See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308490410

Identity regionalism and English as an ASEAN lingua franca

Article  in  Journal of English as a Lingua Franca · September 2016

DOI: 10.1515/jelf-2016-0018

CITATIONS READS

7 734

3 authors, including:

Azirah Hashim Jagdish Kaur

University of Malaya University of Malaya
247 PUBLICATIONS   648 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   565 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A Genre Analysis of the Review Article Genre in Applied Linguistics View project

Genre Analysis and Corpus Linguistics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jagdish Kaur on 20 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JELF 2016; 5(2): 229–247

Azirah Hashim*, Jagdish Kaur and Tan Siew Kuang

Identity regionalism and English
as an ASEAN lingua franca
Regionalisme Identiti dan Bahasa Inggeris sebagai lingua
franca ASEAN

DOI 10.1515/jelf-2016-0018

Abstract: The ASEAN Charter refers to English as the “working language of

ASEAN,” a situation different from the EU that has a multiplicity of official
and working languages. It has been argued that English, as a foreign “working
language,” does not have an emotive value to it as it has merely a functional
role. This, however, may change as many people in ASEAN speak a particular
variety of English, especially those from countries such as Malaysia, Singapore,
Philippines and Brunei. Even in countries such as Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam,
which had not been colonised by the British, many learn English today and see
it as vital for survival in many domains and especially with the forming of the
ASEAN community and ASEAN integration. This ASEAN English is different from
the many varieties in the region in that it does not possess the national and
ethnic characteristics that varieties do. ASEAN English appears to possess its
own characteristic features, often with an avoidance of features that are found in
national varieties to aid mutual understanding between members who come
from different ASEAN societies. This paper examines informal interactions
between ASEAN speakers from the Asian Corpus of English. It analyses the
features that create rapport and illustrates that ELF has an emotive value and
does not merely play a functional role in ASEAN.

Keywords: ASEAN, English, lingua franca, identity, regionalism

Abstrak: Piagam ASEAN merujuk kepada Bahasa Inggeris sebagai ‘Bahasa kerja
ASEAN’, situasi yang berbeza daripada EU yang mempunyai beberapa Bahasa
rasmi dan Bahasa kerja. Telah dihujah bahawa Bahasa Inggeris seperti ‘bahasa
kerja asing’ tidak mempunyai nilai emotif kerana ia mempunyai semata-matanya

*Corresponding author: Azirah Hashim, Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya,

Jalan Universiti, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
E-mail: azirahh@um.edu.my
Jagdish Kaur, Tan Siew Kuang, Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of Malaya,
Jalan Universiti, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
230 Azirah Hashim et al.

peranan fungsional. Walau bagaimanapun, ini mungkin berubah kerana ramai

orang di ASEAN bercakap pelbagai bahasa Inggeris tertentu terutamanya di
negara-negara seperti Malaysia, Singapura, Filipina dan Brunei. Malah di
negara-negara seperti Kemboja, Laos dan Vietnam, yang tidak pernah dijajah
oleh orang British, ramai yang kini belajar Bahasa Inggeris dan melihatnya
sebagai penting untuk ikhtiar hidup dalam banyak domain terutamanya dengan
pembentukan komuniti ASEAN dan integrasi ASEAN. Bahasa Inggeris ASEAN ini
adalah berbeza daripada banyak varieti di rantau ini kerana ia tidak memiliki ciri-
ciri negara dan etnik yang membawa kepada kelainan. Bahasa Inggeris ASEAN
berkelihatan biasanya memiliki ciri-ciri sendiri dan mengelak dari penggunaan
ciri-ciri yang terdapat di pelbagai negara untuk membantu persefahaman antara
penutur-penutur yang datang dari pelbagai negara ASEAN. Kertas ini mengkaji
interaksi tidak formal dikalangan penutur ASEAN dari korpus Bahasa Asia. Ia
menganalisis ciri-ciri yang mewujudkan hubungan dan menggambarkan bahawa
ELF mempunyai nilai emotif dan tidak semata-matanya memainkan peranan
fungsional dalam rantau ASEAN.

