EE LING LOW
Southeast Asia is a region where great linguistic and cultural diversity exists. As described by Azirah and Low (2014), English plays a major role for both intranational and international purposes of communication and the region provides rich linguistic data for research. Interestingly, the varieties of English within the region fall into different Kachruvian circles, the Outer Circle, which comprises countries where English was first spread through colonization by the British or Americans (e.g. Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei), and the Expanding Circle, where English is mainly used as a foreign language (e.g. in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia). This chapter provides a state‐of‐the‐art introduction to English in Southeast Asia. It begins with a brief description of English in Southeast Asia from the historical and sociopolitical perspectives. It then provides a description of features of English in the Outer Circle and Expanding Circle countries based on latest research findings. The chapter ends by highlighting some areas that need further research and the possible paradigm shifts that might need rethinking as current research in the region unfolds.
The spread of English to Southeast Asia was mainly through colonization, except for Thailand, which did not fall prey to any colonial powers. The colonial history of Southeast Asia lasted more than a hundred years, with a brief period of interregnum when most parts of Southeast Asia fell under Japanese occupation (1942–1945).
Malaysia comprises two main areas, namely West or Peninsular Malaysia (earlier called Malaya) and East Malaysia, comprising Sabah and Sarawak. The advent of British rule may be signposted by the founding of Penang in 1786 by Francis Light. Subsequently, the Straits Settlements, comprising Penang, Malacca, and Singapore, were established in 1826 to facilitate more effective administration of the British colonies in the Straits of Malacca. In tandem with the formation of the Straits Settlements, English‐medium schools were established in these areas (Kirkpatrick 2010). Malaya gained independence from British colonial rule in 1957. In September 1963, Malaysia was formed, and comprised Malaya, Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore, though Singapore left shortly after.
In Malaysia, schools are divided into national (or mainstream) schools, which are fully assisted by the government, and national‐type schools that are only partially funded by government. The medium of instruction in the national schools is Malay, whereas Chinese and Tamil are the media of instruction in national‐type schools. There are, in addition, some 60 independent private secondary schools with more than 50,000 students (Star 2000, as cited in David 2004) where Mandarin is the medium of instruction. Malay, the national language of Malaysia since 1967, is the medium of instruction for the majority of Malaysian students attending national schools, and English is a compulsory second language. With the influx of migrant workers into Malaysia, vernacular schools were established. Both Malay and English are compulsory subjects in these vernacular schools, with English only introduced from year 3 onwards. Based on the 1960 Rahman Talib Report, the Malaysian government introduced transitional classes termed “remove classes” in 1960 to enable students from vernacular schools to transfer to Malay‐medium secondary schools, that is, to become proficient in either Malay or English as the situation demanded (David 2004).
When Malaysia gained independence in 1957, English was established as the language of education in urban schools as well as the language of administration. However, after independence, the country initiated a gradual changeover to Malay as the language of instruction (Asmah1 1982: 89). This gradual conversion from English‐medium to Malay‐medium schools began in 1968. All English‐medium schools were converted to Malay‐medium schools by 1976, and all English‐medium secondary schools were converted to national schools in Peninsular Malaysia where the language of instruction was Malay (Solomon 1988: 46). By 1985, the medium of instruction was changed to Malay in all schools in Sabah and Sarawak. English continued to be taught as a second language in all Malay‐medium schools. This pro‐Malay language policy, however, was unsuccessful. It lasted only about two decades, and was rescinded in 2002 (Kirkpatrick 2010). Under the new policy, English was gradually reintroduced as the medium of instruction for mathematics and science starting from Primary 1 over a period of five years. More freedom was given to universities to choose their medium of instruction. Private universities were also given freedom to choose the medium of instruction as long as they made Malay a compulsory subject. The new policy of using English as the medium of instruction for mathematics and science, however, later received strong criticisms on a number of grounds (for details, refer to Kirkpatrick 2010). This led the government to phase out the use of English as the medium of instruction for mathematics and science starting from 2012 even though the decision failed to receive support from the majority of the middle‐class population. It is clear that the policy with regard to English as a medium of instruction in Malaysia has encountered many twists and turns since the country gained independence in 1963.
English in Singapore used to be considered one entity with English in Malaysia and called “English in Singapore and Malaysia.” This is unsurprising given the shared history of both nations until 1965, when Singapore became fully independent. Malay was established as the national language of Singapore and Malay, Mandarin, Tamil, and English were made co‐official languages. Singapore later adopted the bilingual policy which is also described as an “English + 1” policy (termed by Pakir 1991 as “English‐knowing bilingualism”), which requires that every Singaporean learn English plus their ethnic mother tongue. Only Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil were offered as second languages, not the range of dialects spoken by the Chinese or the full range of languages spoken by the Indians. The aim of the bilingual policy has been twofold: to allow Singaporeans the language competency to function effectively in a globalized world while enabling them to be culturally rooted.
