Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Linguistics and Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged

Linguistic ideology and practice: Language, literacy and

communication in a localized workplace context in
relation to the globalized
Shanta Nair-Venugopal ∗
Institute of Malaysian and International Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 5 July 2013 Linguistic ideologies that operate in the Malaysian workplace have been fuelled by previ-
ous and current language policies that have upheld the sovereignty of Malay, the national
language while seeking to strengthen the use of English with regard to its perceived role as
Keywords: the language of global economic competitiveness. The dominant ideology in the Malaysian
Linguistic ideology workplace is the role of English as a determinant of economic success. However, while com-
Language policy petence in an idealized ‘standard’ English is highly valued for employability, the localized
Literacy practice
variety, Malaysian English (ME), Malay, and other local languages all contribute to liter-
Cultural diversity
acy practices in the Malaysian workplace. The disconnect between ideology and practice
Globalized economy
has implications for student employment and consequences for the linguistic and cultural
diversity of the workforce. A longitudinal and holistic perspective of the problem is pre-
sented by reporting on interview and observation-based research carried out at different
points in time separated by slightly more than a decade, firstly at a finance company and
later at its restructured entity, a commercial bank. Trainers from both entities reported that
they valued job-related workplace competency more than English language ability despite
the prevailing linguistic ideology. The study indicates that competitiveness in the global-
ized economy depends ultimately on education in a range of critical skills and strategies as
workplace competencies rather than on linguistic abilities as individual skills.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background

The linguistic ideologies critiqued in this paper hinge on the normative status of English in the private sectors of commerce
and industry in Malaysia. Formed in 1963 and located in South East Asia, Malaysia comprises the 11 states of the former
federation of Malaya (Peninsular or Western Malaysia now) and the two East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak on the
island of Borneo, across the South China Sea. Although English is highly valued for employability1 in the related sectors of
corporate business, banking and finance, Malay, as Bahasa Malaysia the national language, has emerged as the competing
code. As the national and majority language, it is the main medium of instruction in public universities and ‘national’ schools,
and is central to nation-building and the national identity project. However, there is a sustained demand for Chinese school
education which is vocalized by the national Chinese education movement, Dong Zong, and more newspapers are published

∗ Tel.: +60 3 89214640; fax: +60 3 89213443.

E-mail address: shantanair.venugopal@gmail.com
1
According to the results of a survey conducted by one of the largest employment agencies in Malaysia, JobStreet, 91% of employers said that English is
the language of business communication.

0898-5898/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.05.001
 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465 455

in Chinese than in any other language. They also have the highest per capita readership, and one, even has the largest weekday
circulation. Yet, the traditional dominance of the Chinese ‘dialects’ in local business enterprise has waned somewhat. This is
the sociolinguistic consequence of the combined effects of the national educational policy with Malay as the main medium
of instruction, and the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1971 (succeeded by the National Development Policy of 1991) which
aimed at reconstituting the demographic composition of the Malaysian workplace to reflect national ethnic population ratios
as part of a national affirmative action plan after race riots in 1969.
The integration of elements from a variety of languages and alternation between competing ones is normal linguistic
behaviour for almost all Malaysians. Besides Malay, the indigenous languages of the East Malaysian states of Sabah and
Sarawak, and the non-native Chinese and Indian languages, English is pervasive as a localized variety at many levels of
interaction and within particular domains (Baskaran, 1994; Federici, 2010; Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001; Morais, 2001;
Rajadurai, 2004, 2007; Soo, 1990; Ting, 2010).
The influence of the other languages is evident in the verbal repertoires of Malaysian speakers of English. These include
Malay inclusive of colloquial and Bazaar Malay (Bahasa Pasar), code switching or CS into Malay and English, and into other
languages or vernaculars, and the code mixing or CM of English and Malay, and of other languages or vernaculars. The
evolution of Malaysian English (ME henceforth) as the localized variety corresponds to the first three of the five phases
of Schneider’s Dynamic Model of Postcolonial Englishes (2007), namely those of foundation, exonormative stabilization,
nativization, endonormative stabilization and differentiation. The first two phases began with the coming of the British to
Malaya in 1786 to its independence from British rule in 1957. Although there are no precise dates for the transition from
phase 1 to 2, the second was marked by a stable endonormative colonial orientation with the ever-increasing demand for
English language education. English became deeply rooted even after independence in 1957 in the third phase marked by
“structural nativization on all levels of language organization” (2007: 151) and ME became the familiar, unmarked code. As a
code célèbre of popular culture, colloquial ME or CME (Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001) enjoys covert prestige and is capitalized
in innovative ways by the media, in advertising, and marketing. However, being referred to as Manglish in common parlance,
which evokes the ‘mangling’ of English into ‘poor’, ‘broken’ English, or euphemistically as rojak (salad), or ‘mixed-up’ English,
tends to undermine ME’s status as a fully fledged variety with sub-varieties.
The starting point of the research this paper reports is a large scale ethnographic study of language choice and commu-
nication in two large business organizations in the nineties (Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001) that identified ME as a functional
model of interaction in the Malaysian business context. It departed from previous studies of ME that had relied on the now
questionable Post-Creole continuum (see Benson, 1990) and identified three sub-varieties, namely, Educated Malaysian
English (EME), Colloquial Malaysian English (CME) and ‘Broken’ Malaysian English or Pidgin, spoken in ethnically distinctive
ways as “ethnolects” (Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001) within the model.
Notwithstanding its prevalence, ME has no legitimacy in the public domain and does not derive any mainstream peda-
gogical support as an appropriate language model. Additionally there is no common term of reference for Malaysian English
as the local variety. It has been referred to variously as MyE, ME, and MEng (cf. other acknowledged Asian varieties of
English such as Hinglish, Shinglish and Taglish). The educated sub-variety (EME) is the variety used by most English edu-
cated Malaysians while standardized English is the English valued for employability in those domains in which English
functions as the main language of work. The dominant linguistic ideology of standardized English disadvantages speak-
ers of ME despite workplace competence and impinges on language, literacy and communication in these workplace
contexts.