Kata kunci: ASEAN, Bahasa Inggeris, lingua franca, identiti, regionalisme

1 Introduction
Much discussion in the field of international studies on regionalism and regio-
nalisation has been on economic or security integration and not on “cognitive
regionalism” which is “principally socio-cultural in analytical orientation”
(Milner 2012: 15). Regional awareness and regional identity are important areas
to examine and this would include “shared norms by which regional identity is
often shaped” (Milner 2012: 15). This study contributes to this dearth of research
presently carried out on the socio-cultural pillar of ASEAN and to what has been
termed identity regionalism. This paper will enrich the study of the socio-
cultural pillar and turn to ASEAN’s official language English. We will argue
that English as a lingua franca in ASEAN is turning into a variety with features
of its own and into a language that fosters an ASEAN identity.

2 ASEAN’s socio-cultural pillar and ASEAN English

The integration of ASEAN has been progressing fast and it has basically reached
the goal of becoming an economic entity by 2015. English is ASEAN’s sole
official language. But the language history of South-East Asia cannot be reduced
 Identity regionalism and English 231

to colonialism and it is much more complex. It is true that some of ASEAN’s

member states have had an Anglophone past; Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei and
Myanmar were British colonies, the Philippines were American. But Indonesia
was a Dutch colony, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were French (Indochina), and
the Philippines were Spanish up to 1898. French Indochina colonies came under
Russian communist and totalitarian nationalist control that abolished colonial
languages and introduced Russian and, partly, Chinese. The shift to English in
ASEAN was quite a novel move and, partly as a by-product and partly as a
natural outcome of history, English has become a lingua franca with varying
degrees of native ancestry.
Research into its current texture and place in national habitats and into its
development becomes even more important as ASEAN became an economic
community at the end of 2015, leading to increasing academic interest in that
part of the world. It will enrich research on the “Asian Century” and show that
the study of region building goes beyond that of economics and security, which
have long been the focus of international studies specialists.
Kumar and Siddique (2008) expressed pessimism over the creation of a
supra-national ASEAN-wide common identity some years ago. They state that
there is “no common element that binds” (cited in Milner 2011: 11) the Southeast
Asian region. In comparison to Europe, a number of scholars have expressed
that, while citizens of the European Union can identify themselves as European,
this is not yet the case in ASEAN. They mention that although English is the
common working language of ASEAN, it is a “language of pragmatism and not
an emotive common language that can express any regional cultural content”
(Milner 2011: 11). This has been echoed by many researchers who highlight that
the diversity in the region with a multiplicity of religions, cultures, political and
legal cultures makes it difficult for people in ASEAN to feel united or integrated.
Lee and Milner (2014) have highlighted the importance of research in the
humanities in the development of a common identity. They refer to work done
in Australia on the languages of security in the Asia-Pacific, which suggests that
it is there that one must look for references to a linked heritage or a common
culture to be able to conceptualise a regional community in discussing identity
regionalism. Archarya (2009) has also highlighted the need for more ASEAN
scholars to contribute to the study of regionalism.
In recent years, there has been rising interest in English as a lingua franca
(ELF) in ASEAN following work on that subject in Europe. Research on English as
a lingua franca can be considered a contribution to the study of identity region-
alism as it examines shared norms that shape regional identity. With the pioneer-
ing work of Kirkpatrick (2010, Kirkpatrick 2011, Kirkpatrick 2014), some scholars in
the region have examined features of ELF communication in various domains and
232 Azirah Hashim et al.