The use of English as the medium of instruction and the adoption of English as the dominant language used for virtually all aspects of life and as one of the country’s official languages have led to high proficiency in English for most Singaporeans, some of whom in fact regard English as their first language. In Singapore, English serves as a global language of business, science, technology, and all professional purposes. In fact, English has been used so widely among the different ethnic groups of this nation that cultural mixing and hybridity have occurred in the language, and a local variety called “Singlish” has emerged. Singlish, the colloquial variety of Singapore English, has often been described as nonstandard and has been the cause for the government’s promotion of the “Speak Good English Movement.” In brief, English plays a unique role as a lingua franca in Singapore, which “promotes extensive English‐knowing bilingualism” (Pakir 2014: 51).
In 1888, 14 years after the Treaty of Pangkor was signed between the British and the Sultan of Perak, Brunei became a British protectorate. Brunei gained independence in 1984. In 1985, Brunei introduced the National Education System and its bilingual policy (Jones 2000; Kirkpatrick 2010). According to that policy, Malay was to be used as the medium of instruction up to the third year of primary school. From the fourth year onwards, English was used as the medium of instruction for mathematics, science, geography, history, and technical subjects, whereas Malay remained the medium of instruction for Malay literature, Islamic knowledge, civics, arts, handicrafts, and physical education (Asmah 2007: 358). In 2009, Brunei adopted the National Education System for the 21st Century and decided to implement a new policy in 2011 which made English the medium of instruction for mathematics and science from Primary 1 (Kirkpatrick 2010). When the bilingual policy was first introduced, some opponents argued that it might be pedagogically too demanding on young students to become bilingual, while others voiced nationalist concerns, arguing that the position of Malay would be undermined and that detrimental western concepts would be introduced. In spite of these initial concerns, there is now wide acceptance of the bilingual education system (Kirkpatrick 2010). The major concern in implementation is whether all students can become effectively bilingual by the time they graduate from university (Jones 2007: 257). Although people in many rural areas have only limited access to English, the bilingual language education policy in Brunei has been lauded as the most successful amongst the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) member countries (Martin & Abdullah 2002).
With a population of around 76 million inhabiting some seven thousand islands, the Philippines is a linguistically diverse country with eight major indigenous language groups comprising over one hundred languages (Galang 2000). According to the 1918 census, English was spoken by an educated elite of 896,358 out of 10.3 million people in the Philippine islands, 20 years after the American occupation began in 1898 (Gonzalez 2008: 13). English has been well accepted by the Filipinos who have continued to use it for purposes such as international communication, education, and mass media. Soon after 1898, the American military chaplain W. D. McKinnon’s “initiative …to teach English to the locals” was “welcomed” (Gonzalez 2008: 13). The census based on the period 1903–1918 showed 8.7% English speakers in the Philippines out of a total of 10.3 million people (Gonzalez 2008). The first two decades of English in the Philippines saw not only an emergence of the Philippine variety of English (known as “Philippine English”) with its distinctive pronunciation but also its style of academic writing and burgeoning local literature in English. Later, Philippine English was taught by locals who had learned English from their American mentors. Besides pronunciation differences, Philippine English has unique lexical and grammatical features which is elaborated upon later in this chapter.
English is needed in the Philippines not only by the elite but also by people from lower socioeconomic groups (Kirkpatrick 2010). This is because about two million Filipinos are working overseas according to a 2008 Survey on Overseas Filipinos, and being proficient in English is a necessary criterion for working outside the country. Meanwhile, the Philippine government has recently created more employment opportunities at home by successfully developing the call‐center industry (Bolton 2010). As both local and overseas jobs require high levels of English proficiency, English is now regarded as much more useful than Filipino (i.e. Tagalog) by many non‐Tagalog‐speaking Filipinos from different socioeconomic backgrounds (see Kirkpatrick 2010).
