Key words: INTRODUCTIONand spoke the language. Jawing and Ting found that when the parents spoke...

44

Inaugural Issue www.dcthink.org

www.dcthink.usAsia-Pacific StudiesVolume 1, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 44-57

Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute

Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia

Su-Hie Ting[a],*; Fung-Ling Tham[b]

[a]Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak, Malaysia.[b]Sabah Education Department,Wisma Jabatan Pendidikan Sabah, Malaysia.*Corresponding author.

Received 14 October 2014; accepted 10 November 2014Published online 26 November 2014

Ting, S.-H., & Tham, F.-L. (2014). Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Studies, 1(1), 44-57. Available from: http://www.dcthink.org/index.php/aps/article/view/0138

AbstractThe study examined the vitality of the Kadazandusun (KD) language based on the language choice and attitudes of Kadazandusun teenagers in Sabah, Malaysia. A survey of 205 KD teenagers aged 13 to 19 living in Kota Belud participated in the study. The results showed that 60% of the KD teenagers acquired their ethnic language before schooling age, showing that it is their native language. Since KD has been taught in school since 1997, the KD teenagers are literate in KD. The results showed that the KD teenagers’ oracy skills are better than their literacy skills. Their proficiency ranged from knowledge of a few words to ability to comprehend television shows, magazines or newspapers in KD, and to talk or write in KD at this level. Although there is intergenerational transmission of KD language, the results showed a decrease in KD use from the grandparents’ generation to the KD teenagers’ generation. The language that is taking root in the KD community is Sabah Malay dialect, not only in the friendship, education and religious domains but also in the family domain. In spite of that, the KD teenagers have positive attitudes towards their ethnic language. In the context of the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS), the results suggest that the vitality of KD language may correspond to Levels 4 (Educational), 5 (Written) and 6b (Threatened)

depending on the language use situation in the family. Bigger scale studies are needed to identify the vitality status for the KD community at large.Key words: Kadazandusun; Malaysia; Language choice; Language attitudes; Language vitality

INTRODUCTIONStudies have examined the language choice of migrant communities in various settings and found that the official and often the national language have more functionality than the ethnic languages of the migrant communities. Many of the migrant communities experience a language shift (Michel, Titzmann, & Silbereisen, 2012; Vedder & Virta, 2005), and the maintenance of the ethnic language depends on factors such as peer influence and literacy practices (Luo & Wiseman, 2000; Zhou & Li, 2003 on Chinese-American children in the United States), parents’ direct promotion of the ethnic language (Cheung, 1981; Mah, 2005 on Chinese-Canadian children in Canada), interethnic contact, motivation and locality with urban settings being more prone to language shift (Bayley, Schecter, & Torres-Ayala, 1996 on Mexican-American in the United States; Morita, 2003 on Thailand; Naji, Ibtisam, & David, 2003; Ting, 2006; Ting & Mahadhir, 2009 on Malaysia). These studies indicate that the younger generations of migrants are proficient in the dominant language of the society and their families struggle to maintain their ethnic language.

For indigenous communities, research has also indicated a shift towards dominant languages in the community, which tends to be the official and/or national language of the country. For example, the Garifuna children in Belize (Bonner, 2001) would rather speak Creole English than their own language, and the Bidayuh in Sarawak, Malaysia are shifting towards Malay (Coluzzi, Riget, & Wang, 2013; Ting & Campbell, 2007). In another Malaysian state, Sabah, the Kadazandusun are also

45

Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014). Asia-Pacific Studies, 1(1), 44-57


shifting towards Malay. Jawing and Ting (2011) studied the language use of 52 members of five Kadazandusun families from Kota Kinabalu, Tuaran, Apin-apin, Keningau and Tambunan. At least one of the parents was Kadazandusun and spoke the language. Jawing and Ting found that when the parents spoke different Kadazandusun dialects, they chose Sabah Malay dialect for family communication. In one family, “Tambunan Dusun was lost within two generations of Sabah BM [Sabah Malay dialect] coming into the family” (Jawing & Ting, 2011, p.112). The choice of Sabah Malay dialect for communicative efficiency and children’s educational advantage was irrespective of whether the families were living in rural or semi-urban areas. Jawing and Ting (2011) used the term “Sabah BM” but this Malay dialect is referred to as “Sabah Malay dialect” in this paper, following Wong (2000) who compared its linguistic structure and social functions with Standard Malay and concluded that Sabah Malay dialect is “qualified as a dialect of Malay” (p.70).

Other researchers such as Lasimbang and Kinajil (2000) and Smith (2003) have written about the Kadazandusun, but more studies are needed to understand why the community is shifting so quickly towards Sabah Malay dialect despite it being the largest indigenous group in Sabah. To find out the vitality of the Kadazandusun in Sabah, studies on language choices of the younger generation are necessary to determine the extent of use and the vitality of the language.

This study employed an established framework for the description of the vitality of the Kadazandusun language so that the findings on language shift can be compared across settings for the development of theory on language shift and maintenance. Based on the descriptions of various languages reported in academic papers, the vitality status of the languages under study seemed to be either threatened, shifting or at endangered levels, using descriptors from the Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) by Lewis and Simons (2009). However, because of the use of different descriptors and indicators, it is difficult to compare the vitality of ethnic languages in different contexts. To facilitate the comparison of findings across settings, it is necessary to use a common framework for data collection and comparison (Laitin, 2000).

1. PURPOSE OF STUDY The study examined the vitality of the Kadazandusun language (KD henceforth) based on the language choice and attitudes of Kadazandusun teenagers in Sabah, Malaysia. The specific objectives of the study were to:

(a) identify KD teenagers’ proficiency in KD;(b) determine the language choice of KD teenagers

in the family, religion, friendship and education domains; and

(c) describe the KD teenagers’ sense of ethnic identity associated with the KD language.

2. SOCIOCULTURAL BACKGROUND ON KADAZANDUSUN IN SABAH

2.1 PopulationThe study was conducted in Kota Belud in the Malaysian state of Sabah, located in the northern part of Kalimantan (Figure 1). Kota Belud has a population of 91,272, comprising 41.74% KD, 34.52% Bajau, 13.82% other Bumiputera, 6.43% non-Malaysians, 1.50% Malay, 1.28% Chinese, 0.44% others, 0.19% Murut and 0.08% Indian (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2011). “Other Bumiputera” literally translated is “Other indigenous peoples” (the history behind the use of this term will be explained later).

As Figure 1 shows, Kota Belud is located along the west coast of Sabah between Kota Kinabalu, the capital of Sabah, and Kudat on the northern tip of Sabah. The Dusun people are more numerous in Kota Belud and its hinterland, and the Kadazan people live mainly along the coast between Kota Kinabalu and Papar (Reid, 1996). This was before the official recognition of the Kadazan and Dusun people as one group. Now it is correct to say that the bulk of the Kadazandusun people live along the western coastline of Sabah and some distance inland (Lasimbang, 2004).

