the national language and should be

treated with respect and this is certainly true. However, a living language should not be

restrained in such a manner that would make it stop from evolving or else its fate would be

similar to Sanskrit or even Latin. Rules should be imposed and abided by, but also remain

relevant. For example, students should be notified about the differences between Manglish

and proper Standard English, so that they are able to tell the differences, and most

importantly know when to use Manglish and when to use Standard English (SE). Participants

showed amalgamated feelings towards Manglish.

Many Malaysians are unaware of the invisible rules behind Manglish. Many have

thought that Manglish is a language which they can put everything into it, and this is why

some people call it by disparaging names such as ‘mangled English’ and ‘rojak’24. Even

though the placement of the discourse particles could be barely called a rule, according to

the questionnaire, there are some discourse particles that could not be placed at the front at

all, some could not be in the middle, whilst most of the particles could be placed at the final-

position depending on the paralinguistic meaning, emphasis, and intonation, but still need to

meet certain conditions.

As aforementioned, many researchers believed that the discourse particles can only be

placed at the end of a sentence. This study has proven that many Malaysians, as

participants in the study, believed that the particles are in that nature, and stand at the final

position as emphatic expressions stressing certain implicit meanings and used accordingly

to the appropriate contexts. Nevertheless, this study also has proven that discourse particles

of Manglish could be placed at the middle as fillers and/or emphasises at the front of a

sentence functioning as interjections. Discourse particles are used at the middle of a

24 Rojak is a name of food which is available throughout Malaysia. Rojak is a mixture of many ingredients such as fruits, vegetables, etc. and served with a special sauce. Rojak represents Manglish in which it is a mixture of various ingredients into one dish.

61

sentence as fillers especially when speakers are inundated with a stream of thought trying to

link all of their ideas. However, particles, too are used at the middle of a sentence to give

suggestions to the listeners of what is going on. Interjections, on the other hand, are used by

expressing emotions such as contempt, joy, disbelief and others. These interjections are

used by enunciating discourse particles which make it distinctively Malaysian.

This study suggests that there is an urgency of furthering comprehensive studies to

make it feasible that Manglish could stand on its own and apart from its neighbouring

Singlish in the future. In spite of the elucidation attempted by this study, the results by a

small number of participants could not generalise the possible positions copiously. Therefore,

it is recommended for further studies to consider such probabilities.

62

Bibliography

Airil Halmi Mohd Adnan. (2005). “The English Language Dilemma‟ in

Malaysia: Vision, reality and the ethnicity-religion-language tapestry of the Malays. In K. Ariffin, M. Ismail, M. Latif, N. K. Leng & R. Aziz (Eds.) English in Education: Issues and Challenges in the Malaysian Classroom (pp. 1-13). Shah Alam: UPENA Universiti Teknologi MARA

Alsagoff, L. (2001) 'Tense and aspect in Singapore English'. In Vincent B. Y. Ooi (ed.) Evolving Identities: The English Language in Singapore and Malaysia, Singapore: Times Academic Press, pp. 79-88

Ashmore, J. (1966). Three Aspects of Weltanschauung, The Sociological Quarterly, 7: 215–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.1966.tb01689.x

Asmah Haji Omar (1992). The Linguistics Scenery in Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur : Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka

Asmah Haji Omar (2001). Encyclopedia of Malaysia V09: Languages & Literature (Encyclopedia of Malaysia (Archipelago Press)). Singapore: Didier Millet

Azahari Edin (2007). Seminar Bahasa Rojak: Kecelaruan Penggunaan Bahasa Melayu. Bil. 39, Klik DBP

Bergmann, A., Hall, K. C., & Ross, S. M. (Eds.). (2007). Language files: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics (10th ed.). Columbus: Ohio State University Press

Bolton, K. (2008). English in Asia, Asian English, and the Issue of Proficiency. English Today (2008), 24: pp 3-12. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008 DOI: 10.1017/S026607840800014X. Published online: 05 November 2008

Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English: a comprehensive guide: spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Choi, I. (2007). How and When do Children Acquire the Use of Discourse Markers? Oxford: University of Oxford

Crystal, D. (1987). ‘How Many Words?” English Today No. 12, 1987 Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language, (2nd Ed.). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press David, M. K. (Ed) (2004). Teaching English In Second Language Settings:

Focus on Malaysia. Frankfurt: Peter Lang (Scopus) Davidson, G. (2004). What You Need to Know about British & American

English. Singapore: Learners Publishing Pte. Ltd

63

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009). Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Gupta, A. F. (1992). The Pragmatic Particles of Singapore Colloquial English. Journal of Pragmatics 17:3, 39-65.Asmah Haji Omar (1992). The Linguistic Scenery in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka

