World Englishes, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 406–419, 2010. 0883-2919
Brunei English: a developing variety
BREDA O’HARA-DAVIES∗
ABSTRACT: A considerable amount of time has elapsed since the existence of a distinct variety of English, Brunei English (BNE), was mooted in the early 1990s. A subsequent study conducted by Svalberg in 1998 suggested that BNE was then in its infancy and that its speakers were largely unaware of the differences between it and Standard British English (STE). However, it was predicted that BNE would, in all likelihood, expand and stabilise over time. This paper seeks to explore how BNE has evolved and is developing in a contemporary context. An adapted and extended version of Svalberg’s original grammaticality judgement test was given to a class of 29 Lower Sixth Form students aged 16–17 at DPMAMB College. The participants involved had relatively high proficiency levels in STE, having all achieved credit grades in the Brunei-Cambridge GCE O Level English Language examination the previous year. The original test had focused solely on the grammatical acceptability of featured items. In extending it I added a number of lexical items commonly heard in everyday conversations and exchanges and some that emerge consistently in both student and public texts. It was considered that having participants assess both lexicality and grammaticality would yield a wider-ranging picture of the forms and functions characteristic of BNE today and a greater illumination of its role in meeting the expressive needs of Bruneians.
INTRODUCTION Negara Brunei Darussalam (henceforth Brunei) is promoted at home and abroad as a ‘King- dom of Unexpected Treasures’ (
∗Duli Pengiran Muda Al-Muhtadee Billah College. Department of English, Jalan Pasar Baru, Gadong, BE1318, Brunei Darussalam. E-mail: [email protected]
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Brunei English: a developing variety 407
The remaining demographic is made up of the Chinese community, which accounts for roughly 18 per cent, and the other 7 per cent are foreign workers from Southeast Asia and beyond – among them expatriate English L1-speaker teachers (Gunn 1997: 7). Mandarin is the language of instruction in non-government Chinese schools, but varieties such as Hokkien, Hakka and Cantonese are more likely to be the ones spoken at home (Dunseath 1996: 286). The other languages featured in Brunei’s ‘glottoscape’ – a term coined by Canagarajah for the flow of and between languages (Canagarajah 2005: 17) – include Thai, Tagalog, Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Malay), Standard British English – an increasingly dominant medium of instruction in education at all levels in Brunei – and Brunei English. This rich and varied linguistic landscape is testament to the lived reality of multilingualism in Brunei; a reality that predates and now co-exists with the bilingual language education policy, known in Malay as dwibahasa. It also challenges one of the im- perialistic tenets of English Language Teaching (ELT), that monolingualism is the norm – a notion that has been redesignated as a fallacy (Phillipson 1992: 188).
BACKGROUND: ENGLISH IN BRUNEI Brunei became an independent sovereign state relatively recently, in 1984. Contrary to the “natural reaction to leave behind the linguistic character imposed by its colonial past” (Crystal 2003: 145), Brunei chose to embrace the English language and extend its reach beyond the existing elite´ through a forward-looking bilingual system of education. This move could be viewed as being at odds with the 1959 Constitution in which the Malay language (Bahasa Melayu) was declared the official language of the country and the recommendations of two education commissions; the first in 1962 and the second in 1972, both in favour of the use of the Malay language as the main medium of instruction (Ministry of Education 2003: 3). The complex situation on the ground at the time of independence is likely to have acted as a bulwark against this enshrined ideological stance. It appears that the rationale for the use of the two languages was multidimensional. In the wake of the 1962 nationalistic uprising “there arose the political need ...to culturally – and linguistically – isolate Brunei” (Gunn 1997: 175) from the wider nationalist pan-Indonesia movement of the time. Additionally, links with the former protecting power or coloniser were far from being severed. There are suggestions of a British desire to continue cultivating a loyal, English-speaking, educated elite´ (Gunn 1997: 175). This would be realised through the supply of expatriate teachers and the allocation of places at UK tertiary institutions to selected Bruneian students. Consequently, exonormative British standards would still be applied to curricula and examinations; a situation which exists to this day. Since Brunei is still under the state of emergency law imposed in 1962, a British army presence also continues to be deployed there with the majority of personnel stationed in areas where the oil and gas industries are concentrated. Thus, Brunei remains noticeably Anglophile and Anglophone in orientation; a trend continually reinforced by the monarchy itself at the highest level (Small 1999: 29–30).
LANGUAGE AND IDENTITY
No one today is purely one thing (Said 1994: 407).