2. Understanding language, literacy and communication in the workplace

2.1. Language and literacy in the globalized workplace

Literacy has traditionally been associated with language ability or the ability to read and write and has been a gauge of
human civilization. Yet its traditional meaning is far from innocuous because it situates it in the individual person, rather
than in society and “obscures the multiple ways in which literacy interrelates with the workings of power” as Gee (2008:
31) argues. Literacy as linguistic accomplishment has also been challenged in various socio-cultural contexts of economic
disadvantage (Bernstein, 1971; Edwards, 1979; Heath, 1983; Labov, 1972), and even situated as “emancipatory” within a
revolutionary political context (Freire, 1970). UNESCO’s definition of it as the “ability to identify, understand, interpret, create,
communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts”, involving “a continuum of
learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in
their community and wider society” (2004) points to its evolution. This evolution has implication for the workplace because
of the role of language in it and some of the traditional assumptions about literacy centre on language.
For instance, in the field of literacy learning, the ‘skills based’ versus ‘whole language’ debate has been the most con-
tentious (Mills, 2005) in relation to the other dominant polarites of ‘print-based literacy’ versus ‘multiliteracies’ (and the
‘cultural heritage’ versus ‘critical literacy’ polarities). Meaning can not only be represented as multiliteracies (New London
Group, 2000), but also as multimodalities (Jewett & Kress, 2003; Kress, 2000; Kress & Leeuwen, 2002), and literacies can
go beyond those based on print technologies to information and communication technologies. Such literacies constitute
the heart of the new literacies (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004) which require and rely on new forms of strategic
knowledge and competence. In a world redefined by the new technologies of information and communication (Castells,
456 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465

2000), language ability becomes only one of the many skills or literacies for the workplace. Indeed, technologically mediated
communication may even compensate for its deficit (Pan, Scollon, & Scollon, 2002). As literacy today embraces many ways
of assessing, understanding, interpreting, creating, communicating and using information as a set of strategic skills, the
traditional emphasis on language skills alone can be challenged.
When applied to the workplace, the assumptions that underlie language skills (as individual skills) tend to overlook
those between such skills and the economy, and the relationship between factors such as globalisation, organizational
work structures, and social and economic policies. The latter which may have a bearing on national productivity, such
as, the largely affirmative action of the NEP/NDP, and the New Economic Model (NEM) may have had in Malaysia. Such
approaches to literacy are quite widespread and may operate elsewhere too, as noted in the United States (Castleton, 2002).
The critical element, however, in the context of globalisation, is that it is international competitiveness which is crucial to
achieving and maintaining high levels of human productivity and technological efficiency. So while literacies may still refer
to a variety of skills ranging from values and effective communication to numeracy and technology, economic awareness,
interpersonal skills, problem solving and positive attributes to change (Bhattacharya, 1997), alternative approaches have
become more relevant with the effects of globalisation. All these “acknowledge the complexity of work, the importance
of social relationships and networks, and the effect of the wider social, political, and economic environment on literacy
requirements” (Imel, 2003: 4).
Additionally as it is defined by new and diverse cultural and linguistic contexts, the contemporary workplace demands
not only the ‘communicative competence’ (Bachman, 1990; Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1966) of language use, but also
competence in information and communication technologies. Competency is described as collective learning in the organi-
zation, especially with regard to how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies
(Hamel & Prahalad, 1994). It is defined (Spencer & Spencer, 1993) as an underlying characteristic of an individual that is
causally related to criterion-referenced effective or superior performance or both in a job or situation. Hillage and Pollard
(1998) argue that individuals can get and keep desired jobs and find new ones if they possess the desired competencies of
knowledge and skills, and personal attributes or dispositions. Language competence is only one among many competencies
required to thrive in the workplace.

2.2. Global English-based communication and contextualized language use

Gee also contends that since centralized command systems in the new global capitalism are being effectively displaced
by distributed systems, “only assemblies of skills” (2000: 47) remain. These can be stored in a person for a specific project,
reassembled for other projects and shared with others implicating communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). The emergence of
competing linguistic alternatives that project both local diversity and global connectivity has, analogically, broken the ‘centre’
of Anglophone English language monopoly too into multiple and increasingly differentiated Englishes, “marked by accent,
national origin, subcultural styles and professional or technical communities” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000: 6) as multiliteracies.
It is this global mutation of English into multiple or “multivocal Englishes” (Singh, Kell, & Pandian, 2002) as “assemblies of
skills” that strikes at the heart of the relevance of standardized English vis-à-vis localized English.
The fragmentation of English into many New, World or Multiple Englishes demonstrates that variation determines the
global reach and influence of any language rendering the focus on “international intelligibility” in Global English untenable
as a pedagogical goal (Graddol, 2006: 93). Nor is such intelligibility crucial in business dealings between two non-native
speakers of English (see Firth, 1990; Nair-Venugopal, 2003) either. Even if it appears unlikely that governmental (or parental)
demand for Global English will diminish anywhere in the near future (Graddol, 2006), the spread of global English-based
communication (served by multiple Englishes) challenges the ideals of a Global (Crystal, 1997) or International English
(Smith, 1983). It has exposed the mythology of a Global, World or International English and undermines the claim for ELF
or lingua franca English (see Seidlhofer, 20052 and Kachru and Smith, 2009 for a counterclaim) too. Meanwhile Globish,
propelled by the Internet, has been proclaimed the “world wide dialect of the third millennium”, “a lingua franca . . . with
a difference” (McCrum, 2010: 9). As a simplified form of English that does not adhere to the rules of standardized English
grammar or structure, Globish is also perfectly comprehensible as a lingua franca to interlocutors who speak different first
languages or mother tongues. As one of the many Englishes, ME is part of this global spread of English-based communication
too. It is this reality of English as contextualized language that needs to be acknowledged and embraced rather than any
particular type of ‘banner’ English.
Since language is only meaningful in and through contexts of use (Gee, 2000), it remains inexplicit until it is realized on
the basis of the experiences and information gained in socioculturally significant interactions in communities of practice
such as those of businesses, schools, neighbourhoods and social networks. It becomes difficult to ignore the pragmatic
relevance of such language use as “contextualized” (Gee, 2000) language use. As the familiar code of English in Malaysia, ME
is contextualized English language use. Malaysians are also connected to other ‘lifeworld’ contexts via mobile phones and
the Internet through SMS, chat forums, e-mails, blogs (and increasingly Face-book as social media, and the micro-blogs of

2
See Seidlhofer (2005) for a claim.
 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465 457

Twitter) as the multiliterates of the modern world. The materiality of technology represents real-life realities that influence
language use and change language-related literacy practices conventionally associated with the workplace.