Cambodia is relatively homogeneous in linguistic terms. More than 90% of the population are Khmer. In 1989, French and English replaced Vietnamese and Russian as the main foreign languages of Cambodia. With the arrival of United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTRAC) and Cambodia’s resumed participation in international activities such as joining ASEAN, French “is being relentlessly squeezed out in favour of English” (Kirkpatrick 2010: 56). In the years following the 1993 dispute over the medium of instruction at the Institut de Technologie du Cambodge (see Clayton 2006 for details), English became increasingly welcomed by students in the universities. English has now become the foremost foreign language in Cambodia, though Chinese is also in demand. In addition, proficiency in English is essential if people want to seek employment with foreign agencies, as English is required by all foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and aid organizations operating in Cambodia, including French agencies (see Kirkpatrick 2010; Moore & Bounchan 2010).
The beginning of English language teaching in Indonesia is traceable back to the Dutch period, before World War II, when English was taught from junior high through senior high school. During the Japanese occupation, however, both Dutch and English were banned though they were secretly taught in some districts. With Indonesia’s independence, English became the first foreign language and began to be taught at schools. Detailed descriptions of English in Indonesia can be found in Kirkpatrick (2010) and Sadtono (2007). At present, English is taught from junior high school to university as a foreign language. Sadtono (2007) indicates that some schools in larger cities in Indonesia use English as the medium of instruction as early as in kindergarten and that some primary schools in urban and rural areas may also teach English. Indonesia, however, is the only ASEAN country that has not made English a compulsory subject in primary schools, though it is commonly taught as an optional subject (Siti 2008; Kirkpatrick 2010). The English‐teaching situation at universities presents a complicated picture: English is taught in some non‐English departments, whereas it may not be taught in others; it is adopted as the medium of instruction in some universities, while it is virtually abandoned in others (Sadtono 2007). Although English has been seen as the first foreign language since the 1950s (Dardjowidjojo 2000), the number of people who are proficient in the language remains low (Kirkpatrick 2010). Other than in the educational domain, English is used only in some limited sectors, for example, tourist agencies.
Laos is a country with a population of six million. It gained independence from France in 1948. Laos is divided into three Lao areas, namely Lowland Lao, which makes up about 65% of the population; Midland Lao, around 25% of the population; and Upland Lao, the remaining 10% (Kirkpatrick 2010). These three areas, however, are quite separate in linguistic terms (Watkins 2007: 409). Lowland Lao speak Tai; Midland Lao speak Mon‐Khmer languages; and Upland Lao, Tibeto‐Burman languages. English has, in recent years, become the first foreign language in Laos, and it is now taught in schools. According to the most recent Ministry of Education policy, English is taught from Primary 3 onwards (Phommanimith 2008) in spite of the lack of qualified teachers and suitable instructional materials. The present situation is one where only a small number of the elite are proficient in English.
Myanmar, formerly Burma, is a country both ethnically and linguistically diverse. Burma was occupied by the British in 1886, around 15 years after Malaya was taken under British control and more than 10 years before the Philippines was annexed by the United States (Kirkpatrick 2010: 51). Used as the language of government and administration, English was embraced by many Burmese (including the local Indians and Chinese) during the colonial period. In the 1920s and 1930s, a student organization called Our Myanmar Association carried out a movement to oppose the British rule and official use of English but failed due to its inability to establish “a strong, convincing and all encompassing Myanmar” identity (Kyaw 2007: 153). Many of the ethnic minorities, fearing that independence would bring on oppression by the Burmese, welcomed the British rule. Burma gained independence in 1948 under the leadership of U Nu, the first prime minister. Burmese was eventually accepted by the ethnic minority groups as the official language and also became the medium of instruction in both primary and secondary schools whereas English was made the major foreign language. During the period between 1962 and 1988, the role of English was considerably undermined with Burmese being made the medium of instruction for all university subjects. Thus, the use of English is still “restricted to the elite and to a small number of domains, mostly involving the few NGOs and aid programmes which remain” (Kirkpatrick 2010: 53).
The English language was introduced into Thailand by King Mongkut, or Rama IV (r. 1851–1868), rather than through colonization. Indeed, King Rama IV was “the first king who could communicate with foreigners without the help of an interpreter” (Darasawang 2007: 185–186). The demand for English has been increasing in Thailand, with “the role of English as the international lingua franca and language of modernity” (Kirkpatrick 2010: 49). At present, students learn English as the primary foreign language in all government schools in Thailand. English and Mandarin are the major foreign languages taught in schools, with Thai as the medium of instruction. While all foreign languages are elective subjects in Thailand’s education system, English is the most widely taught foreign language and is a compulsory subject for the National University Entrance Examination (Darasawang 2007). As Darasawang (2007) points out, English has played an important role in Thai education as well as in advancing the country’s economic and technological development.