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 408 Breda O’Hara-Davies
This simple yet loaded statement is found in the concluding pages of Said’s book, Culture and Imperialism. It seems a logical point of departure for an exploration of the contem- porary concept of identity and the ways in which it interacts with and is articulated by language(s). If a language is the “most immediate and universal symbol of identity” (Crystal 2003: 125), how do speakers of multiple languages deal with their accompanying multiple iden- tities? This task can become even more problematic when one of the languages is English which has “an unhappy colonial resonance” (Crystal 2003: 125). Somewhat ironically, Said regards that very imperialism which gave rise to colonial activity as having had a consolidatory effect on the mixing of cultures and identities on a global scale and suggests that human beings are involved in making their own cultures and identities (Said 1994: 407–8). Such agency in the creation and maintenance of both cultures and identities would involve people in a continuous process of negotiation and reconciliation due to the con- flicting and contradictory forces that our multicultural, multilinguistic world exerts on them. Much has been written about the quest for identity from this standpoint. It has been variously analogised as ‘crossing’ (Rampton 1995); ‘border crossings’ (Lee et al. 2007); and ‘translating lives’ (Besemeres and Wierzbicka 2007). These titles are suggestive of both dynamism and involvement albeit in a milieu of paradox and ambivalence. As such they are likely to capture the essence of the lived realities of English language learners everywhere in today’s complex world. Such analogies also suggest a move away from the powerlessness and victimisation paradigm that is central to the rhetoric of linguistic imperi- alism (cf. Phillipson 1992). People who actively construct and forge cultural and linguistic identities are less likely to have alien or unwanted identities forced onto them. Despite safeguarding them to some extent from the external imposition of identities (Omaar 2007: 9), such agency does not, however, free them from the struggle to find and articulate their multiple selves. They are tasked with constructing and negotiating national, ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identities that at once create and are created by the lived realities of their lives. The Malay language (Bahasa Melayu in Malay) is the official language in Brunei Darussalam. However, its role as an identity marker has been usurped by a native variety known as Brunei Malay. This is the de facto national language of Brunei which symbolises “solidarity, prestige and spontaneity” (Martin 1996: 34, 2008: 208–9) and acts as the “ve- hicle for interethnic communication and increasingly ...for intraethnic communication” (Martin 1996: 29). It is “the language of the soul” (Oz˙og´ 1996: 159). If language is home to a characteristic worldview – “the whole conceptual fabric and mode of presentation” (Wierzbicka 2006: 5, citing Humboldt) of the people who share it – then in the Bruneian context this language is their unique appropriated variety of Malay. This identifies them as Bruneians and differentiates them from other Malay speakers in the region. It expresses (and is a key component of) ‘Bruneiness’. It is against such a backdrop that the role of English in the identity-building of Bruneians is explored. The English language initially became part of Brunei’s glottoscape in the late 19th century as the language of the ‘protector’/coloniser. However, it was not until the 1930s that English-medium primary education was made available on a very limited scale. Later, after the Second World War, English-medium secondary education was offered from the 1950s, whereas Malay-medium secondary education did not become available until 1966 (Ministry of Education 2003: 3). It is likely that these educational provisions were driven
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Brunei English: a developing variety 409 by utilitarian and economical concerns rather than being ideologically led (Brutt-Griffler 2002: 39, 44), given the need to provide human resources for the country’s fast-growing oil industry and burgeoning civil service. These personnel would have needed English language skills to facilitate the country’s development. In the two decades leading up to Independence, there was a dual educational system with high achievers in the Primary Certificate of Education (PCE) examination being selected for English-medium secondary schools, while those with lower scores went to Malay-medium schools (Cane 1994: 352). This served to elevate the status of English-medium education in the Bruneian psyche – a notion that still holds sway today. Furthermore, the formal institutionalisation of English in the bilingual system adopted from the onset of full independence in 1984 gave the English language a major role in the shaping of a Bruneian future. Its long-term presence and increasing pervasiveness have likely been factors contributing to its appropriation to the local context. The interrelationship between Bruneians and the English language in a contemporary context is the focus of this research. It seeks to explore how a local form of English (BNE) is developing as a distinct variety in harmony with the other languages that feature in Brunei’s linguistic ecology.
METHODOLOGY The study is guided by the ideology of the qualitative research paradigm. The is- sue of an appropriated local form of English language in Brunei is both complex and social, and needs to be understood from the perspectives of those who experience it firsthand. Such an emic view allows the ‘insider’s’ perception of their reality to come through (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003: 514). What emerges is their linguistic reality as they think it, speak it and write it. Moreover, the researcher was adhering to the worldview closest to her own (Anderson 1990: 11; Mertens 1998: 7). This encompasses the con- struction of a picture using emergent data and allowing for events to be interpreted in multiple ways (Fraenkel and Wallen, 2003: 432–33). To this end, no hypotheses were ar- ticulated at the outset and the research effort remained open to whatever the resultant data suggested. Since ethical concerns are of particular importance in qualitative research, every effort was made to protect the participants from harm, to safeguard the confidentiality of the data and to ensure disclosure and transparency (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003: 57). Written consent of parents/guardians was sought in advance as was the agreement of the participants themselves.