2.3. Language and communication in the Malaysian workplace

It is constantly iterated in the local media that graduates from local public universities lack both English language and
prerequisite communication skills for both the local and global workplace. The New Sunday Times, December 2002 (Yuen,
2007) reported that only 600 of the 13,000 graduates registered with the Human Resources Ministry of Malaysia for jobs in
the service and marketing sectors in the first ten months of 2002 were recruited. The rest were apparently rejected because
of a poor command of English. Valued for employability, English is often advanced as the reason for the high unemployability
of local graduates which has been estimated to be 48.5% (Sirat, Bakar, Lim, & Katib, 2004). Furthermore as reported in The
Star, 27 June 2005, cited by Yuen (2007) more than 10,800 local graduates, compared to only 300 from foreign universities,
turned up at ‘The Great Malaysian Job Hunt’ to compete for the 3500 jobs in Information Communication Technology. The
disproportionate number of local graduates prompted the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation then to ask if they
were “less marketable” than their foreign-trained peers because of “poor language or communication skills” (Yuen, 2007:
2), echoing a common perception held about local graduates.
What constitutes ‘corporate’ language use hinges on an idealized standard English considered de rigueur both for pro-
moting a corporate image and for internal language modelling. On the other hand, having evolved as the localized variety,
ME serves localized language and communication needs as contextualized language use. Local business information, for
instance, between suppliers and buyers and between support staff, is invariably conveyed in ME or a local language, for
example, Malay or a Chinese dialect, while localized marketing strategies tap into ME, as authentic language use, to create
consumer niches for local and global products (Nair-Venugopal, 2007). The use of localized language contextualized lan-
guage is the linguistic background against which the dominant ideology of English in the Malaysian workplace is critiqued
in this paper.

3. Scope and context

The banking and finance industry is highly regulated in Malaysia and comes under the purview of the Banking and
Financial Institution Act (BAFIA) of 1989, which provides laws for the licensing and regulation of its activities. Some of the
regulation in the industry is reflected in the rhetoric on the maintenance and use of standardized English in banks and
other financial institutions as the traditional lingua franca of corporate business and finance in Malaysia in tandem with
establishment views and the perception that English is the globalized language of international business.
Yuen’s study (2007) of a Malaysian regulatory bank, revealed that localized forms of English are evident even in the bank’s
correspondence. Unsurprisingly, these instances of local variation in the written communication of the bank’s employees
are dismissed by management as deviations and lapses because it is standardized English that is seen as the natural preserve
of written communication in banks. Banks invest much time and money on training in specific skills like report writing,
although routine language training is also conducted on various aspects of spoken English. However, it is accepted that oral
communication is hard to monitor and control; that it is more difficult to perform gate-keeping functions on speech and
interaction. The variety and hybridity of social practices that characterize the blurring of social boundaries in speech is far
greater than in written texts. This is compounded when interactants are multilingual like the bank’s clients.
Language tension in the Malaysian workplace has been described by Muthiah (2002, 2003) and Ting (2001, 2002) as a
mismatch in skills’ sets. Muthiah discusses the mismatch as a gap between the kinds of language skills required for work in
banks and the communication skills taught in local tertiary English language programme. More recent work by Wahi, O’Neill,
and Chapman (2011) is prescriptive in approach too. Interestingly, it was found in the native English speaking context of
Australia that practice in making formal presentations alone was not sufficient preparation for business graduates because
workplace oral communication was mostly informal in nature (Crosling & Ward, 2002).
Additionally, although the Malaysian government’s policy of education for the masses has not been acknowledged as
causal, the prolonged massification of tertiary education (Loh, 2005) with increased ethnic quotas for bumiputra (native
Malay and other indigenous) students, may have, in fact, produced far more local graduates than the private, especially the
corporate sector, will employ. Moreover, perceptions that local graduates lack adequate workplace competence (Koo, Pang,
& Mansur, 2009) are exacerbated by prevailing linguistic ideologies. More than a quarter of those unemployed in 2007 were
graduates, while unemployment among new graduates was 24.1% in 2008 (Lopez, 2012). Lopez opines that the public sector,
at the federal and state level, and government-linked corporations (GLCs) have long employed bumiputera graduates as part
of an implicit arrangement with the (predominantly bumiputera) government. In any case although local non-bumiputera
graduates are largely locked out of the public sector and the GLCs, many of them are also ill-equipped to meet the demands
of the private sector, especially in businesses exposed to international competition (Lopez, 2012). This reinforces the view
that many local graduates are not desirable recruits to the globalized workplace.
Nevertheless, the language skills sets acquired in public universities appear sufficiently adequate for work in statutory
bodies and government linked companies that use Malay as the de facto language of work and work-based communica-
tion (Nair-Venugopal, 2001; Ting, 2002) despite iterative institutional rhetoric on English. SMEs however, are generally
unfettered by organizational imperatives on language use at work (Ting, 2002) and interaction with clients and government
458 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465

bodies is in accordance with local discourse practices, conventions and protocol. In contrast, foreign-based corporations
tend to hire English speaking graduates from foreign or private English medium universities and colleges. Such institutions
have proliferated since the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act (PHEIA) of 1990 opened the doors to private higher
education in English in the government’s plan to transform Malaysia into a regional educational hub.

4. Aim and purpose

In the previous large scale study of language choice and communication in Malaysian business in the nineties (see Section
1), one of the two organizations observed was a local finance company which was restructured as a locally incorporated
commercial bank in 2005. So, in order to find out if ME was, in fact, an indelible part of the literacy practices of the corporate
workplace, and what the attitudes were towards it, four of its in-house trainers were interviewed. Their responses were
compared with those of the trainers interviewed and the self reports obtained from the research carried out in the finance
company (before it was restructured into the commercial bank). This was to establish if language behaviour in the company
matched the normative status of English in the restructured entity of the commercial bank.
I observed that the institutional directives on language use within the commercial bank had not changed from those of
the previous entity, the finance company. The taken-for-granted assumption on the ground was still that English was the
language of work but this did not match the ideals of gatekeepers and stakeholders as was previously observed too although
English remained the ‘first and best’ choice. However, the discourse within the bank was less strident and the overall rhetoric
more accommodating now than it had been in the previous entity of the finance company.
Nevertheless, it is quite apparent (with regard to the discourse on localized variation) that it is one thing to speak a local
variety in the Malaysian workplace and quite another to ‘write’ the local language into the banking context where written
language is inviolable. Yet Yuen’s study (2007) found evidence of localized variation in a regulatory bank’s correspondence
despite the bank’s hard line stance on it. It is hardly surprising then that it exists in spoken language. Speech is, after all,
naturally more susceptible to the vagaries of language change and to innovative and creative language appropriation than
written language is, largely because of the greater blurring of social boundaries in speech.
Ngeow, Soo, and Crismore (2003), in a study of the perceptions and attitudes of employees in the civil and private
sectors in Malaysia towards the use and acceptance of English as ME, found mixed reactions towards the use of standard
English. A more recent study (Ting, 2010) indicates that English is being confined to the legal domain and the private and
higher education sectors while Malay (Bahasa Malaysia), the national language, is dominant in the domains of friendship
and transactions (with the dual possibility of language loss for some of the smaller speech communities). English may be
valued for work in some domains but workplace literacy practices demonstrate a continuum of English language use as we
shall see.