Figure 1 Map of Sabah Showing the Location of Kota Belud (Underscored)Note. Source: http://www.borneo.com.au/sabah

The ethnic breakdown of the 3.1 million Sabah population is as follows: 27.89% non-Malaysians, 20.57% other Bumiputera, 17.84% KD, 13.98% Bajau, 9.13% Chinese, 5.63% Malay, 3.24% Murut, 0.23% Indian, and 1.51% others (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2011). Besides the main ethnic groups which are listed in the 2010 national population census, other ethnic groups include the Bonggi, Bisaya, Sungai, Kedayan, Bugis, Iranun, Ida’an and Brunei (Mansur, Kogi, & Madais, 2010). The population of these smaller ethnic groups is


46Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute

counted in the category of “Other Bumiputera” in the 2010 population census.

The Sabah government reports that there are at least 30 indigenous groups speaking more than 50 different languages and over 80 dialects (Kerajaan Negeri Sabah [Sabah State Government], n.d.). Lasimbang (2004) puts the number of indigenous languages in Sabah as 54, and categorises them into four language families: Dusunic, Murutic, Paitanic, and Sama Bajau. Putting aside the substantial percentage of non-Malaysians and other Bumiputera which comprises many small indigenous groups, KD is still “the largest single language community” in Sabah (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000, p.415).

Reid (1997) pointed out that the KD people have been variously registered in the population census. In the 1960 census, they were all called Dusuns, in the 1970 census they were all called Kadazans, in the 1980 census, they were all called Pribumi (indigenous people), and in the 1991 census, KD speakers were registered as “Kadazan” and “Dusun” (Reid, 1997). In the latest 2010 census, they were registered as Kadazandusun as a combined category. This is because KD language has been used as “the official name of the shared language” of the Kadazan and Dusun speech communities (Lasimbang, 2004, p.10).

Reid (1997) explained that “the 1980 census listed those who were not Chinese or Indian as simply ‘Pribumi’ (native), including Indonesian and Filipino migrants” (p.124). Just before the 1980 census, the Sabah government realised that the term “Bumiputera” had been rejected by many KD and designated the term “Pribumi” to include all Sabah people of “Malay stock and related groups” (Reid, 1997, p.131). Therefore, in the 1980 census, Kadazan was not a category in the ethnic breakdown and the indigenous peoples of Sabah were all categorised as Pribumi, along with the Malays but this lasted only one census. By the 1990 census, the term “Pribumi” had been “buried”, to use Reid’s (1997, p.133) words.

The seed for the acceptance of the idea that Kadazans and Dusuns are “one and the same people” (Daily Express, 18 August 1989 cited in Reid, 1997, p.135) was sown when the Kadazan Cultural Association changed its name to Kadazan Dusun Cultural Association at the fifth Biennial Delegates Conference on 5 November 1989 (Puyok & Bagang, 2011). Reid (1997) explained that the British colonial government at that time referred to the people as Dusun although the people view themselves and their language as Kadazan. For further details of the socio-political movement which culminated in the acceptance of the category Kadazandusun to encompass both groups, refer to Reid (1997) and Roff (1969).

2.2 Kadazandusun LanguageThe platform for the development of a writing system for KD began as early as the 1950s due to the Kadazan

nationalism movement. The Kadazan movement was fostered by the North Borneo News and Sabah Times, a merger of North Borneo News (a fortnightly started in 1948) and Sabah Times (a daily started in 1953), officially renamed as Sabah Times in 1963 (Roff, 1969). The editor of North Borneo News and Sabah Times was Donald Stephens who used the newspaper to create awareness of indigenous rights and foster greater pride in their culture (Roff, 1969). Donald Stephens’ father was Australian and his mother was KD. As Roff (1969) puts it, “one of Stephens’ principal concerns was to extend the use of the Kadazan language, to standardize it, and to increase educational opportunities for tribal people by having the language taught in schools” (p.331). Roff (1969, p. 331) stated that Stephens started a Kadazan corner in the English newspaper and later initiated a Kadazan edition with content on concerns of Kadazan community, including the activities of the Kadazan associations.

Besides the media, the church played a role in standardising KD through education. According to Reid (1997), the Catholic Mill Hill Mission had established schools for the KD people on the West Coast since 1882, and by 1953 there were already 40 Catholic schools, also referred to as “Native Voluntary Schools” (Roff, 1969). These schools taught the rural folk initially in their local KD dialect before shifting to English by the third or fourth year. Reid went on to explain how a written form of KD emerged from these literacy efforts:

From these schools, therefore, there emerged in the 1950s and 1960s a small elite of educated, Catholic KDs, fluent in English but confident in speaking and writing also their own language in romanized script. Although there were many pressures to adopt the use of Malay and English during everyday exchanges in the towns, familiarity with this standardized form of Kadazan language was reinforced through the many editions of the Kadazan Catholic catechism and prayerbook. (Reid, 1997, p. 125)

The spelling system for KD developed for the dialect of Penampang and Papar by the Mill Hill missionaries was in romanised Malay and Dusun (Kadazan) (North Borneo Annual Report, 1953, pp.131-132; 1954, pp.124-125 cited in Reid, 1997, p.125).

It is the Penampang dialect of Kadazan which became the basis for the standardised Kadazandusun language used in Sabah today. The standard KD that was finally taught in Sabah schools was based on the

interior dialect of the Ranau and Tambunan area, but with some concessions to coastal dialects. KDCA [Kadazan Dusun Cultural Association] favours be calling this the Bunduliwan standard, Bundu being one of the names of the coastal dialect, and Liwan of the interior. (Reid, 1997, p.136)

Besides the newspaper, the radio was instrumental in popularising use of KD in the media. Reid (1997, p.126) documents the progress as follows: In 1953, Radio Sabah began broadcasting in English, Malay and Chinese; in 1954 the first broadcast in Dusun (Kadazan) was made;

47



at the beginning of 1957 a daily 15-minute Kadazan programme was institutionalised; by the end of 1957 the programme was increased to 45 minutes per day; and the time allocated was raised to 14 hours per week by 1960.

Another crucial process in the standardisation of KD was the printing of a KD dictionary. In 1958, the first Kadazan-English and English-Kadazan Dictionary was compiled by the Rev. A. Antonissen and printed in Australia (Reid, 1997). Later, a Kadazan Dusun Malay English Dictionary was published in 1987 by the Kadazan Dusun Cultural Association. In planning the standard language of KD, the terminology building challenges were selecting new terms that can represent modern concepts without relying on borrowing, and selecting suitable terminology from existing KD dialects to represent cultural knowledge and values of the community (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2004).

Community efforts to develop the Kadazandusun language began with private language classes which culminated in the teaching of the language in school. In the Kadazandusun Language Foundation news (1999, Issue 1, p.10), it was reported that:

… in October 1994, a private class was set up under the Kadazandusun Language Center (KLC) in response to the felt need in the community for mother-tongue classes. The first class included children aged 7-14 fourteen years old and a year later, 15 students graduated. (Smith, 2003, p.56)

On 24 January 1995, a consensus was reached by the Kadazan Cultural Association and the United Sabah Dusun Association to declare “Kadazandusun” as “the standard language of the dialects within the Dusunic family” (Smith, 2003, p.56).