METHODS/PROCEDURES Data were generated using a modified and extended version of a grammaticality test used previously in the Brunei context. This was followed up by a taped feedback session which afforded the participants an opportunity to comment on the responses made in greater detail and to react to the emergent picture of their own language use based on the results. It was felt that this was important as their interpretation of what emerged is paramount to the overall orientation of the research effort.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 410 Breda O’Hara-Davies
The study setting The site of this study is a sixth-form college in Brunei. It is a pre-tertiary institution that is part of the state school system. The focus group of participants is comprised of a class of 29 students in the first year of two-year General Certificate of Education Advanced/Advanced Subsidiary Level (GCE A/AS-Level) courses examined by the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) board.
The sample The 29 participants in this study are all members of one of the researcher’sGCE AS-Level General Paper classes in the academic year 2008. Although the convenience of involving one of my assigned classes cannot be denied, these participants were also selected because of their adjudged ability to provide the kind of data needed for this research effort. They were chosen as the ‘expert informants’ characteristic of good qualitative methodologies (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003: 431). Since all of the students had previously acquired high credit grades (A to C) in the qualifying Brunei-Cambridge General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level (BCGCE O-Level) English Language examination, they were deemed to have the levels of proficiency necessary to enable them to detect ‘deviant’ usage (Svalberg 1998: 329). It was also felt that their overall fluency would enable them to discuss and justify their responses comprehensively. The majority of the participants are majoring in science subjects and are therefore likely to pursue English-medium tertiary courses. In addition, the class comprises members from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, which means that their other language contact is diverse and therefore open to a variety of influences. Fifteen of the participants are male and include five of Chinese ethnicity, while the 14 female participants are predominantly Bruneian Malay, except for one who is Bruneian Chinese. All are citizens or long-term residents of Brunei and have progressed through the state educational system.
Instruments – English in use The choice of a quantitative research instrument in the form of a grammaticality and lexicality judgement test may seem at odds with the professed qualitative paradigmatic orientation of the study. In justifying it I will align myself with the contention that methods in, and of themselves, are neither intrinsically positivistic nor naturalistic, but are defined by the way that they are used and how the data generated are interpreted (Cassell and Symon 1994: 3; Hartley 1994: 208–9). Furthermore, the original test drew attention to language features that are still very much part of the current context which in itself adds to the data generation process. The overarching aim of this process is to achieve a greater understanding of current English language use and how the informants characterise it. Understanding is regarded as the sine qua non of qualitative research (Fraenkel and Wallen 2003: 433) which is in keeping with the research approach. The original grammaticality judgement test used by Svalberg consisted of 20 sentences; nine of which were grammatically unacceptable or deviant from an STE perspective (see Appendix 1); and the research was conducted at some time prior to 1997. Much has changed in Brunei in the intervening years, especially in terms of its exposure to more outside influences due to the advent of both satellite television and the Internet. These factors combined with the widespread educational provision and an ever-increasing
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Brunei English: a developing variety 411 literacy rate (Brunei Times 2008), are likely to have impacted greatly on both the quantity and variety of English language experience of Bruneians. The notion that BNE use would likely stabilise can be explored through the use of a similar test in a contemporary context. It may also be possible to surmise whether there is a heightened awareness among the target group of differences between BNE and STE. The revised and extended grammaticality and lexicality judgement test (entitled ‘English in Use’ to avoid the negative connotations often associated with the word ‘test’) featured in this study retains 10 of the sentences from the original. Of these, three deviate from STE and the remaining seven feature acceptable, if at times awkwardly-structured, sentences. Minor changes were made to four of the sentences chosen which, in the case of one, necessitated a change of category, namely, from ‘deviant’ to ‘acceptable’. Ten new items were added. These were modelled on common usage found in student speech, writing samples and seen in locally-produced newspapers and magazines. Three of these involve grammatical issues, and any other ‘deviation’ from STE is lexical. In the finished product (see Appendix 2), a total of 12 (60%) of the items would not fall within the parameters of STE; six (30%) for grammatical reasons; and six (30%) due to lexis. Therefore only eight (40%) would be adjudged as acceptable from an STE standpoint. Two English L1 speakers who have taught English in Brunei for an extended period agreed in their judgement of the test items. The participants were issued with the test papers during a normal general paper class. They were asked not to confer or record their names on the sheets to preserve anonymity. Instructions were given in both STE and Standard Malay (STM) to enhance comprehension and to accord due respect to the participants’ official L1 status. Participants were asked to read each sentence and to tick one of three multiple choice options: ‘correct’, ‘not correct’, ‘cannot decide’. Having decided that an item was ‘not correct’, they were requested to indicate why by underlining only one incorrect word. No time limit was set, but all subjects had completed and returned the test sheets within 25 minutes.