5. Methodology

5.1. Components of the study

The finance company was the data context studied previously from 1993 to 1994. In that study, I employed an eclectic
methodology comprising various elements, inclusive of self-reports and post hoc interviews, to ensure a more valid inter-
pretation within the ethnographic approach of participant observation. The entire corpus of speech data was recorded on
audio-tapes (with some video-taping for counterchecking purposes) and subsequently transcribed. The findings from the
finance company are compared to that from the restructured entity, the commercial bank, which was studied more recently
in 2006. This is to provide a longitudinal perspective to the discourse on the role of language, particularly English, as part of
the literacy practices.
Hence a structured interview within the ethnographic approach of participant observation was administered to four in-
house trainers of the commercial bank, in order to uncover more recent attitudes to language choice and use, particularly of
localized language use, within the bank. Self-reports were solicited too. The responses of these four trainers were compared
with the post hoc interview responses of the four trainers (3 + 1) from the finance company.
Technically, these responses emanate from the same organization that had emphasized the use of standardized English as
the normative language of work in its previous form as the finance company. The same emphasis was evident in its current
avatar, the bank. Taken together then, the responses provide a longitudinal perspective on attitudes to language choice and
use in both these entities (see Table 1).

5.2. Participants in the commercial bank

The four trainers, three females and one male, all executive officers in the commercial bank were subjected to the
structured interview in order to assess longitudinal attitudinal change if any to attitudes to language choice and use. All
four worked in the bank’s Centre for Organizational Development and trained different levels of employees on knowledge
building, work skills and personal development almost daily. They were experts in their areas of training: Ann and Chi in
computer applications, Beh in customer service and Dan in banking systems. In their forties, they represented a generation
of Malaysian professionals who were mainly, but not wholly educated in Malay as Bahasa Malaysia, the national language.
 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465 459

Table 1
Components of the longitudinal study on attitudes to language choice and use.

Data contexts Data sources Methods Aim/purpose

Finance company (currently
restructured into a local
commercial bank)
Commercial bank (previously the
finance company)
Post hoc interview responses of 4
trainers (3 free lance, 1
in-house + training manager of the
finance company)
Structured interview responses of
4 in-house trainers
Participant observations; analysis
of audio recordings of interactions
and post hoc interviews/self
reports (from mid-1993 to
mid-1996)
Participant observations; analysis
of structured interviews and self
reports (2006)
To provide a longitudinal
perspective on attitudes to
language choice and use in two
institutions, as past and present
entities of the same organization

Ethnolinguistic loyality to Malay could be ruled out because two were ethnic Indians (Ann and Dan) and the other two,
ethnic Chinese (Beh and Chi). Responses to a mix of fifteen Yes/No and open-ended questions ranging from organizational
language policy to personal views and experiences in training were elicited. The questions were from the set previously
administered to the four trainers of the finance company which were subsequently refined for this research purpose. The
trainers’ responses are taken to be attitudes to language choice. The evaluative responses of individuals as preferences or
dis-preferences for things, which they may or may not react to emotionally or behaviourly and which may implicate values
and beliefs, may be taken to be attitudes (after Gardner, 1985). They are discussed here as perspectives.

5.3. Issues of access and ethics

I gained entry to the previous site through a research contact who introduced me to the training manager of the company.
She was also interviewed as an informant as she conducted training for the company too. I was well received as a researcher
and spent almost whole days on the site for a period of almost a year observing numerous trainings and recording particular
sessions. I almost became ‘one of the boys’ and was privy to much ‘insider’ information inclusive of complaints and office
gossip.
In the case of the commercial bank, previously established contacts in the finance company enabled access to it. However,
I had to write in formally to the head of the centre that conducted the bank’s training for permission to observe the sessions.
In sharp contrast to the study of the finance company, no recordings of any form were allowed on this site. Nor was I allowed
free access to all sessions. I was limited to a period of only two weeks of observations. Fortunately, the four trainers were
not averse to being observed and were very cooperative. I made ethnographic field notes and produced verbatim notes of
the trainers’ responses since recordings were disallowed. Doubts and ambiguity were clarified by phone calls and email and
once over lunch with the trainers.
Identification of the trainers is not easy unless exact dates and other information is divulged as training sessions are
conducted on a daily basis by the centre which involve a large pool of trainers on a rotation basis. Training is the core
business of the centre.

6. The findings

6.1. The previous study

The data context of the previous study, the finance company, was one of 15 subsidiaries of a financial and investment
holding company that was viewed as a giant in Malaysian financial business. Although locally incorporated, Malay was not
an alternative language for organizational communication in the company. English was used as the normative medium for
communication and organizational rhetoric on the ascribed status of English was high. A corpus of data was obtained from
three training programmes in the company. Three trainers were observed and interviewed while the fourth, the training
manager, was only interviewed. The first was a Chinese male managing director of a diversified group of companies that the
finance company serviced and the second, a Chinese female member of the company’s legal panel. The third was a Malay
female in-house trainer.
The language use of the three trainers varied considerably. Their speech styles were marked as ethnolects (Appel &
Muysken, 1987; see also Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001) of Chinese (2) and Malay (1) speakers of ME respectively, mainly
through their discourse accent and the pronunciation of single words (Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001). The speech of the first
Chinese trainer was marked by the use of graphic metaphors as ‘acts’ of ethnic and social identity. The third did not CS into
Malay beyond some emblematic CS, although Malay was her mother tongue and dominant language. This demonstrated the
effect of caveats placed on the use of Malay in the organization and the use of English as normative practice. In contrast,
as the second Chinese trainer was an indigenized Straits Chinese (of Peranakan or Baba-Nonya descent), she appeared to be
acculturated by Malay ways of speaking and was less constrained to CS into Malay. Her ability to CS and CM into Malay with
great facility marked her as pan-Malaysian.
Despite the rhetoric of the gatekeepers regarding the normative status of English and in spite of caveats placed on the
use of Malay, the actual language use of the trainers did not demonstrate either consistent adherence or approximations
to standard English usage. Rather, the stylistic and varietal range available to them as speakers of ME, including the use
460 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465