Hansen, M. M. (1998). The Function of Discourse Particles: A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Philadelphia: Benjamins

Holden, A. & Singh, J. (2006). Mastering English Grammar and Usage. Selangor: Penerbit Fajar Bakti Sdn. Bhd

Ihm, H. B. & Chang S. I. (2001). New Edition: Korean Grammar for International Learners. South Korea: Yonsei University Press

Indira A/P V. P Govindan (2000). Question Forms in Spoken Malaysian English. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Language and Linguistics University of Malaya

Joaane De Koning (2008). Perception of ‘New Englishes’: Responses to the use of Swazi English in newspaper in Swaziland. Swaziland: Stellenbosch University

Juang, R. M & Morrissette, M. (2008). Africa and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History. California: ABC-CLIO.Inc

Kachru, B., Kachru, Y, & Nelson C. L (Eds) (2006). The Handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Killingley, Y. S (1965) A Phonological, Grammatical and Lexical Description of Malaysian English. M. A Thesis. Kuala Lumpur: University Malaya

Kipling, R. "The White Man's Burden."McClure's Magazine 12 "Feb. 1899 Kolenko, A. (2011). Malaysia: Factors that Shaped Malaysian Cultures.

Retrieved on 13th December 2011 < http://andreja.co.uk/pdf/CurturalAnalaysisEssay.pdf >

Kwan-Terry, A. (1978). The meaning and the Source of ‘la’ and the ‘what’ Particles in Singapore English. RELC Journal, 9/2: 22-35

Lay, V. L. S (2005). An in-depth Study of Discourse Particles in Singapore English. Singapore: National University of Singapore

Lee S. K. (2005). Manglish. Petaling Jaya: Pelanduk Publications. Lee, P. S (1982). A study of the use of some particles in informal Malaysian

English . Malaysia: University of Malaya Lee, W. S. M (2001) the Polemics of Singlish: an Examination of the Culture,

Identity and Function of English in Singapore. English Today 65, Vol. 17, No 1 40-45

McArthur, T. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the English Language, Oxford University Press

McCrum, R., MacNeil, R., & Cran, W. (1998) The Story of English: BBC Books London

64

Mohd Salehuddin Abd Aziz (1994). Attitudes towards English: A Survey of UKM Students. Akademika 44, 85-99

Muniandy, K. M et.al Sociolinguistic Competence and Malaysian Students’ English Language Proficiency, English Language Teaching Vol. 3, No. 3; September 2010. Published by <www.ccsenet.org/elt>

Noor Firdaus Binti Ramli @ Yusof, (2009). Teacher’s Opinions Regarding Acceptability of Malaysian English Lexis in Formal and Informal Situations. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Language and Linguistics, University of Malaya

O'Brien, P. (1988). The costs and benefits of British imperialism, 1846-1914. Past and Present. 120, 163-200

Pillai, S. (2006) Patterns of Repeats in Malaysian English Multingual Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication Vol 25, Issue 1 part @, 101-113

Platt, J., Weber, J. (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia. London: Oxford University Press.

Preshous, A. (2001). Where You Going Ah? English Today 65. Vol 17, No. 1, 46-53

Rajadurai, J. (2004). The Faces and Facets of English in English Today 80, Vol. 20, No. 4, 54-58

Rajadurai, J. (2010). Speaking English and the Malay Community, Indonesia and the Malay World, 38:111, 289 – 301

Rosli Talif & Ting Su Hie (1994). Malaysian English: Exploring the Possibility of Standardization. PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 2(1): 69-76 (1994). Malaysia: Universiti Pertanian Malaysia Press

Sidhu, P. K (2010). English Language Used in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Infrastructure University College

Solomon, J. S. & Chuah A. B. (2003). English for Malaysians. Kuala Lumpur: Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn. Bhd

Stede, M. & Schmitze, B. (2000) Discourse Particles and Discourse. Netherland: Functions, Kluwer Academics Publisher

Tajima, H. T., (2000). The Making of a Japanese Dictionary of Asian Englishes with an Emphasis on Singaporean/Malaysian English. Intercultural Communication Studies X:1 2000.

Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambrigde: MIT Press

Tongue, R. K. (1974). The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell

Wilkins, D. P. (1992) Interjections as Deixis. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 119-158.