Feedback and discussion session This consisted of one hour-long recorded session in which participants were invited to respond to, and comment on the results that emerged from the ‘English in Use’ exer- cise. Their attention was drawn in particular to items which elicited significant numbers of ‘correct’, ‘incorrect’ or indecisive responses. Participants were encouraged to be as spontaneous and forthcoming as they wished regarding any aspects of their own usage of English or their reactions to any of the items featured in the exercise. As is the norm in general paper classes, high levels of analysis were strongly encouraged as participants pondered the resultant data.
RESEARCH RESULTS ‘English in Use’: grammaticality and lexicality judgement test The results of the ‘English in Use’ test have been tabulated separately for ease of interpretation. The items have been divided according to their status with regard to STE norms. Table 1 features those that conform to STE. Items considered deviant from STE have been subdivided based on their grammatical or lexical bias; shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 412 Breda O’Hara-Davies
Table 1. STE status: correct (N = 29)
STE – acceptability √ Sentence Correct X Not correct ? Cannot decide
1 13 (45%) 14 (48%) 2 (7%) 2 25 (86%) 2 (7%) 2 (7%) 5 11 (38%) 14 (48%) 4 (14%) 8 20 (69%) 6 (21%) 3 (10%) 10 18 (62%) 7 (24%) 4 (14%) 13 22 (76%) 3 (10%) 4 (14%) 14 23 (79%) 1 (3%) 5 (17%) 17 21 (72%) 6 (21%) 2 (7%) Average 66% 23% 11%
The individual test papers were not marked or rated individually since participant ‘per- formance’ is not a concern here. Rather, responses were recorded and tabulated based on the ways that the test items were characterised by participants. First, the eight sentences which would be accorded ‘correct’ status in STE were deemed so by 66 per cent of the participants on average. Sentences #1 and #5 had the lowest level of acceptance. In the case of #1, half of those who ticked ‘incorrect’ felt the use of the word ‘one’ instead of the more common ‘a’ rendered it incorrect. Sentence #5 seemed to confuse many with its inclusion of the word ‘so’ which was underlined by the majority of those who thought it to be incorrect. This could be regarded as some- what surprising given the currency of this adverbial intensifier in informal ‘youthspeak’ due in large part to the popularity of American sitcoms such as ‘Friends’ in which its usage is frequent. This linguistic phenomenon is alluded to in Tagliamonte and Roberts (2005). Sentence #14 created the most indecision with five respondents unable to commit as regards its accuracy. This is in keeping with the frequent omission of the preposition ‘in’ following the word ‘interested’, especially among students who are less proficient in STE. The overall results for the acceptable or ‘correct’ items do not deviate much from those found by Svalberg (1998: 331) more than 10 years ago. Her study resulted in 67 per cent correct, 21 per cent incorrect and 12 per cent undecided, compared with the 66 per cent, 23 per cent and 11 per cent found in the current study. Tables 2 and 3 show the results for the items that do not conform to STE norms. It was considered that tabulating them separately based on their grammatical or lexical deviation would yield more information and would render the tables more user-friendly. In addition, innovative use of lexis is more likely to be culture-related than grammatical changes (Cane 1994: 358); so I wanted to explore whether these lexical choices enjoyed a higher level of acceptance than did the grammatical variations featured. This is particularly so in the Brunei context wherein STE grammatical accuracy has become something akin to the Holy Grail. The continued use of the BCGCE O-Level English language examination, an archaic form-dominated examination, as the qualifying standard ensures this. Though many find this vaunted standard elusive, it is nevertheless a major preoccupation of any English language learner in Brunei.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Brunei English: a developing variety 413
Table 2. STE status: incorrect (N = 29)
STE – Unacceptable grammatically√ Sentence Correct X Not correct ? Cannot decide
3 15 (52%) 12 (41%) 2 (7%) 7 10 (34%) 11 (38%) 8 (28%) 9 17 (59%) 11 (38%) 1 (3%) 16 2 (7%) 25 (86%) 2 (7%) 19 10 (34%) 18 (62%) 1 (3%) 20 27 (93%) 1 (3%) 1 (3%) Average 46.5% 45% 8.5%
Table 2 shows the six test items that are not grammatically correct by STE standards. Interestingly, only 45 per cent on average of the respondents, categorised these correctly by ticking the ‘incorrect’ box. There were also notably low levels of indecision except in the case of sentence #7 where eight participants (28 per cent) felt unable to decide. This sentence featured the use of the past perfect auxiliary verb ‘had’ in place of the more usual (in STE terms) present perfect auxiliary verb ‘has’. This ‘deviation’ is often found in student writing and in the local newspapers (e.g. Zora 2008). It was also a major preoccupation in Svalberg’s study in which it is discussed at length (Svalberg 1998: 338– 40). However, of the 11 participants who ticked this sentence as being ‘incorrect’ only four identified ‘had’ as the reason for their choice. The most striking result to emerge from this component of the test is the extremely high tolerance for sentence #20. It was felt by 93 per cent of respondents that this was ‘correct’. This could be due to the fact that although this is technically incorrect (in that ‘everybody’ would usually be followed by third person singular ‘his/her’), the use of singular ‘their’ is becoming more commonplace in spoken English everywhere. Sentence #9 was judged to be ‘correct’ by 17 of the 29 participants which is more than half (59%). This is likely due to the reclassification of countable and uncountable nouns which is a documented feature of varieties of English across Asia and elsewhere (Cane 1994: 354; Kachru and Nelson 2006: 40–1). The word ‘homework’ is frequently pluralised as are other STE uncountable nouns such as ‘staff’, ‘equipment’ and ‘advice’ among others. Sentence #3 was considered to be correct by more than half of the respondents. The use of ‘would’ is common in a variety of contexts including print media (e.g. Rosli 2008) in which it would not be used in STE. Svalberg contends that the frequency of its use suggests that it fulfils an expressive need for Bruneians who many feel that the more assertive ‘will’ is too direct (Svalberg 1998: 337). In qualifying this, Svalberg also refers to the religiously-inspired pattern of qualifying remarks made about an uncertain future by the use of the Arabic term Insh-Allah, an equivalent of the Christian D.V. (Deo volente, Latin for God willing). There may be some grounds for this assertion as ‘would’ appears to soften the assurance and taken-for-granted connotation of ‘will’; this would render it a cultural transfer. I grew up in Ireland in the 1960s and 1970s where, at the time, it was also the norm to qualify statements about the future with the use of D.V. I am not sure if this linguistic pattern still exists there today. If it does, it is likely to be among speakers aged 40+. The fact that such non-STE use of ‘would’ is still a common feature of written
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 414 Breda O’Hara-Davies
Table 3. STE status: incorrect (N = 29)
STE – unacceptable lexically√ Sentence Correct X Not correct ? Cannot decide
4 21 (72%) 7 (24%) 1 (3%) 6 21 (72%) 6 (21%) 2 (7%) 11 8 (28%) 19 (66%) 2 (7%) 12 23 (79%) 3 (10%) 3 (10%) 15 8 (28%) 16 (55%) 5 (17%) 18 20 (69%) 7 (24%) 2 (7%) Average 58% 33% 9%
and spoken language in Brunei today further strengthens Svalberg’s contention as it has endured since her study over 10 years ago. However, other explanations may be feasible such as the notion that such usages may reflect a tendency by bilingual (Malay/English) Bruneians to use will/would in free variation (Noor Azam and McLellan 2000). Overall, a slight majority of students did not find the grammatical items ‘deviant’; 46.5 per cent compared with 45 per cent who did. The other 8.5 per cent were indecisive, suggest- ing exposure to both STE forms and other forms causing confusion as to their relative status. Responses regarding the lexical appropriacy of items are tabulated in Table 3. Only three (10%) of participants correctly identified sentence #12 as being a ‘deviant’ form. This sentence features the conjugation of ‘ward’ as a past participle in place of the STE ‘hospitalised’. This is a commonly used expression among speakers of all levels and is a construct which can readily be heard or seen in print. Sentences #4 and #6 were equally judged to be correct with 21 respondents categorising them as such. Sentence #4 involves the use of the verb ‘send’ in instances when ‘take’, ‘drive’, or ‘drop’ would be the likely choices in STE. This is a feature BNE shares with other regional varieties (McArthur 2003: 333–42) such as Malaysian English (MyE). This is widely used throughout Bruneian society and it is a feature of the English spoken by all of my colleagues who are highly proficient bilinguals or, in many cases, multilinguals. This is also true of Bruneian Eurasian colleagues for whom English is an L1, furthering the hypothesis that it is a feature of BNE that has gained widespread acceptability in Brunei society. The use of ‘voiced out’in sentence #6 also enjoys such acceptability, suggesting that it is also characteristic of BNE as well as perhaps other ‘new’ Englishes such as those in neighbouring Singapore and Malaysia (Cane 1994: 359). Sentence #18 contains another similar construct ‘to discuss about’, leading 20 (69 per cent) of the respondents to find it correct. Somewhat surprising given its high incidence of use, sentence #15 was considered ‘correct’ by only eight (28%) of the participants. This signals awareness of both STE and BNE, since many are likely to use this lexical item in their own interaction. Of the others, 16 (55%) ticked ‘not correct’ and five (17%) found it difficult to decide. This item had the highest rate of indecision in the lexicality section of the test. The least acceptable ‘deviant’ lexical use was in sentence #11 where the word ‘borrow’ was used erroneously. Nineteen respondents or 66 per cent recognised that this was not STE. Although I have heard instances of this lexical item being used in this way, such use does not seem to be frequent or widespread.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Brunei English: a developing variety 415