One of the milestones in the effort to preserve, develop and promote the KD language and other indigenous languages of Sabah is the setting up of the Kadazandusun Language Foundation, a non-profit organisation, in 1995. The Kadazandusun Language Foundation has been active in conducting writers training workshops and writing competitions to increase the number of publications in KD (whether on cultural content or on present-day topics) as well as organising singing and story-telling competitions to preserve the oral tradition of KD and producing a “Learning KD” CD-ROM (Lasimbang, 2004). The work of Kadazandusun Language Foundation added on to the earlier New Testament of the Bible in the language of the Dusun of Ranau (1975) and the whole Bible in the Bundu Dusun of Kota Belud (1990) (Reid, 1997). The Kadazandusun Language Foundation has also assisted the Sabah Education Department, Universiti Malaysia Sabah and Perwira Tuition Centre with technical consultancy in their preparation of the Kadazandusun language classes (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000). The recognition by the State and Federal government as well as the community enables the Kadazandusun Language Foundation to play its role in language maintenance.

The effort to preserve, develop and promote the KD language culminated in the government approval for Kadazan to be taught as a subject in government primary schools, an effort initiated by the Kadazan Dusun Cultural Association. In 1997, the Education Department of Sabah started the first phase of teaching KD language in 15 primary schools in Sabah (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000). By 2001, 30,000 children in primary 4 to 6 from 435 primary schools in 23 districts in Sabah had learnt KD (Lasimbang, 2004). The teaching of KD in government schools started in primary four but Suausindak was the first school in Sabah to teach KD to pre-school children, mainly due to the effort of the Kadazandusun Language Foundation in providing input on linguistics in an annual teacher-training workshop held by the Suausindak community pre-school (Lasimbang, 2004).

Research has shown that the language that is competing with KD is Sabah Malay dialect. Lasimbang (2004) stated that the KD community became aware of the possible loss of their language in the early 1980’s but they still felt the need to use the Malay language in the home:

To encourage easy assimilation into the fast growing Malaysian culture, also to safeguard social and economic status. … A heavy use of Malay and English coupled with the need to excel in the newly structured Malaysian education system had put mother tongue use in question. Mixed marriages and the mass media were other contributing factors. These factors all led to a decline in the use of the mother tongue. (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000, pp.4-5)

As early as the late 1990s, Reid (1997) had observed that many educated KDs choose Malay or English over KD for family communication and Catholic churches also made the same language choices in the liturgy, leading him to question whether it is still in time to “save a language, or set of languages, which are no longer much used for communication between peoples from different areas” (p.136). Wong’s (2000) study on the Sabah Malay dialect sheds light on the functionality of the language. According to Wong (2000), Sabah Malay dialect is a “lingua franca of all levels of the society in Sabah, be it the language of the illiterates or literates, the urban or rural people, the high class or the low class people” (p.66). Sabah Malay dialect also cuts across ethnic boundaries, and signifies a Sabahan identity. Wong asserted that Sabah Malay dialect is not a bazaar variety, but developed from interactions among Malays, non-Malays and immigrants in urban areas. Unlike the neighbouring Malaysian state of Sarawak where Sarawak Malay is the dialect and native tongue of the Malays living in Sarawak, “Sabah Malay dialect is almost no one’s native language except for the first language of a small number of younger generations who are of mixed parentage” (Wong, 2000, p.16). At the time of Wong’s study, she could hardly find female native speakers of Sabah Malay dialect above 50 years old. Wong’s (2000) findings on the prevalence of Sabah Malay dialect and the widespread acceptance may explain the



language shift of the KD teenagers away from KD in this study.

2.3 Kadazandusun IdentityIn addition to the language, the harvest festival (Kaamatan) was later promoted as another symbolic marker of Kadazan identity. At the recommendation of the Annual Native Chiefs’ Conference, the British colonial government accepted Kaamatan as an ethnic festival as a three-day holiday in 1956, and in 1960 it was included into the calendar of state-wide holidays (Reid, 1997). Unfortunately, in the years following the entry of Sabah into the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, the political situation changed. Reid (1997, p.132) also documented that in May 1982, the Kaamatan holiday was shortened to one day and declared as “a ‘people’s festival for all Sabahans”, sparking off the Kadazan Cultural Association to organise its own festival in Tambunan and the KD people rallied behind Pairin who was seen as the new champion of the KD identity. Pairin became the Chief Minister in 1985, and during his term a two-day holiday was declared for the Kaamatan celebration.

What happened was that Donald Stephens who had earlier championed the Kadazan identity and nationalism (the then first Chief Minister of Sabah) persuaded the Kadazan community to lose their tribalism and unite with the Malays as Bumiputera on an Islamic basis (Reid, 1997). Reid (1997) pointed out that the term “Bumiputera” was “invented with Malaysia to replace Malay as the ‘indigenous’ category entitled to special privileges” (p.129). According to Reid (1997), Mustapha (the then first Governor of Sabah) adopted a policy of “one language, one culture and one religion” and disallowed the teaching of Kadazan in school and subsequently in 1974 radio broadcasts in languages other than Malay

and English were forbidden (p.130) but he encouraged Sabahans to adopt Islam, the state religion since 1973. The years 1970-1972 also saw the expulsion of Christian missionaries. Instead of downing the Kadazan identity, these incidents spurred the educated KD in their pursuit of distinctive identity through political moves (see Reid, 1997 for details). By 1990, moves were made to reinstate teaching of KD in schools as 1997 is not the first time KD is taught in school. In the mid-1950s until the late 1960s, “the Kadazan language was taught in some mission-run primary schools and Native Voluntary Schools (NVS) in Sabah” (Lasimbang, 2004, p.10). Since language is a marker of ethnic identity (Giles, Taylor, & Bourhis, 1977), although not an essential criteria of ethnic group membership in all speech communities, it is important to find out whether the KD’s sense of ethnic identity is connected to their language use behaviour.

2.4 Theoretical Framework of StudyThe theoretical framework for this study is Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS) by Lewis and Simons (2009), a modified version of Fishman’s (1991) GIDS. EGIDS has been a useful framework to identify the vitality of minority languages in Asia (Lewis, 2009; Ting & Ling, 2012; Zaidi, 2011), Africa (Nyika, 2008) and Europe (Gorter, 2008).

EGIDS has 13 levels whereas GIDS has eight. The modifications are the addition of three entirely new levels (Level 0, International; Level 9, Dormant; and Level 10, Extinct) to “describe languages at any and all stages of their life cycle”, and splitting of Level 6 (6a, Vigorous; 6b, Threatened) and Level 8 (8a, Moribund; 8b, Nearly Extinct) to “adequately account for the directionality of language shift versus language development” (Lewis & Simons, 2009, p.7). See Table 1 for EGIDS.

Table 1Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Lewis & Simons, 2009)

Level Label Description0 International The language is used internationally for a broad range of functions.1 National The language is used in education, work, mass media, government at the nationwide level.2 Regional The language is used for local and regional mass media and governmental services.3 Trade The language is used for local and regional work by both insiders and outsiders.4 Educational Literacy is the language is being transmitted through a system of public education.