of localisations with some CS and CM, was more clearly and consistently demonstrated in the training sessions observed.
Furthermore, the covert status of Malay as the marked code was clearly challenged, firstly, as artificial because of its status as
Bahasa Malaysia, the national language. Secondly, its markedness was quasi or token considering that the English language
competence of increasing numbers in the Malaysian workplace can best be described as functional language ability vis-à-vis
greater competence in Malay because of mainstream education in it. It appears, therefore, that while the normative code
in the finance company may, in fact, have been an exonormative model of standardized English, the unmarked codes were
the educated and colloquial sub-varieties of ME, the mixed code, Bahasa Malaysia and even basilectal or pidginized Malay.
It was an interactional model of Malaysian English (ME) comprising these unmarked codes that operated as contextualized
language use in the finance company.

6.2. The more recent study

The trainers from the commercial bank behaved quite predictably as employees of any organization would. They were
guarded initially, presumably, to safeguard either the bank’s image or their reputations as English-using-elites. It is not
uncommon for individuals in interviews to say what they think others want to hear them say which may also be more
politically correct rather than critical. Conversely, the researcher tends to see what is said as a reflection of what is ‘out
there’ rather than an interpretation to be jointly produced by both parties (Briggs, 1986).
All four acknowledged that although it was not formalized in writing, English was the normative language of work in
the bank but they had autonomy to decide on which language they wanted to use for their training purposes. Yet no one
selected Malay as the first choice. Nevertheless, they interspersed it repeatedly into English throughout the training sessions
for the following reasons:
Ann: Because she (the trainer) knows them (audience) best
Beh: Needs to ensure that whatever (language) is used is used to impart knowledge
Chi: Because it doesn’t say Malay cannot be used
Dan: Can use Malay to check . . . for comprehension checks

With regard to the bank’s stand on language choice and use, their views ranged from a more predictable corporate stance
to a less dogmatic one.
Ann: Flexible enough . . . given leeway although the corporate language is English
Beh: No problem switching to Bahasa Malaysia (Malay) as and when necessary
Chi: Executives should have good communications skills in English because English is a corporate language
Dan: English will be first and best choice

All four admitted to bending the rules to accommodate to trainee proficiency although they claimed to be “always guided
by the training task”. All claimed that while they were “particular” about the kind of English they used, “getting the message
across (sic) always more important than the language per se”. These remarks were reminiscent of those of trainers in the
study of the nineties (Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001).
As for personal code choices, each indicated preferences for certain repertoires of English, inclusive of sub-varieties of
ME as follows:
Ann: Malaysian English or ‘communicative’ English
Beh: Malaysian Educated English
Chi: Simplified English with an emphasis on communication
Dan: Educated Malaysian English that all can follow

With regard to which of the languages they considered useful for training purposes, Beh and Chi considered Malay and
Chinese as potentially useful languages. Ann was not against using Malay either. Their responses are given below:
Ann: Mixture of both but prefer competence in English. Now production skills are poor because of Malay in schools.
Beh: Maybe Chinese or BM may be even more useful . . . say in rural areas? But English is more useful for corporate
training
Chi: Depends on the audience. Sometimes more proficient in BM. But start with English and use BM for certain words.
Prefer English for technical training
Dan: Prefer English for my training needs i.e. banking systems

Apart from D who was insistent that banking systems training had to be in English so as not to “compromise knowledge
content training”, the responses point to a disconnect between institutional imperatives and decisions taken on the ground.
Ann, who was the most proficient and fluent in English, was also the most empathetic about the language deficit of the
trainees. She recognized that the English language competence of new entrants to the organization compared to those a
decade ago was lower but did not attribute low English language proficiency to poor cognitive or communicative skills.
All four were unanimous that communicative ability was more than a language issue. This was perceptive and unexpected,
considering that communication skills are routinely conflated with language skills in the discourse on language ability in the
Malaysian workplace by mainstream media and in the public domain. All contended too that while contemporary entrants
 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465 461

to the workforce were far less proficient in English than previously in the nation’s history, many were well versed in work
matters; that what they lacked was communicative ability in English rather than job-related competence.
Lastly, although the four trainers considered language to be a very important tool for effective training and communi-
cation, they believed that technology would enhance the training process such as the e-learning programmes initiated by
the bank. All opined that technology can go beyond interfacing and replace trainers in some types of training. It has already
been pointed out by Pan et al. (2002: 4) that technology may even compensate for language deficit at the workplace.

7. Discussion

The triangulation of the responses of the four (3 + 1) trainers in the finance company with the four in its restructured entity,
the commercial bank, across a time lag of slightly more than ten years, provides a longitudinal and more holistic perspective
and interpretation of part of the discourse on the normative status of English in relation to localized variation. The findings of
the earlier study in the nineties (1993–1994) of language choice in the finance company inclusive of subsequent observations
and post hoc interviews (mid-1996) had not only confirmed the incidence of localized variation in the organization, it also
affirmed that trainers were receptive to the use of both Malay and English for training purposes and the use of code switches
and or a mixed code of both. Such language use was viewed as pragmatic choices to facilitate understanding and learning in
their sessions. The findings from both sets of trainer responses that were analyzed as the data for this study were consistent
over the time lag. They confirmed that there was a disconnect and some dissonance between linguistic ideologies and
linguistic practices in the two entities. These are discussed below as a set of five disjunctures.

7.1. Workplace language realities versus fictive gatekeeper expectations

As Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) is the national language and medium of education, contemporary entrants to the Malaysian
workforce no longer speak or write either near native or standardized English, a vanishing legacy of colonial rule. The
English language competence acquired in schools is reproduced in contexts of interaction and use, such as the workplace.
The announcement on 8 July 2009, and the subsequent abolition of the short-lived policy, PPSMI (the teaching and learning
of science and mathematics in English) implemented in 2003, was welcomed by Malay nationalists.3 The abolition of this
policy of teaching these subjects in Malay in national schools will further entrench the use of Malay in the workplace. This is
regardless of the infusion of foreign native speaker teachers (from the United States and elsewhere) and other pedagogical
strategies and innovations meant to improve levels of English language proficiency in the national schools. Tertiary level
remediation and workplace language training are also viewed as ‘solutions’, but these cannot replicate the English language
competence of an older generation of Malaysians in desired sectors of employment. New employees will also outnumber
English educated gate-keeping senior managers who have been slow to accept realities on the ground; that they have to
work with lower levels of English language proficiency. The dissonance was expressed in the continued lament of ‘poor’
English by the higher echelons of management in both entities.

