Critical Review

-Written by Ng Kit Meng, TGB 100004-

Lee, S. K., Lee, K. S., Wong, F. F., & Ya’acob, A. (2010). The English Language and Its Impact on
Identities of Multilingual Malaysian Undergraduates. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies,
10(1), 87-101.

English language in today’s world has played a very important part, not only as a global
language, but also an international lingua franca. In Malaysia, English is regarded as a second
language among most of the Malaysians. Some argue that English is vital as a second language
and as a social interaction tool, while others believe that it is threatening the status of our
national language and the mother tongues of the Malaysians (Lee Su Kim, 2003; Lee Su Kim
2008).

The paper discusses how the English language affects the social and cultural identities of
a group of multilingual Malaysian undergraduates who have either acquired English from a
young age, as a first language or later in a more formal context, in school. Three main themes
are discussed: English emerging as the dominant language, English viewed as the language of
empowerment, and English as a tool to verify the degree of ‘othering’.

As stated in the objectives, this paper presents only the findings from a few selected case
studies that provide qualitative data. It also reports on how different multilingual Malaysian
undergraduates regard English as compared with the other languages in their repertoire and how
it has played an important role in shaping the image of these students in their daily interaction.

To support their arguments, a review of literature of studies on language and identity in

Malaysia is presented. Asmah Haji Omar (1991) mentioned that non-Malay academicians who
speak English as a dominant language prefer to send their children to private tuition to learn their
mother tongue as a sign of cultural identity. The second study of Asmah Haji Omar (1998)
indicated that linguistic identity changes greatly according to the environment, it is neither
inborn nor fixed. Another reviewed literature is from Maya Khemlani David’s (1996) doctoral
study which mentioned that the third generation of Sindhi, who undergo the national system of
schooling where the medium is Malay, in Malaysia no longer have the proficiency in the
language. They use English as a language of communication rather than Sindhi. However, they
still believe they share the cultural identity by socio personality traits, food, clothing, and
religious and cultural celebrations.

To further support their hypothesis, a qualitative research is done where 20 Malaysians

are chosen as the subjects to answer a few research questions. These 20 students are ranged from
20 to 24 years old. There were 7 Malays, 8 Chinese, 4 Indians, and 1 Singhalese (16 females / 4
males). Twelve of the undergraduates were selected from public universities and eight from
private universities. Selection was based on regular usage of English in addition to other
languages in their repertoire. Carscpecken’s (1996) critical ethnography interviewing techniques
is used, focusing on six main topics: language repertoire, experience of learning English, social
interaction, experience of culture, library exposure and identity.

The more dominant themes emerged during the interviews are presented in the article in
the findings. They are divided into three parts according to the themes; multilingualism with
English as the dominant language, English is viewed as a pragmatic language and a language of
empowerment, and varying degrees of ‘Othering’. The discussion reveals that English has
become a first language among the subjects and influenced them in perceiving themselves and
being perceived in society. Being competent in English has positioned themselves as higher
society among those who are less competent. In addition, it also allows them to be more critical
and thoughtful in expressing their views. However, the subjects face the problem of being
‘othered’ by those who are more proficient in their ethnic language.

How convincing though, is this idea that the English Language has its impact on
identities of multilingual Malaysian undergraduates. To begin with, we need to consider the
number of students chosen and the ratio of different nationalities. The age concerned is
appropriate because 20 to 24 of age is the age of undergraduates. However, the ratio of
nationalities: 7 Malays, 8 Chinese, l4 Indians, and 1 Singhalese, is vague and it is no explanation
is given as to how or why such a ratio has been chosen, whether it is the ratio of nationalities in
Malaysia or nationalities of undergraduates in Malaysia. Does that ratio include both public and
private universities? The validation is not stated in the article. There is also another ambiguity in
the selection of subjects. In my view, the subjects should be ‘real’ Malaysians, by this it means,
Malaysians who were born and bred in Malaysia. However, two of the subjects had spent a
significant amount of time abroad during their years which are related to critical period
hypothesis (Brown, 2000, p.53).

The data analysis presented in findings under the topic ‘Multilingualism with English as
the dominant language’ is ambiguous. This is because the paper assumes English to be the
dominant language of the participants but, based on what is mentioned, it does not appear to be
the case. To illustrate this, an example is given on English as a language to be spoken at home.
However, the conclusion is that language is only used up to a certain of degree at home, not as a
dominant language. The second example is English-educated parents who send their children to
Chinese primary school. Even though the parents teach their children English at home, that
doesn’t reveal that English is a dominant language. They could have sent their children to
national schools where English is more dominant compared to Chinese primary school. My
question is why are these illustrations used to prove that English is a dominant language?

Despite these criticisms, I find this article to be highly valuable and we need to judge it in
terms of the authors' purpose in writing. What I found interesting is that on the one hand, the
respondents find that being proficient in the language makes them feel that they are being
‘othered’ by the others who are more proficient in their mother tongue. In my opinion, they
might be the ones who want to ‘other’ themselves. This is because as stated in the findings, being
able to speak fluent English gives them the right of empowerment. In other words, they do not
want to mix with the ‘other’ groups so that they don’t lose their right of empowerment.
Reference

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New York, NY:
Pearson Education