5 Written The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written form in parts of the community.

6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language.

6b Threatened The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the child-bearing generation are transmitting it to their children.

7 Shifting The child-bearing generating knows the language well enough to use it among themselves but none are transmitting it to their children.

8a Moribund The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.

8b Nearly extinct The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation or older who have little opportunity to use the language.

9 Dormant The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community. No one has more than symbolic proficiency.

10 Extinct No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated with the language, even for symbolic purposes.

49



To identify the vitality status of a language, five diagnostic questions on identity functions, vehicularity, intergenerational transmission, literacy acquisition status and societal profile of generational language use need to be answered:

(a) What is the current identity function of the language? Historical (Extinct, Level 10) or Heritage (Dormant, Level 9) or Home (Go to Question 3) or Vehicular (lingua franca, Go to Question 2)

(b) What is the level of official use? International (Level 0) or National (Level 1) or Regional (Level 2) or Not official (Trade, Level 3)

(c) Are all parents transmitting the language to their children? Yes (Levels 4, 5, or 6a, Go to Question 4) or No (Levels 6b, 7, 8a or 8b, Go to Question 5).

(d) What is the li teracy status? Institutional (Educational, Level 4) or Incipient (i.e., literacy has been introduced but has not been acquired by most community members, Written, Level 5) or None (Vigorous, Level 6a)

(e) What is the youngest generation of proficient speakers? Great grandparents (Nearly Extinct, Level 8b) or Grandparents (Moribund, Level 8a) or Parents (Shifting, Level 7) or Children (Threatened, Level 6b)

The five diagnostic questions were used to assess the vitality of KD language based on the results of this study and the EGIDS Diagnostic Decision Tree is used to summarise the results (Figure 2).

Question1 - What

is the identity

function?

Home Question 3 – Are all the parents transmitting the

language to their children?

Question 4 – What is the literacy status?

Yes

Institutional

Incipient(some

withoutliteracy in

KD)

Level 4 Educational

Level 5 Written

No

Question 5 – What is the youngest generation that has

some proficient speakers? Children

Level 6b Threatened

Figure 2EGIDS Diagnostic Decision Tree for KD

3. METHOD3.1 ParticipantsThe participants in this study were 205 KD students from eight secondary schools in Kota Belud: Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) Arshad, SMK Narinang, SMK Taun Gusi, SMK Tambulion, SMK Usukan, SMK Pekan 1, SMK Pekan 2, and SMK Agama Tun Said. Of these, 87 (42.4%) were male and 57.6% (118) were female. The selection criteria were students between the ages of 13 and 19 with both parents of KD descent. At this age, the students were from Form 1 to Upper Sixth Form. Table 2 shows the age and gender distribution of the KD students who participated in this study. The focus of this study was on the teenagers because this is a cognitively and linguistically critical period in their multilingual development (Yu, 2005).

Table 2 Age and Gender Distribution of the KD Participants

FormMale Female Total

n % n % N %

1 13 34.2 25 65.8 38 18.5

2 10 33.3 20 66.7 30 14.6

3 13 52.0 12 48.0 25 12.2

4 14 38.9 22 61.1 36 17.6

5 21 55.3 17 44.7 38 18.5

Lower 6 4 33.3 8 66.7 12 5.9

Upper 6 12 46.2 14 53.8 26 12.7

Total 87 118 205 100.0



3.2 QuestionnaireA questionnaire on language background, proficiency in KD, language choice and language attitudes was formulated in Bahasa Malaysia (Malay henceforth). As the students’ medium of education was Malay, the questionnaire would be comprehensible to them. The items in the questionnaire were adapted from Ayeomoni (2006) and Yeh, Chan and Cheng (2004).

The items in the first section on language proficiency included items on the first language acquired since birth (Table 3), and the frequency of using this language with parents (Table 4). The participants were also asked to assess their proficiency in KD in terms of their listening, speaking, reading and writing skills (Table 5). Self-reports of language ability are considered reliable and are widely used in language studies (Portes & Hao, 1998; Portes & Schauffer, 1994 cited in Mah, 2005).

The second section of the questionnaire dealt with language choice in four selected domains: family, friendship, religion, and education (Table 6). These are the domains of language use that are the most relevant to teenagers as they are still in school and domains such as employment and transactions are not relevant to examine. For the family domain, language choice for interactions with their father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunt and cousins were examined. However, in reporting of results, the frequencies were averaged so that the results were reported for different generations: grandparents, parents, siblings, and other relatives. For the religious domain, the participants reported their languages used with their religious leaders, and with others from their age group. As the religious domain is usually ethnically homogeneous (Ting, 2012; Ting & Ling, 2012), the influence of ethnicity on language choice was not examined. For the friendship domain, the participants were asked to state the main language they used with friends, and new friends and neighbours who are KD and non-KD. The latter allows the lingua franca in the community to be identified. Lastly, for the education domain, the interactants focussed on the teachers or principal, teachers of English, and classmates. For these members of the school, the participants were asked to report their language choices depending on whether they were KD or non-KD. For the friendship and education domains, ethnicity is an important factor to explore in language choice because previous research has shown that it influences language choice (Ting, 2007, 2010, 2012).

The third section of the questionnaire on attitudes towards their ethnic language (KD) was based on Mah (2005) and Yu (2005), and dealt with the participants’ feelings on the need to keep a KD identity and if they were to lose the KD language.

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis ProceduresEight secondary schools in Kota Belud were identified and a letter was written to the Ministry of Education

to seek permission for the study to be conducted in the selected schools. Upon obtaining the ministry’s approval, the second researcher made appointments to see the principals of the selected schools and hand them a copy of the approval letter. The Ministry of Education had also sent a copy to the principals but the visit allowed the second researcher to discuss the schedule for carrying out the study in the schools with the principals. During the visit, the second researcher also met with the class teacher of the classes identified for the survey to explain the purpose of the study and the procedures involved.

The class and subject teachers assisted in distributing the questionnaires to students in their classes. The teachers were told to give the questionnaire to only KD students with KD parents. Prior to the distribution of the questionnaires, the teachers referred to the school record to identify students who met the selection criteria. The questionnaires were completed and returned on the same day. A total of 280 questionnaires were distributed, but only 210 were returned and 205 were usable. The average number of usable questionnaires was 26 per class (range from 21 to 31).

The questionnaire responses were keyed into the Excel sheet, and frequency counts and percentages were computed. Some limitations of the study were the uneven spread of the participants from ages 13 to 19 as there were fewer students in the sixth form.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 KD Teenagers’ Language ProficiencyThe vitality of a language depends on the younger generation having proficiency in it as well as frequently using it on a daily basis.