looked at what creates misunderstanding and what communication strategies are

used to facilitate understanding (Low and Tan 2016; Kaur 2011, Kaur 2012; Low
and Deterding 2003).
The changing higher education landscape is one major domain in the
increasing importance in the study of ELF. Regional and global mobility has
facilitated inter-institutional exchanges across national boundaries and influ-
enced government policies towards international students. In ASEAN there is
now a focus on encouraging domestic students to study in the region rather than
going to traditionally popular destinations such as the United Kingdom, the
United States and Australia. A common higher education space is being created
to encourage cross-border mobility and academic integration across ASEAN. The
ASEAN University network (AUN) has more than thirty universities participating
in student exchanges as well as the ASEAN International Mobility for Students
(AIMS) programme, which has seen hundreds of students from ASEAN countries
experience education in another ASEAN country for a semester or two. A
European initiative, SHARE – Support to Higher Education in the ASEAN
Region – started in 2015 and aims to strengthen ASEAN higher education
institutions by developing quality assurance systems, enhancing higher educa-
tion standards in the region to facilitate mobility and credit transfers.
The consequence of global mobility has led to a rise in the number of non-
native users of English and of ELF in higher education, the language used when
interlocutors do not share a common native language (Jenkins 2014; Kirkpatrick
2010, Kirkpatrick 2014). The drive to create more uniform systems and processes
in higher education across ASEAN that further the mobility of staff and students
makes the role of English even more important. These developments have
indeed been successful with opportunities under the ASEAN University
Network and the SEAMEO-RIHED ASEAN International Mobility Scheme and
various schemes that have generated opportunities for mobility encouraging
students to spend a semester or a shorter period abroad in a university where
credit transfer can take place and which allows staff to spend periods of research
time and sabbaticals in universities overseas.
In ASEAN, English is the official language and the language used in all
ASEAN meetings and documents. It is the language used by ASEAN multilin-
guals in higher education institutions where there is a move to offer courses in
English. As in Europe where the Bologna Process has led to the harmonization of
university degrees to facilitate student and staff mobility and the transfer of
credits, ASEAN is also looking into a similar direction with ongoing efforts to
adopt similar mechanisms and structures.
The numerous inter-ASEAN networks in various fields play an important role
in regional integration. In 2015, when Malaysia was chair of ASEAN, ASEAN
 Identity regionalism and English 233

meetings on various focus areas took place regularly with all ten member states.
Ministries play an active role too in region building. For example, the Cambodia-
Laos-Myanmar-Vietnam (CLMV) programme involves universities engaging in
higher education aid programmes. Types of collaboration like this will develop
into partnerships in research, mobility, capacity building and others. English
becomes the language of communication at inter-state levels and it is likely that
more established varieties of English such as Malaysian English get transported in
these contexts. The nature of English in Malaysia and across Southeast Asia is
highly diverse and variable. Speakers may turn to the more stable and developed
localized forms of Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines and use them as easily
available role models in the region. Given similarities between Austro-Asiatic and
Austronesian languages (Asmah 2003), even countries that have no inherited
English base have features that resemble those of varieties with an English past
due to shared typological features or through the adoption through contact.
The English as Lingua Franca (ELF) paradigm focuses on today’s connectiv-
ity in the Expanding Circle of English-speaking countries. Proponents of ELF
maintain that English as a language of communication will not contain features
and culture from the Inner Circle of English (as represented in discussions
concerning International English or of English as a native language). For ELF
scholars, languages and cultures in the Expanding Circle develop in their own
right that will or may develop pluricentric forms of Englishes – with an ELF core
(Pakir 2009). If this is a real possibility, we need to raise the question if ELF is a
language of communication only or if it is or can be a language of identification?

Hullen (in Fiedler 2011) explained the difference between them in these terms:

A “language of communication” is used for practical communicative purposes, and due to

its primary functional nature, correctness or particular stylistic and cultural features
associated with the speech community from which this language originates are less
important. On the other hand, “language of identification” means a language which is
learnt in order to be integrated into and identify with the respective speech community.
(Hullen, in Fiedler 2011: 82)

Kumar and Siddique’s remark quoted above that English is a “language of

pragmatism and not an emotive common language that can express any regional
cultural content” (cited in Milner 2011: 11) for ASEAN interlocutors, would rule out
the possibility that it can be a language of identification. Others have remarked on
the complex nature of ELF and said that it is not just a language of communica-
tion without culture and identity. Virkkula and Nikula (in Fiedler 2011: 83) have
investigated the construction of identity among Finnish users of English working
in Germany. Their interview-based study reveals that “lingua franca use, as well
234 Azirah Hashim et al.