65

Wong, J. (2004). The particles of Singapore English: a semantic and cultural interpretation , Journal of Pragmatics, Volume 36, Issue 4, April 2004, Pages 739-793

Wong, J. (2005). ”Why you so Singlish one?” A semantic and cultural interpretation of the Singapore English particle one. Language in Society, 34 , pp 239-275 doi:10.1017/S0047404505050104

Zhiming, B. (1995). 'Already in Singapore English', World Englishes, 14(2), 181-188.

Dictionaries/Encyclopaedia Britannica Encyclopaedia (2005). Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Crystal, D. (2003). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of the English Language,

(2nd Ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Goh, C., & Woo. Y. Y (Eds.) (2009). The Coxford Singlish Dictionary 2nd

Edition. Singapore: Angsana Books. Kamus Dewan edisi Keempat (2004). Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan

Pustaka Kawashima, S. A. (1999). A dictionary of Japanese Particles. Tokyo:

Kondansha International. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 4th Edition, (2006). Pearson

Education Merriam-Webster Collegiate® Dictionary 11th Edition (2008). Merriam-

Webster, Inc. Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, (2006). Random House

Reference Richards, J. C. (2002). Longman: Dictionary of Language Teaching &

Applied Linguistics. England: Pearson Education Limited Internet "Thumbs down on Manglish, Malaysia Says - World - CBC News." CBC.ca -

Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. 6 Oct. 2006. Web. 14 Dec. 2011. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2006/10/06/manglish.html>

“By Jove” Retrieved from <http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-byj1.htm on 15th December 2011>

“Malaysia” < http://www.tourism.gov.my/> Retrieved on 5th December 2011.

66

“Malaysia” <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/my.html> Retrieved on 5th December 2011.

“Manglish-English Dilemma” <http://thestar.com.my/ lifestyle/story.asp?file=/ 2007/1/31/lifefocus/ 16686589&sec =lifefocus> Retrieved on 29th November 2011

“Spelling” Retrieved from <http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/spelling/spelling.htm on 4th June 2010>

http://facebook.com http://google.com McArthur, T. (1998). Malaysian English. Concise Oxford Companion to the

English Language. Retrieved from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-MALAYSIANENGLISH.html on 5th December 2011

67

Appendix

Name/Nickname: ________________________________

Sex: M F ( )

Age: 20 – 25

25 – 30

30 – 35

Race: Malay

Chinese

Indian

Other

Where do you live? ________________

How long have you’ve been there? ________________

Current Education: High School (SPM Or STPM)

Diploma

Degree

Master

PhD

Native Language: Malay

English

Manglish

Chinese (Mandarin, etc)

Indian (Tamil, etc)

Other: _______________

How many languages could you speak? (Please circle the

number)

1 2 3 4 more than 5

Please specify the languages:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Dear participants:

This research is an attempt to canvass not the standard

Malaysian English but Manglish discourse particles: lah,

mah, meh, ah etc syntactically. These questions focused on

how the particles work in a sentence, their functions, and its

position in a syntax construction. All answers given shall be

handled discreetly and for educational purposes only.

2. Do you use English frequently? Yes No (If no, go to

question 3)

a) If yes, where do you use English?

i. at home

ii. at office (workplace)

iii. at school

iv. anywhere and everywhere

b) With whom?

i. family

ii. friends

iii. colleagues

iv. strangers

v. foreigners

3. What are the reasons for Malaysians not to use English?

i. English is neither their mother tongue nor the national

language

ii. There is no necessity to speak English amongst

Malaysians

iii. Lack of training and confidence

iv. If the environment is not suitable

4. Which English do you prefer?

i. British English

ii. American English

5. Circle all expressions that you prefer/use

a film/ a movie

a line/ a queue

a jug/ a pitcher

French fries/ chips

fall/ autumn

hood/ bonnet

petrol/ gasoline

parking lot/ car park

lift/ elevator

postbox/ mailbox

holiday/ vacation

curtains/ drapes

6. Do you know what Manglish is? Yes No

a) Do you use it:

i. Frequently

ii. Occasionally

iii. Rarely

iv. Never

b) Why? Specify the reason…

c) How do you define Manglish?

i. Unique and fun

ii. Neutral

iii. Bad and not recommended

iv. Disaster

v. Other: Specify _____________

d) A foreigner says that you have a very thick Malaysian

accent. How do you react?

i. Happy: I am a true Malaysian

ii. Oh my goodness, I have to change accent!

iii. Blame them, they don’t have good ears!

iv. Neutral, who cares anyway

RATING

(PLEASE TICK BOX WHERE APPROPRIATE)

Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Don’t Know

PERCEPTION

In general, Malaysians have a good English proficiency

Manglish is used appropriately in a right situation and to the right

crowd

Some Malaysians have tendency to speak Manglish even to

foreigners including English native speakers

Manglish portrays the real identity of Malaysia

Manglish is a very bad way of speaking English

Malaysian accent does exist and Malaysians should stick to it

Every races in Malaysia speak with a different accent

Malaysians who speak English with British accent sound more

fake than those who speak with American accent

British English is the preeminent accent ever

People who used Manglish sound uneducated

Malaysians who used proper English to me in informal setting

sound arrogant and likely have the ‘show-off’ attitude

RELATION

Manglish and Standard Malaysian English are two different

entities.