Table 3Age at Which KD Teenagers First Learnt KD Language

Age Frequency Percentage

Below 7 years old 123 60

7 years old (Primary 1) 30 15






Never learnt KD 3 1

Total 205 100

Table 3 shows that 60% of 205 KD teenagers in the study learnt their ethnic language before they entered primary school at the age of seven. As KD is learnt informally at home at a young age, a majority were native speakers of KD. Interestingly, 13% of the KD teenagers first learnt the language in Primary 4. This is because

51



when the formal teaching of KD was implemented in 1997, it was first introduced in Primary 4 in Sabah primary schools. Prior to this, KD was used as an oral language but with formal teaching of KD in school, written literacy in KD became possible.

Table 4Frequency of KD Teenagers’ Usage of KD With Parents

Frequency of speaking KD Frequency Percentage

Every day 140 68.3

Most of the time 17 8.3

Sometimes 41 20.0

Never 7 3.4

Total 205 100.0

Table 4 shows that 68.3% of the KD teenagers spoke KD every day with their parents and 8.3% use the language most of the time. Added together, 76.6% of the KD teenagers speak the language frequently with their parents. Table 2 shows that 76% of the KD teenagers learnt KD at 7 years old or younger. When these percentages of KD usage are compared with the results on the age at which KD teenagers learnt the language, it can be deduced that those who learnt KD earlier in life are more likely to use it frequently with their parents. Since the KD teenagers included in the study had both parents who were KD, it is assumed that their grandparents would be mostly KD. In fact, 97% of the KD teenagers’ parents speak KD with their parents, and the remainder used Sabah Malay dialect (percentages are not shown in the tables).

Table 5KD Teenagers’ Proficiency in KD According to Skills

Level SkillsListening Speaking Reading Writing

Freq(%) Freq(%) Freq(%) Freq(%)

None I can’t (understand/speak/read/write) KD at all 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)

Entering I can (understand/say/read/write) a few words in KD 56(27.3%) 73(35.6%) 88(42.9%) 95(46.3%)

Beginning I can (understand speech/speak/read/write) about everyday topics in KD 82(40.0%) 98(47.8%) 72(35.1%) 79(38.5%)

DevelopingI can (understand speech/tell others about TV shows and radio programmes/read magazines, newspapers or stories /write letters or stories) in KD

47(22.9%) 27(13.1%) 32(15.6%) 23(11.3%)

ExpandingI can (understand speech/speak/read documents /write documents) about complex or unfamiliar topics in academic or professional settings using KD

20(9.8%) 7(3.5%) 13(6.4%) 8(3.9%)

Total 205(100%) 205(100%) 205(100%) 205(100%)

The KD teenagers’ proficiency in the four skills is broadly categorised as entering, beginning, developing, expanding and bridging based on language performance definitions in the Pennsylvania English Language Proficiency Standards (State of Pennsylvania, 2007). However, only the first four levels were presented in the questionnaire, stopping at the expanding level whereby learners can “process and understand specific and some technical language of the content areas” and “can use and produce oral and written academic and technical language of varying complexity in content with nominal errors” (p.7). This is because the language performance at the final level approaches that of native speakers, and KD had not been used in written communication before the formal teaching of KD was introduced in Sabah schools in 1997.

First, the results for the KD teenagers’ oracy skills in KD are described. The results showed that 27.3% of KD teenagers were at the entering level in their listening skills and could understand a few words in KD, 40.0% of the KD teenagers were beginners in their listening skills and could understand speech about everyday topics in

KD, and 22.9% were developing their listening skills to understand KD when used in television shows and radio programmes. As a group, their speaking skill was at a lower level than their listening skills. Table 5 shows that 35.6% of the KD teenagers were at the entering level, 47.8% at the beginning level, and 13.1% were developing their speaking skills in KD, and they can tell others about television shows and radio programmes in KD. A minimal number of KD teenagers were expanding their oracy skills in KD to understand and talk about complex or unfamiliar topics. In other words, their listening ability was better than their speaking ability in KD.

The KD teenager’s literacy skills in KD were lower than their oracy skills as shown by larger percentages of KD teenagers at the entering level for both reading (42.9%) and writing (46.3%). They could only read or write a few words in KD. A small percentage of the KD teenagers were beginning to learn to read and write about everyday topics in KD (35.1% and 38.5% respectively). Even fewer had developed skills in reading magazines, newspapers or stories in KD (15.6%), much less produce these texts in



KD (11.3%). Generally, the KD teenagers’ literacy skills were at similar levels for their receptive and productive skills.

There are some anomalies in the results - none of the KD teenagers reported no knowledge of KD (Table 4) although three KD teenagers reported that they had never learnt KD (Table 3), and seven had never spoken KD with their parents (Table 4). Nevertheless, the non-KD user category accounts for less than 3.5% of the sample. The other results provide a good indication that almost all the KD teenagers were proficient in KD, three-quarters of them used it frequently with their parents but for most, their proficiency level did not allow them to use it for handling complex or unfamiliar topics in academic or professional settings. Despite the formal teaching of KD, the language is still mainly for conversational use.

In the context of EGIDS, the answer to the first diagnostic question on the current identity function of KD is that it is a home language because the language is used for daily oral communication in the home domain by most of the KD teenagers. The next diagnostic question is No. 3 on the intergenerational transmission of the language. Almost all the parents are transmitting the KD language to their children since only 3.4% did not speak KD with their parents. On this basis, the intergenerational transmission of the language is intact, widespread and ongoing. The next question to answer is No. 4 on the literacy status of the KD language. The KD language has an institutional literacy status because literacy in KD can be acquired through a system of education supported by a sustainable institution since 1997, and in the case of KD, it is the government education system and other community-based institutions such as churches and the Kadazandusun Language Foundation. Based on the answers to these diagnostic questions, the vitality status of KD seems to correspond to EGIDS Level 4 (Educational). However, since KD is considered a community language and students can decide whether or not to take it as a subject, it is possible that some community members have not acquired literacy in the KD language despite literacy being introduced into the community. If this is so, then the vitality status of KD corresponds to EGIDS Level 5 (Written). Next, the language choice results were examined to confirm the level of vitality of KD.

4.2 KD teenagers’ Language Choice With the grandparents, the KD teenagers had little choice but to speak KD because it was often the only language their grandparents were comfortable with or able to speak. Table 5 shows that 83.4% of the KD teenagers spoke mainly KD with their grandparents. With their parents, it can be seen that the majority spoke KD (60.5%) but more KD teenagers had started using the Sabah Malay dialect with their parents (39.5%) compared to their grandparents (16.6%). This is bearing in mind that both parents were KD based on the school record.