as being a matter of communication, is to a great extent also a matter of

identification”. ELF is not merely a language of communication, a neutral code
stripped bare of culture and identity. Speakers of English as a lingua franca do
display an array of various identities, with the English native language and
culture(s), their own primary languages and cultures and a specific ELF identity
being important pillars. The degrees to which these three constituents – native
language, native cultures, ELF identity – are activated and interact depend on a
variety of factors in a specific communicative situation. The weight of past
research tends to allow ELF forms of English to stabilize and become languages
of identity. This is the argument that we will explore below.
We will begin with some features that are not used or rare in native-like
international forms of English:

Tenses: The present simple was the most commonly used tense followed by
the past simple; in situations where time has already been established by
the context verbs were often not marked for tense.
Articles: Articles are used less frequently; the definite article was variably
used in place of an indefinite one.

Number marking: plurals are often unmarked; but uncountable nouns are
variably marked for the plural, but the plural can be left out with countable
nouns; here are some examples of either process: “I got so many thing”,
“I got so many informations”.

Discourse particles: as in “No lah” “It’s possible mah”, “Terrible lah”

Exclamations: [deletion of be] “Aiya so stupid”

Modality: Non-standard modal forms; may not accord with standard func-
tions of the form.

Syntax: Non-inversion in wh-main clauses, interrogative word order in indir-

ect speech, e.g. “But you can speak a bit ah”.
Prepositions: A variety of prepositions used in non-standard ways.

Turn-taking: Generally, very short utterances that may signal unease if

speaking longer.

Lexis: Loan words are sometimes used especially if there are speakers who
share a common first language like a Malaysian talking to an Indonesian
e.g. makan, kampong and insyaallah.

(Azirah and Leitner 2014: 22–23)

 Identity regionalism and English 235

Further analysis of the Asian Corpus of English was conducted to investigate if

there were features used by speakers across member nations that could be said
to reflect their membership of the ASEAN ELF speech community. In particular
three features stand out: the particle la/lah and the interjections aiya(h)/aiyo(h)
and wah.

3 Findings and discussion

3.1 The particle la(h)

The use of the particle la (also spelt as lah), a distinctive feature of both
Malaysian and Singapore English, by speakers from other ASEAN countries in
their conversations with one another perhaps best illustrates the emotive value
inherent in the English they use as a lingua franca. While there are a number of
particles that Malaysians and Singaporeans use when speaking in English (e. g.
meh, lor, ah, hor, ma and leh), particularly in more casual settings, la is con-
sidered to be “the most salient” (Besemeres and Wierzbicka 2003: 13; italics in
original). Wong (1983: 142) refers to la as “the most well-known particle in
colloquial Malaysian English,” while Bell and Ser (1983: 12; italics in original)
regard it as “a stereotype of Singapore speech.”
The use of la has generally been associated with the colloquial forms of
Malaysian and Singapore English. While earlier research considered the particle
as being “sub-standard” (Tongue 1974, as cited in Platt and Weber 1980: 76) and
“a feature of the L-variety [Low-variety] of Singapore English” (Richards and Tay
1977: 143), more recent work on the subject acknowledges the presence of the
particle in “the speech of English-educated professionals” (Besemeres and
Wierzbicka 2003: 13). In addition, the particle la, although commonly used in
informal conversations, has also been found to occur in more formal speech
situations as noted by Low and Deterding (2003) in their data comprising inter-
views between a British lecturer and his Singaporean students (see also Lim 2007).
And while the origin of the particle la is generally attributed to the Chinese
languages – Hokkien (Richards and Tay 1977; Lim 2007), Cantonese (Besemeres
and Wierzbicka 2003) and Mandarin (Kwan-Terry 1978), for example – its use is
widespread amongst Malaysian and Singaporeans of various ethnic and first
language backgrounds (Gupta 1992).
The aspect of the particle which has received the most attention concerns
the functions that it performs in conversation. La, which typically occurs in
phrase- or sentence-final position, when used is said “to indicate emotive,
236 Azirah Hashim et al.