Manglish and Singlish are one and the same

Manglish has been influenced by British English more than any

other variants

Part 3: Manglish

a) Words below are a mixture of Manglish, British and

American slangs. Could you please identify Manglish

words and underline/circle them?

b) What is the most important aspect of Manglish

construction? (Please write numbers from 1 to 5

accordingly to the importance)

Note: 1 is the most important whilst 5 is the least.

i. Vocabulary e.g. alamak, chop, barsket etc.

ii. The particles e.g. lah, ma, ah, etc.

iii. The construction e.g.

i. I too can swim (Standard English)

ii. I also can swim (Manglish)

iv. The tone, and pronunciation

v. The mixture (must be 50 Malay/50 English)

c) Please write down 3 Manglish sentences that you

frequently use

i. ________________________________________

ii. ________________________________________

iii. ________________________________________

Part 4: The Discourse Particles

1. Most frequent Manglish particles are provided

below. Could you please write down numbers next

to the particles according to the frequentness?

Note: 1 is the most used. If you don’t know any of it,

just leave it blank.

-lah

-hor

-liao

-man

-meh

-what

-one

-ah

-kan

-ma

-ho

Other: ________

2. What do you think particles function is? (can tick

more than one)

i. It serves no purpose

ii. emphasis

iii. steering the flow of dialogues.

iv. impact

v. don’t know, I just feel Malaysian if I use it

vi. Other: ________________________________

_______________________________________

3. Do you think Manglish have rules when it is

constructed?

Yes No

4. How about the position of the particles?

Yes No

5. Could you please translate Manglish sentences below into the Standard English?

i. He is very blur one lah. Simple things always cannot do.

______________________________________________________________________________________

ii. Don’t know lah, why I fale my Engleesh, man. I thot paper was kacang what!

______________________________________________________________________________________

iii. I don’t want to go what. Cannot meh?

______________________________________________________________________________________

Instruction: Particles are numbered from i. to x. Could you please identify as whereas the particles can be placed in any of the

empty space given below? Example:

i. -lah

_____ that one _____is a very kacang one ____

lah that one is a very kacang one √ (Acceptable)

That one lah is a very kacang one √ (Acceptable)

That one is a very kacang one lah √ (Acceptable)

ii. so in the space given:

__√ __ that one __√___is a very kacang one _√__

i. lah

a. S1: (1) that one (2) is a very kacang one (3)

b. S2: (1) you go (2) dulu (3)

c. S3: (1) next time (2) jumpa (3)

ii. kan

a. S1: (1) semalam I dah did (2) that one (3)

b. S2: (1) dulu (2) I was a soldier you know (3)

c. S3: (1) Ya lah (2) that one very expensive (3)

iii. ma

a. S1: (1) that one (2) very mahal (3)

b. S2: (1) aiyoh (2) full already (3)

c. S3: (1) dulu kan (2) I dah belanja (3)

vi. what

a. S1: (1) are (2) you crazy (3)

b. S2: (1) you know (2) that one is my auntie (3)

c. S3: (1) that one (2) was the best (3)

vii. hor

a. S1: (1) sure (2) kena hantam (3)

b. S2: (1) going (2) where (3)

c. S3: (1) I (2) goreng only (3)

viii. ah

a. S1: (1) can (2) or not (3)

b. S2: (1) boss (2) sky juice ada (3)

c. S3: (1) you (2) I so fed up with you (3)

iv. meh

a. S1: (1) you (2) got money (3)

b. S2: (1) is it (2) raining (3)

c. S3: (1) this one (2) very mahal (3)

v. one

a. S1: (1) your (2) is over there (3)

b. S2: (1) that (2) is a very easy (3)

c. S3: (1) don’t play (2) play (3)

ix. man

a. S1: (1) that one (2) is a very kacang (3)

b. S2: (1) she (2) is so quick (3)

c. S3: (1) how (2) have you been (3)

x. liao

a. S1: (1) I (2) eat (3)

b. S2: (1) this new game you play (2) or not (3)

c. S3: (1) he (2) throw (3)

Thank you for your cooperation

Muhammad Firdaus Norhan (2011)