Table 6Percentages of KD Teenagers Speaking KD and Sabah Malay Dialect as Main Languages in Four Domains

Domain Interactants KD Sabah Malay dialect Others*

Family

Grandparents 83.4 16.6 0

Parents 60.5 39.5 0

Siblings 49.7 46.8 3.5

Other relatives 46.3 53.6 0.1

ReligionReligious leader 15.8 84.2 0

Friends of similar age 11.5 88.5 0

Friendship

KD friends 69.0 18.9 12.1

KD new friends or neighbours 43.6 56.3 0.1

Non-KD friends 0 91.7 8.3

Non-KD new friends or neighbours 0 86.1 13.9

Education

KD principal or teachers 0 77.0 (BM) 23.0

KD teachers of English 6.8 29.3 63.9 (English)

KD classmates 49.7 29.8 20.5

Non-KD principal or teachers 0 87.3 (BM) 12.7

Non-KD teachers of English 0 31.2 68.8

(English)

Non-KD classmates 0 60.0 40.0

Note. *Others refer to English, Mandarin and a number of indigenous languages but where the percentage for a particular language is high, it is indicated in brackets

However, because of the patrilineal society in Malaysia, the children often take on the father’s ethnic group and this is put on the identification card. Since this is the officially recognised identity, the people often define themselves as such. The mother’s ethnic group is recorded in the child’s birth certificate only. Therefore, if the mother is not KD but the father is KD, the child would be identified KD on his/her identity card. In this study, although the KD teenagers had both parents who were KD, they could have one or both grandmothers who are not KD (either the paternal or maternal) but this would not be reflected in the official record on the ethnic group of the KD teenagers’ parents. The presence of intermarriage in the KD teenagers’ grandparents’ generation may explain why KD was not the main language used by all the KD teenagers with their grandparents. KD use with the parents decreased even further because the mothers being primary supporters of education often choose to speak the school language rather than their ethnic language to their children to give them a head start (Ghazali, 2010).

When it comes to their siblings, the percentage of KD teenagers speaking KD dropped even further to 49.7% and a similar percentage (46.8%) used the Sabah Malay dialect. In the future for the KD teenagers’ communication

53



with their children, the Sabah Malay dialect use may exceed KD use. In the family domain, the greatest use of the Sabah Malay dialect was with the aunts and uncles (53.6%). Intermarriages often introduce common languages of communication into the family domain as shown by Kow (2003) and Kuang (2002) for the Chinese community in Malaysia.

In the religion domain, surprisingly the Sabah Malay dialect was the main language used with religious leaders and friends of the same faith for a majority of the KD teenagers (84.2% and 88.5%, respectively). Further analysis revealed that 72.7% of the KD teenagers were Christians and 27.3% were Muslims, and there is greater likelihood for KD and Sabah Malay dialect to be used by these two groups respectively. However, the results indicate that Sabah Malay dialect is obviously the commonly used language to discuss religious matters. A majority of KD are Christians (Reid, 1997) but despite the availability of Kadazan Catholic catechism and prayerbooks, they have probably been using Bibles in either Bahasa Malaysia or Bahasa Indonesia. In Sarawak, however, it is the ethnic language which is used more in the religion domain. In her study on teenagers in Sarawak, Ting (2012) found that the Malay teenagers used more Sarawak Malay dialect than Malay in the religion domain but for the Chinese, Mandarin use exceeds that of Chinese dialects (e.g., Foochow, Hokkien, Teochew). In Ting and Ling’s (2012) study on 568 Sarawak indigenous teenagers, use of their own ethnic languages was reported 450 times, Bahasa Malaysia 251 times, English 116 times, Sarawak Malay dialect 69 times and Mandarin nine times. In both of these Sarawak studies, the Malay and indigenous teenagers used their own ethnic language more than standard languages (Malay or English) – the Chinese teenagers’ frequent use of Chinese Mandarin is an exception because the younger Chinese in urban areas in Sarawak have reached a stage whereby they hardly speak their ethnic language but use Mandarin Chinese in many domains, including the family domain even when both parents are from the same Chinese dialect groups (Ting, 2010; Ting & Chang, 2008; Ting & Chong, 2008; Ting & Hung, 2008; Ting & Mahadhir, 2009). Among the KD, Sabah Malay dialect is undoubtedly the language of the religion domain irrespective of whether they are Christian or Muslim.

In the friendship domain, Table 6 shows that Sabah Malay dialect was used for non-KD interactants regardless of whether they were long-time friends or new friends/neighbours (91.7% and 86.1%, respectively). In contrast, with KD friends, the more familiar they were, they more likely they were to speak KD; otherwise Sabah Malay dialect was chosen. This comparison highlights the role of Sabah Malay dialect as a lingua franca.

The ethnic delineation of language choice evident in the friendship domain becomes even clearer in the education domain. The KD teenagers did not use KD with

non-KD members of the school regardless of who they were but with KD members of the school, the status of the interactants determined the language choice. With KD principal or teachers, the main language used was Bahasa Malaysia. With KD teachers of English, the main language used was English and with KD classmates, 49.7% of them used KD (Table 6). As more formal languages tend to be used with those of higher status, Bahasa Malaysia is definitely higher on the continuum than the KD language, which is reserved for communication within the KD speech community. The use of English with teachers of English is a special situation because that is when an exception can be made to deviate from the use of Bahasa Malaysia as the official language.

On the EGIDS levels, the ability of the KD teenagers to use the language for full social interaction in a variety of settings (family, religion, friendship and education in this study) indexed an unbroken chain in the intergenerational transmission of the KD language (Question No. 5). Nevertheless, language shift may be in its beginning stages because there is already evidence of almost half of the KD teenagers not speaking their ethnic language with their siblings, KD friends and KD classmates. This situation would place the KD language at Level 6b, Threatened.

4.3 KD teenagers’ Sense of Ethnic Identity Associated With Language To find out the KD teenagers’ sense of ethnic identity associated with the KD language, the teenagers were asked whether they felt pride or sensed impending danger of losing their ethnic language. Table 6 shows 63.4% of the KD teenagers categorised themselves as modern KD, 24.4% as pure KD and 12.2% as half KD. The notion of a modern KD is an antithesis of the pure KD, characterised as one who knows and practises the KD culture, speaks the KD language on all occasions and lives among the KD community in the traditional home ground. Table 7Characterisation of KD Identity by KD Teenagers

KD identity Frequency Percentage

Pure KD 50 24.4

Modern KD 130 63.4

Half KD 25 12.2

Non KD 0 0

Total 205 100.0

When asked whether they think that the KD would be in danger of being lost in Kota Belud, 13.7% of the KD teenagers were not sure (Table 8). More felt that the KD language might be lost (57.1%) whereas only 29.3% felt that the loss is unlikely to happen. However, since a majority of the KD teenagers felt that the ability to speak the KD is not an integral part of being a pure KD (63.4%), the possibility of the language loss may only be keenly felt by 36.4% of them (these percentages are not shown in tables).



The value they attached to the KD language was cross-checked by asking them on the importance of preserving the KD language; 96.6% felt that it is important. Using sense of impending danger of language loss to assess whether a language is endangered (Level 6b, Threatened in EGIDS) is not easy because the kind of response depends on how the question is posed to members of the speech community, as indicated by the somewhat contradictory results in Tables 8 and 9.Table 8Sense of KD language Loss to KD Teenagers

Frequency PercentageYes 69 33.7Maybe yes 48 23.4Not sure 28 13.7Maybe not 19 9.3No 41 20.0Total 205 100.1

Table 9Importance of Preserving KD to KD Teenagers

Frequency Percentage

Very important 75 36.6

Important 123 60.0

Unimportant 7 3.4

Totally unimportant 0 0

Total 205 100

Finally the KD teenagers’ attitudes towards KD people and language were examined using 15 items. Table 10 shows that the KD teenagers expected to be multilingual and KD is one of the languages in their language repertoire (Items 1-3).