affective attitudes of the speaker” (Tongue 1974: 83, as cited in Wong 1983: 140).
Specifically, la can function to emphasise, to convey an informal style, to signal
intimacy, to persuade, deride, wheedle, reject and so on (Wong 1983). Similarly,
Kwan-Terry (1978: 22) notes that la conveys “certain emotive attitudes on the
part of the speaker,” which can only be determined when the context is taken
into account. On the basis of intonation, she distinguishes the stressed or
protracted form of la from the unstressed or contracted form. While the former
is said to express emphasis, obviousness, persuasion, uncertainty, consultative-
ness and an explanatory or conciliatory attitude, the latter conveys impatience,
irritation and authority. Richards and Tay (1977) add that la is present in talk
where the speakers are familiar with one another and is used to mark the
solidarity and rapport existing between them, while Gupta categorizes la as an
assertive particle that “insist[s] on an interlocutor’s attention, agreement and
cooperation” (Gupta 1992: 55).
Others like Besemeres and Wierzbicka (2003) and Wong (2004) adopt a
semantic perspective and attempt to uncover the invariant meaning of the
particle la in talk. The particle is considered to be interactive in that both
speaker and interlocutor, i. e. “I” and “you,” are embedded in its meaning.
Although not specifically seeking to solicit a response, la is said to signal an
expectation “from the addressee […] a capacity to understand the speaker” or in
other words “I think you can know what I want to say” (Besemeres and
Wierzbicka (2003: 21–22). Wong (2004) identifies three la particles on account
of their tone – the impositional la that seeks to change the addressee’s way of
thinking or behaving, the propositional la that presents an idea, a suggestion or
advice, and the persuasive la that seeks to convince the addressee of something.
Both Wong (2004) and Besemeres and Wierzbicka (2003) are in agreement that
particles like la not only fulfill the communicative needs of its speakers but they
also characterize the speaker’s membership of the Singapore (and Malaysian)
English speech community. Singaporean and Malaysian speakers of English are
inclined to restrict their use of la to “fellow-insiders,” those with whom there are
commonalities in terms of experiences, attitudes and values, as well as a shared
local and national identity. As Besemeras and Wierzbicka (2003: 29) put it,
“Singaporeans tend to avoid using lah when speaking to non-Singaporeans.
With foreigners, there might be little basis for assuming that they can know
what one wants to say and little reason for expressing such an assumption.”
While the use of la in conversation is generally considered to be “character-
istically Singaporean” (Wong 2004: 790) (and Malaysian), close detailed analy-
sis of the Asian Corpus of English (i. e. the Malaysian component) reveals that
speakers from the different ASEAN countries who use English as a lingua franca
in informal conversations are equally likely to use la to express the different
 Identity regionalism and English 237

meanings as outlined above. The use of this “emotive participle” (Low and
Deterding 2003: 63) to convey the speaker’s attitudes and intentions towards
the recipient and/or the situation in question, which are more affective in
nature, provides evidence of the role that ELF serves its speakers, namely, one
that is beyond the transactional. In addition, the use of this particle by speakers
from a range of first language and cultural backgrounds within ASEAN, who
have spent some amount of time in Malaysia to study or work, reflects the
speakers’ willingness to adopt local features into their English to not only gain
acceptance into the local speech community but also to identify themselves as
members of the ASEAN speech community.
The extracts below come from a conversation between a Burmese and three
Thai students, none of whom has any of the Chinese languages in their linguistic
repertoire, namely, the languages from which la is said to originate (see the
appendix for the transcription conventions).

(1) S2: one hundred and fifty

S1: no lah it’s
S3: @@@
S2: because first [first name2] told me that if you want to attend also
S3: mhm
S2: you don’t pre- e:r you don’t present any paper right
S3: mhm
S2: like him just attend just pay for registration<@>lah</@>

(2) S1: are you going there?