7.2. ‘Standard’ English – a linguistic chimaera versus localized language use

The linguistic ideology of prescriptivism is strong in the corporate sector. Applying best practices and standards and
maintaining a corporate image that matches the purportedly consistent quality of the goods and services offered is a familiar
corporate theme. Banks are considered the bastions of standard English usage in Malaysia in keeping with the theme of
consistent quality. Yet Yuen (2007) had found that the even the written communication in a regulatory bank’s internal
and external correspondence contained localizations together with the recurrent use of archaic expressions, clichés and
fossilizations despite the bank’s best attempts at regulating language use. It is clear that language change has crept into such
institutions. Additionally, while managers insisted on the use of ‘standard’ English, they couldn’t describe it adequately nor
did they use it consistently as was observed in the study of the finance company in the nineties. It remained an idealized
abstraction. Achieving competence in standardized English language use is not attainable for many Malaysians either, even
if English is not a ‘foreign’ language technically in Malaysia because of its post-colonial legacy of its use.
Milroy and Milroy have argued that “Standard English actually . . . depends on acceptance (mainly by the most influential
people) of a common core of linguistic conventions, and a good deal of fuzziness remains around the edges” (1999: 22). It
is ideological rather than scientific because whoever is in control of the language has the power to determine the language
norms as standard practices. This is reminiscent of the arguments for the ‘imposed norm hypothesis’ (Giles, Bourhis, Trudgill,
& Lewis, 1974).

7.3. Equating language competence to professional competence

Communicative competence in English is frequently equated to workplace, job-related or professional competence in the
corporate sector, not only in Malaysia but elsewhere too, for example, Hong Kong (see Cheng, 2009). Although the emphasis

3
Jallaludin, New Sunday Times, 19 July 2009 presents a Malay perspective for the reversal of the policy.
462 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465

should be on job-related competence and job execution, English language competence (notwithstanding its importance in
some areas of knowledge content) is invariably viewed as professional competence. The bank’s trainers reported that many
employees were, in fact, well versed in work matters, which implies workplace competence despite the lack of communica-
tive confidence in English. Nor did they believe that low level English skills imply low level cognitive skills either. In other
words they did not judge workplace competence solely by language ability. As mentioned earlier, language competence is
considered only one among many other desirable workplace competencies.
They also believed that technological competence was a very valuable workplace competency that could even compensate
for some language skills.

7.4. Conflating language skills with communication skills

English language skills are also invariably conflated with communicative skills in the corporate sector as alluded to earlier.
While most employees can, in fact, function in English, many are viewed as poor communicators because their proficiency
may not match desirable levels although they may communicate effectively in Malay. The preoccupation with an idealized
‘standard’ English continues to disadvantage many local and mainly Malay graduates entering the job market. It hinders the
development of certain functional levels of communicative ability and literacy in English as workplace skills that they could
employ in the localized workplace context to their advantage.

7.5. Language tensions between trainers and management

Trainers reported that the linguistic choices trainees make are vital cues for creating and maintaining appropriate levels
of rapport that ensure the success of training programmes. While trainers were more sensitive to issues on the ground,
proactively employing language that trainees are comfortable with, management was invariably insistent on standardized
English in the simultaneous attempt to address what is perceived to be low entry-level proficiency. Trainers also reported
that trainees wanted to meet them interactively at their levels of proficiency, frequently requesting for a mixed code of both
English and Malay i.e. campur-campur (‘mix-mix’) to alleviate the pressures of job training. It is such localized language use
that represents the contextualized language use of the linguistic repertoires of many in the Malaysian workforce.

7.6. Summary

The disconnect that exists between the linguistic ideals of normative language choice and actual language use on the
ground in the two large financial and banking contexts investigated, confirmed the paradox of language and communication
in Malaysian business that was first observed in the nineties. To begin with, all four trainers from the bank claimed to
be speakers of standardized English although Beh, Chi and Dan displayed departures from the norms. Yet all four saw
themselves non-controversially as speakers of ME, reflecting language realities in Malaysia. On the other hand, although
the gate-keeping echelons of senior management displayed a preoccupation with establishing and maintaining ‘standard’,
‘good’, ‘proper’ ‘correct’ and ‘quality’ English, such norms were not always present or even put into place by the trainers.
This was observed of the trainers in the finance company studied in the nineties too.
Although both sets of trainers served the corporate goals of the organizations they were clearly “sociopragmatically savvy”
(Nair-Venugopal, 2003: 16) in being sensitive to language diversity on the ground despite the normative status of English.
As Cope and Kalantzis (1997) argue, corporate culture can thrive on linguistic diversity by using “productive diversity” as
a metaphor for culture in a model for work and management. Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1997) also demonstrate how
different languages ‘work’ in businesses worldwide.
The linguistic diversity in the organizations observed was a mix of sub-varieties of ME, standard, colloquial and bazaar
Malay, code switches into Malay and English, code mixes of English and Malay, formal and informal referents mixed with
workplace register, and ways of speaking in ethnically distinctive ways as “ethnolects” (Nair-Venugopal, 2000, 2001). Indeed,
Yuen’s study (2007) revealed that localizations archaic expressions, clichés and fossilizations were evident even in the written
communication of a regulatory bank. What more of speech then?