Table 10KD Teenagers’ Attitudes Towards KD People and Language

Attitudes towards KD people and languageAgree Neutral Disagree

Freq % Freq % Freq %

1. It is important for KD to learn to speak multiple languages. 178 86.8 11 5.4 16 7.8

2. Learning KD language should not take priority over learning other languages. 165 80.5 21 10.2 19 9.3

3. It is important to be able to speak KD. 127 62.0 55 26.8 23 11.2

4. I wish there were more TV shows broadcast in KD language in Malaysia. 144 70.2 33 16.1 28 13.7

5. It is important to me to maintain the customs and traditions of KD. 170 82.9 16 7.8 10 9.3

6. I participate in customs and cultural practices of my ethnic group. 177 86.3 12 5.9 16 7.8

7. KD community benefits from knowledge of KD cultures. 175 85.4 13 6.3 17 8.3

8. I know western culture better than KD culture. 138 67.3 22 10.7 45 22.0

9. I feel pressured by my parents and/or my family to keep KD culture and customs. 22 10.7 30 14.6 153 74.6

10. In Kota Belud, there is no need to keep a KD identity. 26 12.7 12 5.9 167 81.5

11. I am proud of KD people. 152 74.1 34 16.6 19 9.3

12. I am sometimes embarrassed by the behaviour of some KD people. 33 16.1 34 16.6 138 67.3

13. A lot of problems faced by KD people today are their own fault. 118 57.6 25 12.2 62 30.2

14. I believe that compared to people of other ethnic groups, KD people are superior. 148 72.2 16 7.8 41 20.0

15. If I could choose, I would choose to be a member of another ethnic group. 61 29.8 15 7.3 129 62.9

The results for Items 4-7 illustrate the traditional view of preserving the KD culture, by ensuring that there are television programmes in KD and that the community knows and practises the culture. However, there are already signs of a move away from this traditional view – 67.3% of the KD teenagers admitted that they knew Western culture better than KD culture and 74.6% of the KD teenagers’ parents did not pressure them to keep KD culture and customs (Items 8-9). In Ting and Campbell’s (2013) study on 151 Bidayuh people (an indigenous group) living in Kuching, Sarawak, listening to Bidayuh radio station, listening to Bidayuh songs, wearing Bidayuh costume and listening to and telling Bidayuh folktales are regarded as unimportant ethnic markers. Instead the salient

markers of Bidayuh identity are language, parentage and the ethnic festival (Gawai). Based on these findings, Ting and Campbell (2013) concluded that transmitting cultural norms and folk literature to the younger generation may not be an effective means to preserve the culture.

Items 10-15 deal with the KD identity. The KD teenagers felt that it is important to keep a KD identity in Kota Belud. Most of them were proud of the KD people and were not embarrassed at the unbecoming behaviour of some members of their community although a sizable proportion (57.6%) felt that a lot of problems faced by KD people today were their own fault. The KD teenagers also felt that the KD people were superior and would choose to remain a member of their community, if given a choice.

55



The strong sense of KD identity among the KD teenagers is unmistakable, possibly an outcome of earlier efforts to instil the KD identity in the community (see Reid, 1997; Roff, 1969).

CONCLUSIONSeveral possible levels of language vitality can be identified for the KD language (see Figure 2). Based on the results of the KD teenagers’ language choice in the family domain and the age at which they first learnt the KD language, the identity function of the language is the home language. Two home situations arise: In most KD homes, the parents are speaking KD with their children; in a small percentage of KD homes, the parents are speaking the Sabah Malay dialect with their children. Where there is intergenerational transmission, the literacy status of the KD language is institutional because literacy can be acquired through the government education system as well as other community-based institutions. This corresponds to EGIDS Level 4 (Educational). For others, the literacy status is incipient because although literacy has been introduced into the KD community, it has not been acquired by most community members. This is bearing in mind that KD is a community language in school, and students can choose whether or not to take the subject. This corresponds to EGIDS Level 5 (Written). However, where there is no intergenerational transmission of the KD language, the youngest generation of proficient KD speakers needs to be identified, and it is the children – the KD teenagers in this study. This corresponds to EGIDS Level 6b (Threatened). The KD language is threatened because language shift may be in its beginning stages as shown by the results on other languages, particularly Sabah Malay dialect, moving into domains of language use such as religion, friendship and education for communication within the KD community. This study has identified three possible levels for the vitality of the KD language at this point in time based on a study of 205 KD teenagers because of different situations of language use among its speakers. To reach a more definitive assessment of the KD language vitality, a wider scale study of the KD population in Sabah is needed. Although KD is the dominant ethnic group in Sabah, the status of the KD language would not extend to national use (Level 1), regional use (Level 2) or trade use (Level 3) because KD is an indigenous group that is endemic to Sabah. Although there are KD living in other parts of Malaysia because of studies or work, the number is too small for their language to be used outside of the KD community.

REFERENCESAyeomoni, M. O. (2006). Code-switching and code-mixing:

Style of language use in childhood in Yoruba speech community. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15(1), 90-99.

Bayley, R., Schecter, S. R., & Torres-Ayala, B. (1996). Strategies for bilingual maintenance: Case studies of Mexican-origin families in Texas. Linguistics and Education, 8(4), 389-408.

Bonner, D. M. (2001). Garifuna children’s language shame: Ethnic stereotypes, national affiliation, and transnational immigration as factors in language choice in Southern Belize. Journal of Language in Society, 30, 81-96.

Cheung, Y. W. (1981). Effects of parents on ethnic language retention by children: The case of Chinese in urban Canada. Sociological Focus, 14(1), 33-48.

Coluzzi, P., Riget, P. N., & Wang, X. (2013). Language vitality among the Bidayuh of Sarawak (East Malaysia). Oceanic Linguistics, 52(2), 375-395.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2011). Population distribution by local authority areas and mukims: 2010. Putrajaya: Department of Statistics, Malaysia.

Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Ghazali, K. (2010). National identity and minority languages. UN Chronicle, 47(3), 1-5. Retrieved 2014, November 13 from http://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-245885919/national-identity-and-minority-languages

Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1977). Dimensions of Welsh identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 165-1974.

Gorter, D. (2008). European minority languages: Endangered or revived? In T. De Graaf, N. Ostler., & R. Salverda (Eds.), Endangered languages and language learning, Vol. 12 (pp.169-175). Bath: Foundation for Endangered Languages.

Jawing, E., & Ting, S. H. (2011). Pressures prompting language shift in Kadazandusun families in Sabah. Digest Polytechnic Kota Kinabalu, 1, 105-114.

Kerajaan Negeri Sabah [Sabah State Government]. (n.d.). Mengenai Sabah: Rakyat dan Sejarah Sabah [About Sabah: People and History of Sabah]. Retrieved 2014, November 17from http://www.sabah.gov.my/main/ms-MY/Home/About

Kow, K. Y. C. (2003). Language shift and language maintenance in mixed marriages: A case study of a Malaysian-Chinese family. International Journal of Sociology of Language, 161, 81-90.