S2: I think I must lah

(3) S1: er because there is a <8>conference there and my<8/> yeah and my
supervisor er how to say ask me to send an abstract and they ac- accept
S4: <8>but it’s a ( ) qualitative lah<8/>

(4) S3: it’s o- eh why don’t you have er some coffee you can drink some coffee
S4: coffee
S1: no thank you @@@
S3: it’s okay lah er I this day I don’t drink coffee

In the extracts above, the four postgraduate students appear to be on friendly

terms with one another. The topic of conversation covers a variety of subjects
including an upcoming conference at their faculty (see Extracts [1] to [3]). While
238 Azirah Hashim et al.

S1, S2 and S3 are Thai, S4 is Burmese; all four use the particle la at various
points in their talk. La not only marks the conversation as being informal in
nature but also signals the rapport and friendliness between the speakers.
Further, la also serves to indicate a “softening of tone and attitude” (Kwan-
Terry 1978: 23) and this is particularly obvious in Extracts (1), (3) and (4). In
Extract (1), the addition of la to “no” reduces the potentially face threatening
effect of the disagreement marker. In Extract (3) as well, the use of la softens the
tone of S4’s remark that points out that the nature of S1’s research is not in line
with the theme of the conference, a remark that could potentially be face
threatening. Meanwhile in Extract (4), S3’s offer to serve her friends coffee is
declined by S1; adding la to her response makes light of the situation as a result
of the softening effect that the particle conveys.
The next three extracts come from conversations involving several foreign
language teachers from a local university in Malaysia. The conversations are all
informal in nature and take place over a meal in the case of (5) and (6), while (7)
takes place as the teachers make their way to a restaurant.

(5) S1: … yes yes (.) doctor you want some more?
S2: mm? hm
S1: huh? try la <3>doctor</3>
S3: <3>not spicy</3>

(6) S2: they import by er by plane or by ship?

S1: erm=
S3: =maybe by by ship la=

(7) S4: really? (.) I haven’t tried it there yet

S1: really (.) yeah mostly expensive than [place6]
S4: tsk up to you la it’s my first time

None of the speakers in the extracts above are Malaysian or Singaporean; S1 is

Burmese, S2 is Thai, S3 is Vietnamese and S4 is Filipino. Although in each case
the use of la is not obligatory, the speakers adopt the use of the local particle to
fulfill particular communicative needs. In (1) la serves a persuasive function as
S1 attempts to coax S3 to try a particular dish. In the case of (2), S3’s use of la
may in the first instance appear to signal some level of obviousness when
talking about the mode of transport used to bring in a particular produce;
however, given the use of “maybe” in the utterance, the meaning of obviousness
is replaced by a suggestion instead (see also Kwan-Terry 1978: 23). In (7), la
 Identity regionalism and English 239

conveys an emphatic meaning as S4 is unfamiliar with the restaurant mentioned

by S1 and wants S1 to decide on the restaurant. The speakers display compe-
tence in their use of the particle la which characterizes both Malaysian and
Singapore (Colloquial) English. They appear to have acquired knowledge of the
rules of the use of this particle and seem keen to convey particular emotive
attitudes with the use of the particle.
As previously noted by Low and Deterding (2003), and Lim (2007), the use
of the particle la is not restricted to informal conversations but may also be
found in talk taking place in more formal settings. The extracts below come from
interactions between colleagues at the workplace, in this case a call centre, as
they discuss work-related matters. S1 is Filipino, S2 is Vietnamese while S3 is
Indonesian.

(8) S2: why is it disabled

S1: tsk so how ah
S2: okay lah remove it lah
S1: how to remove it

(9) S3: but each <spel>a s c</spel> has its own target
S2: oh yeah it’s same with Vietnam lah

(10) S2: you’re still learning about excel

S3: no because some some this one I have to make from the scratch so see
all these er tsk all the: er foreigner lah
S2: mhm
S3: so I have to make sure it’s actually reflective of this one
S2: so you create from er from this book lah
S3: ah

As the extracts above illustrate, speakers from the various ASEAN countries not
only use the particle la in their casual conversations but are equally at ease
using it when discussing work matters with fellow colleagues. In Extracts (8) to
(10) above, the use of la signals that the speakers are familiar with one another
and share a close rapport, in part perhaps due to their status as foreign employ-
ees at the call centre. As the talk in the above extracts revolve around work
matters, the particle la in these instances seem to correspond with Wong’s
(2004) “propositional la” which serves “to present an idea, a suggestion, or
offer an advice to the addressee” (Wong 2004: 768). There is also the added
meaning of obviousness conveyed by the particle in the examples above.
240 Azirah Hashim et al.