8. Conclusions and future prospects

Language and communication in the Malaysian workplace clearly demands a plurilinguistic agenda given its language
ecology but it continues to be assailed by the rhetoric of standardized English as the language even of local business inter-
actions. The potential capacity of the linguistic diversity of the Malaysian workforce has not been exploited because of the
established belief that achieving a competitive edge in a globalized economy depends considerably on the value-addedness
of English as English is the language of international communication worldwide, its value-addedness may not be sustainable
globally, particularly with the rise of new communication technology (Burns, 2003) with non-English speaking Internet
users growing by 150% contra English speaking users (Pastore, 1999) who will be overtaken most by those in Asia-Pacific
and Latin America.
The Japanese and the South Koreans have continued to demonstrate economic strength without a competitive edge in
English, while China, poised to become the world’s largest economy is not yet a nation of English users, despite the surge
 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465 463

in English language learning for global communication. The ascendancy of English in the EU (fast slipping into a variety
called Euro English) is also being contested (Phillipson, 2001, 2003) for reasons of human and linguistic rights. On its own
“it cannot provide the competitive edge Europe needs” (Orban, 2008) either. Malaysia’s neighbour Singapore’s reliance on
English is not good copy either although it is one of the most globalized countries in the world. For one, Singapore’s main local
languages are active and uncontested in the public domain unlike Malaysia’s. Singapore is also bereft of natural resources.
Although this may be contested as a reason for its competitiveness, its people have had to depend quite heavily on the ability
to communicate and engage globally.
Heller (2003, 2005, 2010) argues that talent, variability and authenticity are marks of multilingualism and new economic
freedoms, while skills, standardization and commodification are not. The tension lies in treating authentic language as a kind
of innate talent and standardized language as a technical value added skill. I suggest that the perceived value addedness of
English cannot compete with the authenticity of a local language that can ensure that the work that needs to be accomplished
in the localized workplace gets done before it can lay claim to the globalized economy. As the localized variety and familiar
code, ME is beginning to challenge the commodification of English in business contexts in Malaysia (see Nair-Venugopal,
2006).
Additionally, the ideals and practices associated with the teaching of English as a foreign language is a declining paradigm
accompanied by a declining reverence for ‘native speakers’ of English as the gold standard (Graddol, 2006: 68), although
the push to teach English to Asians (especially in China with its huge market potential) keeps driving the lucrative ELT
trade controlled by Anglo-American publishers and academics. Yet within traditional EFL methodology, there is an inbuilt
ideological positioning of the student as an outsider and a failure no matter how proficient she becomes (Graddol, 2006: 83).
So, if EFL by design (or default) produces failure, one wonders what the point is in promoting EFL as a learning paradigm?
More crucially, can graduates of Malaysian public universities that use Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) as the medium of instruction
produce standardized English on demand on the basis of the deficient-by-design EFL instruction they have received? If they
have already learnt all the English they will ever acquire in school, can they be expected to produce more? Moreover,
Malay is poised to become the key language in the localized Malaysian workplace (see Nair-Venugopal, 2011; Ting, 2002)
as the national education system is being driven even more affirmatively by Malay now that the policy to teach science
and mathematics in English (PPSMI) has been jettisoned. Indeed, the ‘linguistic capital’ of Malay has been contesting the
‘symbolic power’ (Bourdieu, 1991) of English in the changing landscape of the political economy of language choice and use
in Malaysia and shaping its cultural politics (see Pennycook, 1994) since independence in 1957, with the fortunes of English
waxing and waning.
Unrealistic linguistic expectations can only increase language tensions at the localized workplace. Rather than try to
‘fix’ inevitable problems of language change emanating from the bottom, in a top-down fashion, the challenge and solution
should be to build an education system that produces a technologically competent workforce that can develop and support
‘new’ technology regardless of the medium of instruction. Witness Japan and South Korea in Asia and in different situations,
France and Germany.
Ultimately, global economic competiveness depends on the effective use of information and communication technologies
matched by high levels of literacy developed and maintained through the use of the Internet and other ICTs, and the use of
language as a valuable resource in the new globalized economy rather than as commodified skills.
As it is, the Malaysian workplace is a natural site for intercultural and intra-cultural communication, given the cultural and
linguistic diversity of its workforce, which is enhanced by the use of ME. ME also matches the communicative competence
of its ‘non-native’ users, and the linguistic reality of the wider social milieu. Blind faith in linguistic normativity is repressive
and counter-productive. Restoring faith in the potential productive capacity of the cultural and linguistic diversity of the
Malaysian workforce and its practices within the context of the globalized economy, where the language of work should
ideally work for all, is both egalitarian and prudent.