Participants’ feedback session Participants were given an opportunity to react to and discuss the most notable results during an hour-long session. This was recorded using an unobtrusive digital recording device with prior permission of participants. Contrary to Svalberg’s findings a decade ago, participants were very much aware of the existence of a local variety of English. They acknowledged using many of the forms they knew were not acceptable by STE standards, citing the need to communicate appropriately as being more important than adherence to STE grammar or lexis. Some deviations, they explained, were forms that resulted from direct transfer from Malay, while another factor included habitual use based on repeated exposure to such forms. One participant stressed the need to sound ‘natural’, while others differentiated between speaking and writing in terms of the levels of precision needed. They indicated a high tolerance for deviation from STE in conversations using understanding as the main criterion. A number also alluded to the ‘gap’ that can be created by using STE in a context where BNE would be expected. Participants were not defensive about their use of BNE, but rather adopted a matter-of-fact, pragmatic attitude towards it.
DISCUSSION The results suggest an awareness of BNE as a variety that is ‘home-grown’ and widely acceptable as a form of spoken discourse between locals. Participants recognise that BNE utterances diverge from STE norms though they are not always able to pinpoint the actual variations accurately. They are mindful of the need to aim for STE standards when it comes to written expression, but indicate that BNE is often the more appropriate choice in the case of oral and social interaction. This appears to mirror the situation that has occurred with regard to the Malay language in the country. Standard Malay (STM) has been appropriated over time, resulting in a distinct variety – Brunei Malay – with the greatest variations from STM occurring in the areas of phonology and lexis. Likewise, English is being nativised to impress a local variety that is owned by those who use it. It is valued not in spite of, but because of its idiosyncrasies as participants admitted regular usage of local (‘deviant’) forms even though they know these are not correct by STE standards. This indicates that BNE is playing a social role enabling participants to use a form of English that will not alienate them from those around them as STE might do. It is also a variety free from the “overwhelming baggage of the past” (Kachru 2004: 73), which encumbers STE, as it lingers on into the present. The most remarkable change since the earlier study is the recognition of BNE and the confidence participants expressed with regard to its existence. This is likely to reflect the acknowledgement of the plurality of Englishes on a wider scale (Kachru and Nelson 2006). The increased media exposure of regional varieties such as Singapore English (Singlish) and Malaysian English (Manglish) may also have played a role in this. Since many of the grammatical variations featured in Svalberg’s study are still in evidence, it seems that the stabilisation she predicted has occurred to some extent. It also appears that such stabilising of alternative forms is aided by their common- ality among varieties, especially proximal ones in Malaysia and Singapore (McArthur 2003: 342). This, to some extent, protects against the linguistic fragmentation of En- glish that could occur in tandem with the uncontrolled spread of nativised forms
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 416 Breda O’Hara-Davies
(Rubdy and Saraceni 2007: 7). The participants in this study display an understanding of English as a hybrid system that involves negotiation of varieties which are underlaid by similarities while being distinguished by differences. Most importantly, this understanding has evolved naturally and internally as they reconcile their Bruneian identities with those as young global students of the 21st century.
CONCLUSION Any affirmation of the existence of BNE runs the risk of being sidelined given the relatively small number of speakers involved. Notwithstanding this, arguably BNE as a distinct variety deserves recognition if only for the value vested in it by its speakers in Brunei. In the context of the present study, the reader needs to be aware of the following limitations in order to make an informed judgement about the data and their interpretation. The study involved only 29 participants whereas in the previous study using a similar test there were 106 subjects. In addition, all the participants have relatively high and almost homogenous levels of proficiency in STE. This suggests that their level of BNE might be closer to STE norms than that of speakers whose STE is less proficient. Their language abilities may also equip them with greater language awareness, discourse awareness and dialectal command than is found in Brunei society at large. The important areas of phonol- ogy and pronunciation are not accorded more than a cursory mention due to the limited scope of this research project. Many other emerging varieties of English possibly face similar challenges in that, in or- der to ‘qualify’ as a distinct variety, the ‘new’ language needs to have sufficient identifiable features that are unique and expressive of locale, yet too much divergence from Standard English(es) means it runs the risk of becoming unintelligible and compromising of com- munication. Such a Catch-22 situation makes claims of legitimacy somewhat precarious. However, this risk-taking and pushing of limits could be seen as what has given rise to new varieties in the first place. Such is the quandary in which BNE exists in communion with other local varieties in the region. They are embraced by some, rejected by others and, for the moment, seem to be vacillating somewhere in between, hopefully awaiting the recognition that is their due. Only time will tell what the linguistic future holds, but the current study suggests there is much about which we can be positive. BNE is, to use a locally-inspired metaphor, a rich oilfield that is yet to be fully exploited.