The use of la, a hallmark of Malaysian and Singapore (Colloquial) English,

by speakers from other ASEAN countries to express various emotive and affec-
tive attitudes reflects recognition and acceptance of the communicative value of
this particle. As the use of la is governed by “complex socio-linguistic rules and
is not used haphazardly” (Richards and Tay 1977: 155), these speakers appear to
have acquired the rules and developed the capacity to use the particle appro-
priately in ELF contexts. While Wong (2004) asserts that Singapore English
particles like la are “associated with specific cultural values and norms of
interpretation […] that characterize the Singapore English speech community”
(Wong 2004: 790), the analysis above suggests that there may be growing
recognition of common ASEAN cultural values and norms that could account
for the openness displayed by the speakers towards adopting local features into
their English. Further evidence of this can be seen in their use of local forms of
interjections in their ELF conversations.

3.2 The interjections aiya(h)/aiyo(h) and wah

Speakers from the various ASEAN countries, as represented by those in the
Asian Corpus of English (Malaysian component), were also found to have
adopted the use of several interjections associated with Malaysian and
Singapore Englishes. These interjections, such as aiya, aiyo and wah, constitute
“forms of emotional expression” (Besemeres 2004) that contribute to the emotive
value of ELF. According to Besemeres, interjections are able to “express the
speaker’s feeling more immediately” (Besemeres 2004: 141) than the words that
describe such feelings. She provides the example of the interjection “yuk” as
opposed to the words “I feel disgust” to illustrate her point. Wong (2014), who
places interjections in the same category as particles and tags, i. e. “attitudinal
words,” considers them to be particularly important speech elements that
“express their speakers’ attitudes, emotions and expectations towards people
and things occurring in their daily lives” (Wong 2014: 281). In spite of their
cultural significance, thus far very little research has been conducted on the use
of these elements in the informal speech of Malaysians and Singaporeans.
Wong (2014), while conceding to the similarities between aiya and aiyo in
that both are “negatively charged” and equally common in Singapore Colloquial
English, distinguishes the two on semantic grounds. Both interjections, which
are said to originate from the Chinese languages, generally express negative
feelings associated with displeasure towards a person, an incident, or a situa-
tion. What differentiates the two, according to Wong (2014), is the presence of
 Identity regionalism and English 241

annoyance in the case of aiya, or as Wong (2014: 288) puts it, “aiyo reflects a far
less irritated speaker, if any irritation is involved.”
In the extracts below, speakers who are neither Malaysian nor Singaporean use
the interjections aiya and aiyo to express feelings that are negative when they use
English as a means to communicate with others of different national backgrounds.

(11) S1: yeah every year they add up one right

S2: yeah correct
S1: but I for me I have only fifteen <3>fixed already aiyo so sad</3>
(.) okay
S2: <3>@@@@</3> okay

(12) S2: so you have to wait until the rain stop

S1: aiyoh how can you wait until how you know that the rain gonna stop
or not

(13) S1: my god I’m so hunGRY tsk

S3: no <2>sometime you hungry</2> so erm m- more beautiful
S1: <2>fruits sometimes yes</2> aiyo:h @@@

(14) S2: yeah I got five cent

S1: why cannot <1>( )</1>
S3: <1>no no need</1> no need five cent ah aiya five cent also want to give
S1: ah wait wait