English was brought to Vietnam by the Americans during the Vietnam War. With the end of the Vietnam War and the Ho Chi Minh administration coming to power in 1975, English was banned and deemed to be the language of the enemy. The economic reforms begun in 1986 and forces of globalization have caused a nationwide rush to learn English. The language has become so popular that not only were English classes filled with students, but also doctors, engineers, senior police officers, army officers, diplomats, and even retired government officials (Ho & Wong 2004: 1). English has now become the dominant foreign language in Vietnam, with over 90% of children learning it (Baker & Giacchino‐Baker 2003). Another factor that contributes to the increasing demand for English is the fact that it is the only working language of ASEAN. With Vietnamese as the medium of instruction, English is taught as a compulsory foreign language from Primary 3 onwards (Kirkpatrick 2010).
Outside the educational domain, there is also a growing demand for English in other sectors, such as manufacturing and tourism (Le & O’Harrow 2007). English proficiency has thus become an essential requirement for those who want to seek employment with the growing number of foreign companies operating in Vietnam. The increasing demand for English has posed some challenges for English language teaching in Vietnam such as shortage and low quality of teachers of English (Le & O’Harrow 2007). The challenge also exists in the nonschool context in that only a small number of government officials can speak English fluently as the majority of them were trained in the former Soviet Union.
The pronunciation features of Malaysian English (MalE) are not uniform across all regions (see Gaudart 2000; Azirah & Tan 2012). Differences exist between the varieties of MalE spoken in the central and southern parts of Peninsular Malaysia and those spoken in East Malaysia as well as in some northern states, particularly the basilectal and mesolectal varieties (Azirah & Tan 2012). A major difference lies in the fact that the word‐final orthographical ‘a’ is pronounced as a low central vowel [ɑ] in East Malaysia and the northern states of Peninsular Malaysia but realized as a schwa [ə] in the central and southern regions (Asmah 1977).
Compared to Inner Circle varieties such as British English (BrE), which has 20 distinctive vowels (i.e. 12 monophthongs and 8 diphthongs), MalE contains only 9 distinctive vowels (6 monophthongs and 3 diphthongs). Rajadurai’s (2006) study finds that, unlike BrE, which has seven short monophthongs, MalE has only six, as /e/ and /æ/ are represented by the mid‐front vowel /ɛ/. Influenced by Malay, in which long vowels do not exist, MalE vowels in general do not maintain obvious distinctions in length and quality (Baskaran 2004; Zuraidah 2000). With regard to vowel quality, Zuraidah (2000) finds that back vowels such as /ɔː/, /ɒ/, and /ɑː/ tend to be more closed than their BrE counterparts, while Baskaran (2004) proposes that /ɔː/ and /ɑː/ are more raised and centralized than their BrE counterparts. Lack of vowel reduction is also quite common, so the schwa /ə/ may be pronounced as [a], [e], [o], [eɪ], or [ɪ]. Finally, Baskaran (2004) and Zuraidah (2000) note that diphthongs in MalE tend to be reduced such that the glides weaken to result in monophthongization, for example, take realized as [tek], boat realized as [bot], and hair as [he].
Azirah and Tan (2012) summarize six salient features of MalE consonants. The first relates to reduction of consonant clusters in word‐final positions commonly seen in fast speech in many dialects of MalE. In many cases, clusters of three consonants tend to be reduced to two, and clusters of two to one; for example, prints realized as [prɪns] and except realized as [ɪksep].
The second feature is the lack of aspiration for the voiceless stops in the initial position, particularly at the mesolectal level, causing /p, t, k/ to be pronounced as their voiced counterparts [b, d, g].
The next feature has to do with devoicing of voiced fricatives. MalE speakers tend to devoice /v, z, ʒ, dʒ/ in final position (Baskaran 2008a), and /z, ʒ/ in medial position (Baskaran 2005), for example, gave realized as [geɪf] and pleasure realized as [pleʃə].
The fourth consonantal feature concerns with voicing of voiceless fricatives. Voiceless fricative /s/ is often voiced in final position and voiceless fricative /ʃ/ tends to be voiced when occurring in medial and final positions, for example, nice realized as [nɑɪz] and push as [pʊʒ] (Baskaran 2008a: 286).
The fifth feature has to do with the dental fricatives. MalE speakers tend to realize /θ/ and /ð/ as [t] and [d], respectively, when they occur in initial, medial, and final positions, and /ð/ may also be pronounced as [θ]. Examples are thank realized as [tæŋk], brother realized as [brʌdə], and bathe realized as [beθ] (Baskaran 2005: 26).