APPENDIX 1 THE GRAMMATICALITY JUDGEMENT TEST (Svalberg 1998) The instructions and the first item are shown in their actual test format. Subsequent items are just listed.
Instructions/Arahan: Below there are 20 sentences. Decide if each sentence is correct or not. Mark your answer by putting a tick in the appropriate box. If you decide that a sentence is not correct, underline the word in the sentence which contains the error. Please, underline one word only.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Brunei English: a developing variety 417
If you cannot decide whether the sentence is correct or not, put a tick in the ‘can’t decide’ box.
Di bawah ada 20 ayat. Pastikan sama ada setiap ayat betul atau tidak. Tandakan jawapan awda dengan cara membubuh tanda pada petak yang sesuai. Jika awda menganggap suatu ayat tidak betul, garisbawahi perkataan dalam ayat yang mengandungi kesalahan itu. Sila garisbawahi satu perkataan sahaja. Jika awda tidak dapat memastikan sama ada ayat itu betul atau tidak, bubuh satu tanda pada petak ‘can’t decide’.
1. My teacher used to pinch one boy who never did his work. Correct Not correct Can’t decide If not correct, please underline the incorrect word.
2. What music do you like? 3. I hope you don’t mind starting early? 4. Students are invited to the ceremony which would be held in the Staff-Student Centre. 5. In my school I taught maths when I was a teacher. 6. Do you know what my teacher used to do? We used to watch a television pro- gramme and then she’ll ask each one of us to talk about it. 7. I am very interested in this kind of thing. 8. It is important to encourage students. 9. Sometimes we be too lazy to read books, you see. 10. We were encouraged to borrow books. 11. I told you to keep off the grass. 12. As Ms Edwards had broken her leg, class is cancelled today. 13. I started speaking English when I was in Kindergarten. 14. In secondary school I learn English and now at University I am learning English again. 15. I used to have a baby sitter who was from English so when I was four or five I start to speak English. 16. Mostly I listening to English music. 17. It was such a nice day that we decided to take the kids to the beach for the biology lesson. 18. When I was at school I write so many compositions. 19. I learn grammar already. 20. When they got to the beach they went wild and I just couldn’t control them.
APPENDIX 2 English in Use The Instructions and the first item are shown in their actual test format. Subsequent items are just listed.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd 418 Breda O’Hara-Davies
Di bawah ada 20 ayat. Pastikan sama ada Below there are 20 sentences. Decide if each setiap ayat betul atau tidak. Tandakan jawapan sentence is correct or not. Mark your answer awda dengan cara membubuh tanda pada by putting a tick in the appropriate box. petakyangsesuai. Jika awda menganggap suatu ayat tidak betul, If you decide that a sentence is not correct, garisbawahi perkataan dalam ayat yang underline the word in the sentence which mengandungi kesalahan itu. Sila garisbawahi contains the error. Please underline one word satu perkataan sahaja. only. Jika awda tidak dapat memastikan sama ada If you cannot decide whether the sentence is ayat itu betul atau tidak, bubuh satu tanda pada correct or not, put a tick in the ‘cannot decide’ petak ‘cannot decide’. box.
1. My teacher used to pinch one boy who never did his work. Correct Not correct Can’t decide 2. It is important to encourage students. 3. Students are invited to the ceremony which would be held in the college auditorium. 4. I was late today because I had to send my little sister to school. 5. When I was at school I wrote so many compositions. 6. The students voiced out their views on unemployment. 7. Class is cancelled today because Mr. Smith had broken his leg playing football. 8. When they got to the beach they went wild and I just couldn’t control them. 9. Having too many homework is the main cause of stress in my life. 10. What music do you like? 11. Siti said she would borrow me the DVD because I hadn’t seen the movie. 12. Irwan had a car accident and was warded for 10 days in the hospital. 13. I hope you don’t mind starting early. 14. He is very interested in this kind of thing. 15. We are schooling in Maktab Duli now. 16. I learn grammar already. 17. Most people in Brunei agree that DST is better than B-Mobile. 18. The teacher asked us to discuss about obesity in our groups. 19. She speak so softly that it is difficult to hear what she says. 20. Everybody should be proud of their own nationality.