Kuang, C. H. (2002). Code switches: A measurement for language shift? A case study of a Malaysian Chinese family. In M. K. David (Ed.), Methodological and analytical issues in language maintenance and language shift studies (pp.91-111). Frankfurt: PeterLang.

Laitin, D. D. (2000). What is a language community? American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 142-155.

Lasimbang, R. (2004). To promote the Kadazandusun languages of Sabah. ABD, 34(2), 10-12.

Lasimbang, R., & Kinajil, T. (2000). Changing the language ecology of Kadazandusun: The role of the Kadazandusun language foundation. Current Issues in Language Planning, 1(3), 415-423. doi: 10.1080/14664200008668015



Lasimbang, R., & Kinajil, T. (2004). Building terminology in the Kadazandusun language. Current Issues in Language Planning, 5(2), 131-141. Doi: 10.1080/13683500408668253

Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Assessing endangerment: Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique, 2. Retrieved 2014, November 14 from h t t p : / /www2. s i l . o rg /~s imonsg /p r ep r in t /EGIDS .

pdfLuo, S. H., & Wiseman, R. L. (2000). Ethnic language

maintenance among Chinese immigrant children in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(3), 307-324.

Mah, B. (2005). Ethnic identity and heritage language ability in second generation Canadians in Toronto (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Ryerson University.

Mansur, K., Kogid, M., & Madais, S. J. (2010). Human capital investiment: Literature review analysis and a study case among Kadazan-Dusun of Pulutan Village, Menggatal, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. The Social Sciences, 5(3), 264-269.

Michel, A., Titzmann, P. F., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2012). Language shif t among adolescent ethnic German immigrants: Predictors of increasing use of German over time. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2), 248-259.

Morita, L.C. (2003). Language shift in the Thai Chinese community. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(6), 485-495.

Naji, I. M. H., & David, M. K. (2003). Markers of ethnic identity: Focus on the Malaysian Tamil community. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 161, 91-102.

Nyika, N. (2008). Our languages are equally important: Struggles for the revitalisation of the minority languages in Zimbabwe. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 26(4), 457-470.

Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E pluribus unum: Bilingualism and loss of language in the second generation. Sociology of Education, 71(4), 269-294.

Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1994). Language and the second generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today. International Migration Review, 28(4), 640-661.

Puyok, A., & Bagang, T. P. (2011). Ethnicity, culture and indigenous leadership in modern politics: The case of the Kadazandusun in Sabah, East Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 29(1), 177-197.

Reid, A. (1996, May). Endangered identities: Kadazan and Dusun in Sabah. Paper presented at 14th IAHA Conference, Bangkok.

Reid, A. (1997). Endangered identity: Kadazan or Dusun in Sabah (East Malaysia). Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 28(1), 120-136.

Roff, M. (1969). The rise and demises of Kadazan nationalism. Journal of Southeast Asian History, 10(2), 326-343.

Smith, K. J. (2003). Minority language education in Malaysia: Four ethnic communities’ experiences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(1), 52-65. DOI: 10.1080/13670050308667772

State of Pennsylvania. (2007). Pennsylvania English language proficiency standards. Pennsylvania: Author.

Ting, S. H. (2006, July 31-August 1). A case study of language use with the younger generation in Foochow families. Proceedings of 8th Biennial International Conference of the Borneo Research Council (BRC), Kuching, Malaysia.

Ting, S. H. (2007) Influence of ethnicity and hierarchical status on language choice in a multilingual organisation in Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal, Special issue No. 7 on Social Science and Humanities, LXIV(85), 221-250.

Ting, S. H. (2010). Impact of language planning on language choice in friendship and transaction domains in Sarawak, Malaysia. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 397-412.

Ting, S. H. (2012). Variable impact of Malaysia’s national language planning on non-Malay speakers in Sarawak. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada, 12(2), 381-403.

Ting, S. H.,& Campbell, Y. M. (2007). Bahasa Melayu sebagai bahasa komunikasi keluarga: Kajian kes sebuah keluarga Bidayuh di Sarawak.[Bahasa Melayu as a language of family communication: Case study of a Bidayuh family in Sarawak]. In Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin, Imran Ho Abdullah & Idris Aman (Eds.), Linguistik teori dan aplikasi [Linguistics theory and application] (pp.278-293). Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

Ting, S. H., & Campbell, Y. M. (2013, November 16-17). Salience of ethnic identity as an ethnic marker: A snapshot of the Bidayuh in Sarawak, Malaysia. Proceedings of International Conference on Languages 2013 (ICL 2013), Phuket, Thailand.

Ting, S. H., & Chang, Y. S. (2008, July 29-31). Communication in a close-knit extended Hakka family in Kuching, Sarawak: Mandarin or Hakka? Proceedings of 9th Biennial Borneo Research Council (BRC) Conference, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.

Ting, S. H., & Chong, N. M. (2008, August 24-29). Making language choices based on appearance in intercultural communication: Fruit seller-customer interactions. Paper presented at 15th International Association of Applied Linguistics (AILA 2008), Essen, Germany.

Ting, S. H., & Hung, Y. L. (2008, August 5-7), Mothers and mother tongue: Their role in promoting Foochow to their children. Proceedings of 6th International Malaysian Studies Conference (MSC6) “Engaging Malaysian Modernity: 50 years and Beyond”, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.

Ting, S. H., & Ling, T. Y. (2012). Language use and sustainability status of indigenous languages in Sarawak. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(6), 1-17. Doi: 10.1080/01434632.2012.706301

Ting, S. H., & Mahadhir, M. (2009). Towards homogeneity in home languages. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL), 32(2), 11.1-11.22.

57



Vedder, P., & Virta, E. (2005). Language, ethnic identity, and the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth in the Netherlands and Sweden. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 317-337.

Wong, J. K. L. (2000). The Sabah Malay dialect. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: Pusat Penataran Ilmu & Bahasa, Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

Yeh, H. N., Chan, H. C., & Cheng, Y. S. (2004). Language use in Taiwan: Language proficiency and domain analysis. [Normal University: Humanities and Social Sciences Journal], 49(1), 75-107.

Yu, S. (2005). Family factors in bilingual children’s code-switching and language maintenance (pp.1-275). Auckland: Auckland University of Technology. Retrieved 2007, September 5 from http://repositoryaut.lconz.ac.nz/theses/2014.

Zaidi, A. (2010). Language maintenance and language shift: A sociolinguistic study of the Punjabis in Brunei Darussalam (Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). University of Brunei Darussalam.

Zhou, M., & Li, X. Y. (2003). Ethnic language schools and the development of supplementary education in the immigrant Chinese community in the United States. New Directions for Youth Development, (100), 57-73.

Key words: INTRODUCTIONand spoke the language. Jawing and Ting found that when the parents spoke...

Documents

Transcript of Key words: INTRODUCTIONand spoke the language. Jawing and Ting found that when the parents spoke...