The sixth consonantal feature of MalE is glottalization, which occurs, especially in basilectal MalE, to word‐final stops when they follow a vowel; for example, put realized as [pʊʔ] and spark realized as [spɑːʔ] (Azirah & Tan 2012).
In terms of rhythm, some studies (e.g. Baskaran 2005) have suggested the staccato effect of MalE, as MalE syllables tend to be nearly equal in length. Tan and Low (2014) provide acoustic evidence showing that MalE is more syllable‐based compared to Singapore English. With regard to stress, previous studies seem to point to two main features. First, unlike BrE speakers, MalE speakers generally do not use stress to distinguish parts of speech (i.e. verbs from nouns for those words whose parts of speech change with the shift of stress; Baskaran 2005: 31). Second, MalE speakers tend to shift the stress from the antepenultimate syllable to the penultimate syllable, in which vowels remain un‐reduced, as a possible result from Malay, where stress tends to be placed on the penultimate syllable (Azirah & Tan 2012), for example, calendar realized as [ˈkæləndə] in BrE but [kəˈlendə] in MalE. In other cases, the stress may shift in the opposite direction, that is, from the penultimate to the antepenultimate, for example, correction pronounced as [kəˈrekʃən] in BrE but [ˈkɒrekʃən] in MalE (Azirah & Tan 2012).
The following is a brief summary of MalE grammar features reported in Baskaran (2008b) and Azirah and Tan (2012):
Baskaran (2005, cited in Azirah & Tan 2012: 67) provides six categories of local lexicon that are used in MalE:
The phonology of Singapore English (SingE) has been documented extensively (for details, refer to Low 2010c; Low 2012; Wee 2004c), especially in terms of segmental features. Some of the salient features of SingE are summarized here. With regard to monophthong vowels, acoustic evidence (see Deterding 2005) shows that the DRESS vowel is realized both as the diphthong rhyming with the FACE vowel (e.g. in egg, bed, and dead) and as a monophthong similar to the TRAP vowel (e.g. peg, bed, and fed). Conflation of long/short vowels is found for the FLEECE‐KIT and DRESS‐TRAP pairs (Suzanna & Brown 2000; Tan & Low 2010). On the other hand, the evidence points to differentiation between the PALM‐STRUT, GOOSE‐FOOT, and CLOTH‐THOUGHT pairs (see Deterding 2003; Tan & Low 2010). Monophthongisation is found in two closing diphthongs, those in the lexical keywords FACE and GOAT (Deterding 2000; Lee & Lim 2000). Triphthongs in Standardized Singapore English (hereafter StSingE except in quotations) tend to be pronounced by inserting a glide between the diphthong and the schwa [ə], for example, the insertion of [j] between [ɑɪ] and [ə] when pronouncing the word fire: [ˈfɑɪjə].
Some salient consonantal features have also been documented. An inventory of consonants in both initial and final positions is found in Low and Brown (2005) as well as in Low (2012). The inventory lists the conflations of some consonants that Low (2012: 40) proposes occur only “in the spoken variety of StSingE and in conversational speech rather than in carefully scripted speech, such as in the reading of news, passages or sentences.” The findings about the conflation of the consonants indicate that SingE speakers tend to pronounce initial voiceless stops as their voiced counterparts, that the alveolar stops [t] and [d] are often used to replace the initial dental fricatives [θ] and [ð], and that dental fricatives in final positions tend to be pronounced as labio‐dental fricatives, [f] and [v].
StSingE rhythm is described in early studies as having a staccato effect or sounding like a “machine‐gun.” This perception, according to Brown (1988), is due to SingE’s lack of vowel reduction, sound linking in connected speech, and long/short vowel distinctions. Acoustic evidence from Deterding (2001), Grabe and Low (2002), and Low, Grabe, and Nolan (2000) supports earlier claims that StSingE is syllable‐based. With reference to stress, Bao (1998) noted the following three features of lexical stress placement in SingE:
Observations by Low and Brown (2005) and Tay (1982) indicate that StSingE speakers tend to shift stress to one syllable later than where BrE speakers would place it, for example, in words such as COlleague (BrE) vs. coLLEAgue (SingE) and eCOnomy (BrE) vs. ecoNOmy (SingE). It is also observed that for words where a shift in stress placement would change their parts of speech in BrE (such as import, export, and contact), StSingE seems to use only one fixed stress placement for both parts of speech. This is supported by acoustic evidence provided in Low (2000).