REFERENCES Anderson, Gary J. (1990) Fundamentals of Educational Research. Basingstoke: The Falmer Press Teachers’ Library. Besemeres, Mary, and Wierzbicka, Anna (eds.) (2007) Translating Lives: Living with Two Languages and Cultures.St Lucia: University of Queensland Press. Borneo Bulletin Yearbook (2008) Borneo Bulletin Yearbook, 15th edn. Bandar Seri Begawan: Brunei Press. TheBruneiTimes(2008) Brunei literacy rate set for big increase. September 10, 1. Brutt-Griffler, Janina (2002) World English: A Study of its Development. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Canagarajah, Athelstan Suresh (ed.) (2005) Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cane, Graeme (1994) The English language in Brunei Darussalam. World Englishes, 13, 351–60. Cassell, Catherine, and Symon, Gillian (1994) Qualitative research in work contexts. In Catherine Cassell and Gillian Symon (eds.), Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research (pp. 1–13). London: Sage. Crystal, David (2003) English as a Global Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Brunei English: a developing variety 419
Dunseath, Kevin (1996) Aspects of language maintenance and language shift among the Chinese community in Brunei: some preliminary observations. In Peter W. Martin, Conrad Oz˙og,´ and Gloria Poedjosoedarmo (eds.), Language Use and Language Change in Brunei Darussalam (pp. 280–301). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Fraenkel, Jack R., and Wallen, Norman E. (2003) How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Gunn, Geoffrey C. (1997) Language, Power and Ideology in Brunei Darussalam. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Hartley, Jean F. (1994) Case studies in organisational context. In Catherine Cassell, and Gillian Symon (eds.), Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research (pp. 208–29). London: Sage. Kachru, Braj B. (2004) Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Kachru, Yamuna, and Nelson, Cecil L. (2006) World Englishes in Asian Contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Lee, Su K., Thang, Siew M., and Lee, King S. (eds.) (2007) Border Crossings. Subang Jaya: Pelanduk Publications. Martin, Peter W. (1996) Brunei Malay and Bahasa Melayu: a sociolinguistic perspective. In Peter W. Martin, Conrad Oz˙og,´ and Gloria Poedjosoedarmo (eds.). Language Use and Language Change in Brunei Darussalam (pp. 27–36). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Martin, Peter W.(2008) Educational discourses and literacy in Brunei Darussalam. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, 206–25. Martin, Peter W., and Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria (1996) An overview of the language situation in Brunei Darussalam. In Peter W. Martin, Conrad Oz˙og,´ and Gloria Poedjosoedarmo (eds.) Language Use and Language Change in Brunei Darussalam (pp. 1–23). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. McArthur, Tom (2003) Oxford Guide to World English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mertens, Donna M. (1998) Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage. Noor Azam, Haji-Othman. (2005) Changes in the linguistic diversity of Negara Brunei Darussalam: an ecological perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester. Noor Azam, Haji-Othman, and McLellan, James (2000) Brunei culture, English language: textual reflection of an Asian culture located in the English-language output of Bruneians. Asian Englishes, 3, 5–19. Omaar, Rageh (2007) Only Half of Me. British and Muslim: The Conflict Within. London: Penguin Books Ltd. Oz˙og,´ A. Conrad K. (1996) The unplanned use of English: the case of Brunei Darussalam. In Peter W. Martin, Conrad Oz˙og,´ and Gloria Poedjosoedarmo (eds.). Language Use and Language Change in Brunei Darussalam (pp. 156–72). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. Phillipson, Robert (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education (2003) Education in Brunei Darussalam. Bandar Seri Begawan: Brunei Government Printing Department. Rampton, Ben (1995) Crossing Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. Harlow: Longman Group Ltd. Rosli, Sobrina (2008) TAP needs new, better ways to multiply workers’ money. The Brunei Times, May 29, 13. Rubdy, Rani, and Saraceni, Mario (eds.) (2006) English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles. London: Continuum. Said, Edward W. (1994) Culture and Imperialism. London: Vintage UK Random House. Small, Virginia (1999) Right royal reunion. Muhibah: Inflight Magazine of Royal Brunei Airlines, January/February, 28–30. Svalberg, Agneta M.-L. (1998) Nativization in Brunei English: deviation vs. standard. World Englishes, 17, 325–44. Tagliamonte, Sali A., and Roberts, Chris (2005) So weird; so cool; so innovative: the use of intensifiers in the television series ‘Friends’. American Speech, 80, 280–300. Wierzbicka, Anna (2006) English: Meaning and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Zora. (2008) To splurge or not to splurge...Borneo Bulletin, May 31, 43.
C 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Copyright of World Englishes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.