References

Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (1987). Language contact and bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (Eds.). (1997). The languages of business. An international perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Baskaran, L. (1994). The Malaysian English mosaic. English Today, 37(10), 27–32.
Benson, P. (1990). Lexicography of Singapore-Malaysian English. England: University of Exeter (Unpublished master’s thesis).
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bhattacharya, G. (1997). Literacy in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.literacy.org/sites/literacy.org/files/publications/Bhattacharya literacy in the
workplace 97.pdf
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language as symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity.
Briggs, C. (1986). Learning how to ask. A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burns, A. (2003). Opportunities or threats? The case of English as a global language. Publishing Research Quarterly, 18(4), 18–25.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Castells, M. (2000). . The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. I) Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Castleton, G. (2002). Workplace literacy as a contested site of educational activity. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 45(5), 556–566.
Cheng, W. (2009). Professional communicative competences: Four key industries in Hong Kong. In C. C. Kong, & W. Cheng (Eds.), Professional communication:
Collaboration between academics and practitioners (pp. 31–50). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1997). Productive diversity. Annadale, NSW: Pluto Press.
464 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Introduction: Multiliteracies: The beginnings of an idea. In Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and design of social futures
(pp. 3–9). London: Routledge.
Crosling, G., & Ward, I. (2002). Oral communication: The workplace needs and uses of business graduate employees. English for Specific Purposes, 21(1),
41–57.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, V. (1979). The West Indian language issue in British schools: Challenges and responses. London/Boston/Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Federici, E. (2010). A Kampong is not a village: Malaysian English, a linguistic tapestry. In O. Palusci (Ed.), English but not quite. Locating linguistic diversity
(pp. 213–222). Trenton, NJ: Gruppo Editoriale Tangram Srl.
Firth, A. (1990). ‘Lingua franca’ negotiations: Towards an interactional approach. World Englishes, 9(3), 269–280.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Press.
Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and second-language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gee, J. (2000). New people in New World: Networks, the new capitalism and schools. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and
design of social futures (pp. 43–68). London: Routledge.
Gee, J. (2008). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Routledge.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., Trudgill, P., & Lewis, A. (1974). The imposed norm hypotheses: A validation. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 60(4), 405–410.
Graddol, D. (2006). English Next. London: The British Council.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 473–492.
Heller, M. (2005, July). Paradoxes of language in the globalised new economy. In Paper presented at the International Conference on Global Communication
Cardiff, Wales.
Heller. (2010). Language as resource in the globalized new economy. In N. Coupland (Ed.), Handbook of language and globalisation (pp. 349–365). Oxford,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a framework for policy analysis. Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), Research Report
No. 85. Nottingham: DfEE Publications.
Hymes, D. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity. In W. Bright (Ed.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 114–158). The Hague: Mouton.
Imel, S. (2003). Whatever happened to workplace literacy? Myths and realities. Retrieved from http://www.calpro-online.org/eric/textonly/docgen.asp?tbl=
mr&ID=120
Jallaludin, N. H. (2009, July 19). Why PPSMI reversal makes sense. New Sunday Times (main section).
Jewett, C., & Kress, G. R. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Kachru, Y., & Smith, L. (2009). The Karmic cycle of world Englishes: Some futuristic constructs. World Englishes, 28(1), 1–14.
Koo, Y. L., Pang, V., & Mansur, F. (2009). Employer perceptions on graduate literacies in higher education in relation to the workplace. In English for specific
purposes world,. www.esp-world.info. Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.info/Articles 20/DOC/Koo vp employer Journal18Oct09.pdf
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 182–202). London:
Routledge.
Kress, G. R., & Leeuwen, T. V. (2002). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.
Labov, W. (1972). The logic of non-standard English. In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (pp. 179–215). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and
communication technologies. In B. R. Robert, & U. Norman (Eds.), Theoretical models processes of reading (pp. 1570–1613). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.adingonline.org/newliteracies/lit index.asp?HREF=leu/
Loh, F. (2005). Crisis in Malaysia’s public universities? Aliran Monthly, 25(10). Retrieved from http://aliran.com/archives/monthly/2005b/10h.html
Lopez, G. (2012). GE contenders face five critical megatrends. Retrieved from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beritamalaysia/message/122000
McCrum, R. (2010). Globish: How English became the world’s language. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Mills, K. (2005). Deconstructing binary oppositions in literacy discourse and pedagogy. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 28(1), 67–82.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language: Investigating standard English. London: Routledge.
Morais, E. (2001). Lectal varieties of Malaysian English. In V. Ooi (Ed.), Evolving identities: The English language in Singapore and Malaysia (pp. 33–52).
Singapore: Times Academic Press.
Muthiah, P. (2002). ‘Welcome to the real world’: A comparative study of the orientation to the evaluation of business correspondence by ESL instructors and
business practitioners and its implications for teaching and assessment. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne (Unpublished PhD thesis).
Muthiah, P. (2003). English language proficiency at the workplace: Expectations of bank officers in Malaysia. Asian Englishes, 6(2), 64–81.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2000). Language choice and communication in Malaysian business. Bangi: UKM Press.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2001). The sociolinguistics of choice in Malaysian business settings. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 152, 121–153.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2003). Malaysian English, normativity and workplace interactions in the workplace. World Englishes, 22(1), 15–29.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2006). An interactional model of Malaysian English. A contextualised response to commodification. Journal of Asian Pacific Communi-
cation, 16(1), 51–75 [Special Issue on Asian Business Discourses].
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2007). Appropriating English: The world’s local language of global communication. ESP Across Cultures, 4, 54–65.
Nair-Venugopal, S. (2011). Subversive strategies: Language and interaction in Malaysian business. In R. Salvi, & H. Tanaka (Eds.), Intercultural interactions
in business and management (pp. 167–184). Bern: Peter Lang.
Ngeow, K. Y. H., Soo, K. S., & Crismore, A. (2003). Workplace perceptions and attitudes toward standard English use: The case of Malaysia. Journal of Asian
Pacific Communication, 13(2), 231–267.
Orban, L. (2008). Multilingualism – Essential for the unity in diversity of the EU. Speech by EU Commissioner Orban at debate at the College of Europe, March 7,
Natolin, Poland. Retrieved from http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article 7766 en.htm
Pan, Y., Scollon, W. S., & Scollon, R. (2002). Professional communication in international settings. Malden, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Pastore, M. (1999). The language of the web. Retrieved from http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big picture/demographics/article/0,1323,5901 150171,00.html
Pennycook, A. (1994). The cultural politics of English as an international language. London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. (2001). English for globalisation or for the world’s people? International Review of Education, 47(3/4), 185–200.
Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.
Rajadurai, J. (2004). The faces and facets of English in Malaysia. English Today, 80(20), 54–58.
Rajadurai, J. (2007). Sociolinguistic perspectives on variation in non-native varieties of English: The case of Malaysian English. Multilingua, 26(4), 409–
426.
Schneider, E. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts in ELT, English as lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339–341.
Singh, M., Kell, P., & Pandian, A. (2002). Appropriating English: Innovation in the global business of English language teaching. New York: Peter Lang.
Sirat, M., Bakar, R., Lim, H. E., & Katib, M. N. (2004). Pencapaian akademik dan kebolehgunaan tenaga siswazah Institusi Pengajian Tinggi. PPTN Monograf 3/2004.
Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Smith, L. (1983). Readings in English as an international language. London: Pergamon.
Soo, K. (1990). Malaysian English at the crossroads: Some sign-posts. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 11(3), 199–214.
Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work. New York: Wiley. Survey: The Importance of the English Language in the Workplace. (2009).
JobStreet Community Digest. Retrieved from http://careers.jobstreet.com.my/community-digest/importance-of-english-at-the-workplace
 S. Nair-Venugopal / Linguistics and Education 24 (2013) 454–465 465

The New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope, & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning
and design of social futures (pp. 9–37). London: Routledge.
Ting, S. H. (2001). Language choice in multilingual and organisational settings: The case of Sarawak, Malaysia. Australia: The University of Queensland
(Unpublished PhD thesis).
Ting, S. H. (2002). Is English needed in a Malay workplace? RELC Journal, 22(1), 143–150.
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.
UNESCO Education Sector. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implications for policies and programs: Position Paper. Paris: United Nations Edu-
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Citing an international expert meeting in June 2003,13. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/
images/0013/001362/136246e.pdf
Wahi, W., O’Neill, M., & Chapman, A. (2011). Investigating English language academic literacy for employability of undergraduate students: A case in a
Malaysian public university. In A. Pandian, S. A. M. Mohamed Ismail, & C. H. Toh (Eds.), Teaching and learning in diverse contexts: Issues and approaches
(pp. 90–101). Penang: School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yuen, C. K. (2007). Ringing the changes: A study of language variation and use in the business correspondence of executives in a financial institution in Malaysia.
Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (Unpublished PhD thesis).