In terms of grammar, Standardized SingE is in the main similar to other Inner Circle varieties of English, for example, BrE and American English (AmE). The following highlights some grammatical features of Standardized SingE from Low (2012) (see also Low & Brown 2005 for a detailed description of grammatical features of SingE).
Previous studies of lexis (e.g. Lim & Wee 2001; Wee 2004a, 2004b) have mainly focused on lexis in Colloquial SingE. This section focuses on some common vocabulary found in formal domains such as newspapers and formal speeches in StSingE (for detailed descriptions, refer to Deterding 2007; Lim 2001; Low 2010a; Ooi 2001).
Salbrina (2006) shows that, like SingE, BrunE does not distinguish between vowels in the pairs /iː/~/ɪ/, /e/~/æ,/ and /ɔː/~/ɒ/, and that the high back vowels /uː/ and /ʊ/ are fronted, similar to BrE. In addition, a recent study (McLellan & Noor 2012) reports that there are also conflations between some other vowels in informal BrunE, including /e/ pronounced as [ɪ] or [i:] (e.g. wedding → weeding), /ʌ/ pronounced as [ɒ] (e.g. wonder → wander), and /eɪ/ pronounced as /e/ or vice versa (e.g. main → men; dateline ⇆ deadline).
With regard to consonants, McLellan and Noor (2012) report that the voiceless and voiced dental fricatives /θ/ in word‐initial position and /ð/ in word‐medial position in BrunE, as in many other varieties of English in Southeast Asia (see Deterding & Kirkpatrick 2006: 395), tend to be pronounced as their voiceless and voiced stop counterparts [t] and [d]. It is also reported that some other voiced fricatives in word‐final position, such as /z/, tend to be devoiced (e.g. please /pli:z/ → /pli:s/) and that word‐final stops tend to be unreleased or glotallised (e.g. book /bʊk/ → /bʊʔ/; straight /streɪt/ → /streʔ/; see McLellan & Noor 2012; Mossop 1996a, 1996b). Another consonantal feature is the reduction or deletion of the word‐final consonant clusters, particularly in more informal BrunE speech. Mossop (1996a: 176) reports 100% deletion of “stop + stop” final clusters, 89% deletion of “fricative + stop” final clusters, 70% deletion of “nasal + stop” final clusters, and less than 50% other types of deletion of consonant clusters in BrunE. More recent studies also report widespread evidence of rhoticity in BrunE (see Salbrina 2009; Salbrina & Deterding 2010).
This section highlights some grammatical features of BrunE that have been reported. More detailed descriptions can be found in Cane (1993, 1994, 1996) and McLellan and Noor (2012).
The use of loanwords from Malay is one of the main lexical features in BrunE. Some common examples include syariah (Islamic law), syabu (methamphetamine), and malam (night). Some English words have also been given special meanings in the Brunei context, for example, the phrase spare part is used to denote ‘the other girlfriend besides the special one’. For more detailed descriptions of these and other lexical features in BrunE, readers can refer to McLellan and Noor (2012).
The vowel system of PhilE comprises five vowels, namely /a/, /ɛ/, /ɪ/, /ɔ/ and /u/ (Dayag 2012). In PhilE, a distinction between tense and lax vowels is not maintained, and /æ/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/ are pronounced as [a], [ɛ], [ɪ], [ɔ], and [u], respectively. There is a lack of vowel reduction in unstressed syllables in PhilE, for example, the word‐initial /ə/ in above, alone, and around is pronounced as [a] (see Kachru 1997: 41–48; Kachru & Nelson 2006: 188–189; Llamzon 1997).
There are 18 consonants in the PhilE consonant system, namely [p], [t], [tʃ], [k], [b], [d], [dʒ], [g], [s], [ʃ], [h], [l], [m], [n], [ŋ], [r], [w], [ʲ] (Dayag 2012). In PhilE, the voiceless stops /p/, /t/, and /k/ are unaspirated when they are in word‐initial positions and unreleased when in word‐final positions. In addition, there is generally conflation between /s/ and /z/, so that both are pronounced as [s]. With regard to the two dental fricatives, the voiceless /θ/ is pronounced as the voiceless stop [t], and the voiced /ð/ is pronounced as the voiced stop [d] (see Kachru 1997: 41–48; Kachru and Nelson 2006: 188–189; Llamzon 1997). Reduction of consonant clusters is also reported in studies such as Gonzalez (1985: 57), Bautista (2001), and Dayag (2012).
With regard to rhythm, PhilE has been documented as a syllable‐timed variety of English (see Dayag 2012; Kachru 1997: 41–48; Kachru & Nelson 2006: 188–189). Lexical stress shift has also been reported (e.g. Tayao 2004) in that the primary stress on the first syllable of some words is shifted to the second syllable in typical PhilE speech. In terms of intonation, PhilE speakers tend to use rising intonation for statements, wh‐questions, phrases and clauses, and falling intonation for yes‐no questions (see Gonzalez 1985: 57, as cited in Bautista 2001 and Dayag 2012).
Based on the works of Bautista (2000a, 2000b) and Bautista and Gonzalez (2006: 136), the following highlights some main grammatical features of PhilE. A detailed summary can also be found in Dayag (2012).
Dayag (2012) summarizes some salient lexical features in PhilE. The following is a brief summary of three of these features.
There is a paucity of research on features of Expanding Circle varieties of Englishes in Southeast Asia. This section therefore focuses on only three varieties: Cambodian English, Thai English, and Vietnamese English.
The limited number of studies on Cambodian English (see Narith 2008; Moore & Bounchan 2010) do not appear to have reported features of vowels, though they do present some observations of consonantal features of this variety. These features are summarized here. Both Narith (2008) and Moore and Bounchan (2010) report that the majority of Cambodian learners and speakers of English find it difficult to pronounce the voiced dental fricative /ð/ and the voiceless postalveolar fricative /ʃ/. Thus, /ð/ is often pronounced as [d], and /ʃ/ as [s], unlike in Inner Circle varieties of English. Another consonantal feature is the addition and omission of consonants such as /s/, /f/ and /p/ in word‐final position, for example, perhaps realized as perhap, help realized as hel, always realized as alway, wife realized as wi, and many realized as manys.
There is only a negligible amount of research done on the suprasegmental features of Cambodian English, to the best of the author’s knowledge. What is available indicates that intonation and stress shifting (e.g. meSSAge) are problematic areas.
This section highlights some of the main grammatical features reported in Narith (2008) and Moore and Bounchan (2010):
Both Narith (2008) and Moore and Bounchan (2010) report the borrowing of Khmer vocabulary into Cambodian English. These loanwords most frequently occur in more formal communication as found in news report writing. Examples of loanwords in Cambodian English include those listed in Narith (2008) and Moore and Bounchan (2010) such as prakas ‘directive’, prohok (a crushed, salted, and fermented fish paste), and pchum ben (the annual festival for the dead). Other lexical features include using English words to express French meaning and neologism (Moore & Bounchan 2010).
There are more vowels in Thai than in English, so Thai speakers of English have some difficulty in distinguishing and producing English vowels (Trakulkasemsuk 2012). There is a tendency for ThaiE speakers to distinguish English tense and lax vowels only in terms of length. In addition, Wei and Zhou (2002) report the monophthongization of /eɪ/ to [e] (as in tail and hate) in ThaiE.
More consonantal features of ThaiE have been documented than vowel features (see Kruatrachue 1960; Trakulkasemsuk 2012; Wei & Zhou 2002). According to Kruatrachue (1960), ThaiE speakers tend to substitute the English consonants not found in Thai (namely /tʃ/, /dʒ/, /θ/, /ð/, /ʃ/, /ʒ/) with the closest Thai consonants available. Thus, English /tʃ/, /ʃ/, and /ʒ/ are in general pronounced as [t&ip.ccrl;ʰ]; /dʒ/ may be pronounced as [t&ip.ccrl;]; /θ/ may be pronounced as [t], [tʰ], or [s] (most commonly as [t] in initial position), whereas /ð/ tends to be pronounced as [d] (see Kruatrachue 1960; Trakulkasemsuk 2012). Moreover, ThaiE speakers also tend to pronounce /v/ as [w] and /z/ as [s] and thus do not distinguish between vest ~ west and rice ~ rise. Apart from these features, Wei and Zhou (2002) also report other consonantal features of ThaiE, namely devoicing of voiced consonants in word‐final position, for example, /v/ pronounced as [f], and /ʒ/ pronounced as [s]. It should be noted, however, that Kruatrachue’s (1960) study was conducted more than five decades ago, and more studies are needed to provide updated findings about these ThaiE features.
In terms of rhythm, acoustic evidence seems to support the observation that ThaiE is a stress‐based variety of English, as it has high nPVI (normalized Pairwise Variability Index) value as well as low %V (proportion of vocalic intervals) value like BrE, a stress‐based Inner Circle variety (Sarmah, Gogoi, & Wiltshire 2009). Regarding stress, Wei and Zhou’s (2002) study points to a tendency of ThaiE speakers to place lexical stress on the last syllable. The same study also reports that, in terms of intonation, ThaiE speakers tend to use the rising tone for wh‐questions and that they are observed to use the same tone for both yes‐no questions and statements.
Trakulkasemsuk (2012) discusses some grammatical features of ThaiE, which are summarized as follows.
Previous studies, such as Chutisilp (1984) and Watkhaolarm (2005), report several lexical features of ThaiE, some of which are summarized here.
There is also a scarcity of research on the features of Vietnamese English (VietE). Only one study on the segmental features of this Expanding Circle variety is available (see Duong 2009). There is a pressing need, therefore, to conduct more feature‐based research into this variety.
Duong (2009) focuses on only four VietE consonants, /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /tʃ/, and /dʒ/. VietE speakers tend to pronounce the voiceless postalveolar fricative /ʃ/ as the voiceless alveolar fricative [s], for example, she is often realized as [siː]. The voiced postalveolar fricative /ʒ/ tends to be pronounced as the voiced alveolar fricative [z], for example, pleasure realized as [plezə]. As “there are no affricates in the Vietnamese consonant system” (Duong 2009: 46), it is anticipated that VietE speakers may find the two English affricates difficult to pronounce. Thus the voiceless English affricate /tʃ/ tends to be pronounced as the Vietnamese stop consonant [ć], whereas its voiced counterpart /dʒ/ is often pronounced as [z] (or [s]) in VietE. English words containing the voiceless affricate (e.g. cheese, chair, and future) would pose difficulties for VietE speakers. Similarly, the word judge, which contains the voiced affricate, may be realized [zʌz] by VietE speakers.
This chapter has described the historical and sociopolitical aspects of English in Southeast Asia and the main linguistic features of both Outer and Expanding Circle English varieties. The advent of English in the region has a uniform backdrop, that is, colonization, with the exception of Thailand, which remained fully independent through the colonial period. With rapid globalization and technological advancement, the world is becoming more and more closely interconnected. Southeast Asia is no exception, and within the region, there is a concomitant rise in the importance of the English language as a tool for global communication and access to both local and foreign employment opportunities.
In terms of research, feature‐based studies on the varieties of Southeast Asian Englishes are grossly imbalanced. The bulk of existing research mainly focuses on the Outer Circle varieties, such as SingE, MalE, and BrunE, whereas research on Expanding Circle varieties such as Cambodian English, Laotian English, VietE, and Myanmar English is notably lacking. In the Outer Circle varieties, more empirically based studies can be carried out on linguistic features earlier documented but in the Expanding Circle varieties, even literature surveys on the features are also at a fledgling stage of development. More investigations need to be done on cross‐varietal communication and its impact on intelligibility in this region to continue work begun in Deterding and Kirkpatrick (2006).
As Azirah and Low (2014) suggest, the fact that Southeast Asia constitutes one geographical region, with two different circles of English within the Kachruvian paradigm, should generate much research interest. A study of the ecological development of English in the region and the differing users and use of English intraregionally can form a possible research area. Apart from feature‐based studies, variation studies in relation to the other languages spoken in each country is also worthy of further investigation. The differences in language planning and policy across the region and its impact on English language education in the region also deserve attention.
English is acquired as a second language within the school system or increasingly as a first language in the Outer Circle countries of Southeast Asia. In the Expanding Circle, it is learnt as a foreign language. English has continued to spread, and the English competence of users in the region is, on the whole, increasing. However, it is important to realize that the levels and percentages of those competent in the English language differ greatly between the Outer and Expanding Circle varieties. In the latter, English still seems to be within reach only of a minority elite, while in the Outer Circle varieties, English is fast becoming both the medium of instruction and the working language used by the majority of the population. Such unevenness has to be addressed, especially in the context of ASEAN and the use of English within ASEAN. Ultimately, differing levels of proficiency in English may also signal differing levels of employability across the region and will ultimately have an impact on economic progress of the region as a whole.
As suggested by Bautista and Gonzalez (2006), in the interests of the intensifying international communication and growing demand for mutual intelligibility, there will be a pressure for standardization. From a survey of the linguistic features covered in the preceding section, there exists remarkable similarity across the region with more variation as expected in the Expanding Circle varieties. As empirical studies already exist to provide evidence that linguistic features such as pronunciation in the Outer Circle varieties are norm‐developing (Low 2010b), the emergence of a regional endonormative standard will not come as a surprise, especially for the Outer Circle varieties. Such endonormative standardization for the Expanding Circle varieties will occur only when the competency levels and numbers of users of English rise.