In Extract (11), S1, who is Vietnamese, informs S2, who is Thai, that her annual
leave is fixed and therefore, unlike him (S2), she does not get a yearly increment
of one day. Her use of aiyo, which precedes “so sad” emphasizes her feelings of
disappointment with this situation. In another conversation (Extract [12]), this
time with an Indonesian interlocutor (S2), S1 again uses aiyoh to express impa-
tience with the idea of having to wait for the rain to stop before being able to
leave for home. Extract (13) is extracted from a conversation between a
Vietnamese, a Filipino, a Burmese and a Thai. S1, who is Filipino, had – several
turns before her use of aiyoh – expressed feeling extremely hungry on account of
having missed her breakfast. While there is some intervening talk about the
positive effect of consuming fruit on the skin, S1’s use of aiyoh makes known
that her hunger continues to trouble her. Finally, in Extract (14), S3, who is
Bruneian, uses aiya which in this context conveys her annoyance with S2 for
wanting to give her a five cents change.
242 Azirah Hashim et al.

As in the case of the particle la, the speakers above display the ability to use
the interjections aiya and aiyo, which are generally associated with Malaysian
and Singapore Colloquial Englishes, in appropriate contexts to express feelings
and attitudes that are in some way negative. These local interjections are used to
express emotion in a direct manner in conversations conducted in ELF. Pölzl
and Seidlhofer (2006: 154) highlight that “exactly where the conversation takes
place seems to be crucial” in determining the speakers’ pragmatic behavior. The
L1 Arabic speakers in their data were found to employ discourse markers and
strategies associated with their culture when communicating in ELF in their
native land. In the present study, however, the use of local interjections extends
beyond its native users to include speakers from the region. While speakers of
ELF are known to accommodate to their interlocutors, what is notable here is the
use of aiya and aiyo in the absence of the local participants. As in the case of la,
this suggests a growing awareness and acceptance of certain commonalities in
cultural values and norms across national borders within the ASEAN region,
hence the readiness to adopt local features of speech that are considered
culture-specific.
Wah is another interjection found to be commonly used in the Asian Corpus
of English (Malaysian component). A Dictionary of Singlish and Singapore
English defines wah as “an exclamation usually used at the beginning of
sentences to express admiration, awe, consternation, surprise, etc.” In the
March 2016 update, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) “added 19 new
‘Singapore English’ items to its lexicon” (The Straits Times, 13 May 2016), one
of which was the interjection wah. While aiyo and aiya express negative feelings
associated with displeasure, the use of wah generally conveys positive feelings
on the part of the speaker. Despite its origins in the Chinese languages and its
association with Malaysian and Singapore Colloquial Englishes, speakers from
the ASEAN region seem to have adopted the use of this interjection in their
conversations in ELF, as the extracts below indicate.

(15) S1: green the <8>gree:n</8> outside right green and red one and
<9>even</9> the small dot the black one yeah
S3: <8>o:h</8> <9>o:h</9> wah

(16) S3: research project how many credit hours

S2: for- forty-two credit
S3: FORTY-two <2>credit hours wah so big</2>

(17) S1: you know what the population only three hundred eighty-eight
<5>thousand</5>
 Identity regionalism and English 243

S2: <5>yeah al</5> together yeah yeah

S1: <6>hoo yo:</6>
S3: <6>wah</6>

(18) S1: <7>my friend</7> is going to serve the army

S2: wah Korean or
S1: no no no
S2: then
S1: friend in guangzhou

In Extract (15), S3, who is Thai, describes to her friends a piece of handicraft that
her student had produced which is in the form of half a watermelon. S3, who is
also Thai, responds with a wah upon hearing how detailed the piece was as even
its tiny black seeds had been crafted. S3’s use of wah here suggests that she is
impressed and conveys her feelings of admiration. In (16), S3, who is
Indonesian, is amazed that the research project that S2 is required to do carries
42 credit hours. The interjection wah, together with the increased volume when
uttering “forty”, emphasizes her amazement at how “big” the assignment is. S3
(Vietnamese) responds with a wah in Extract (17) when he hears how small the
population of the place in question is. The interjection in this context in all
probability signals surprise on his part given that he is aware of the large
number of tourists visiting the place as indicated by a comment he made several
turns earlier. In Extract (18), S2’s use of wah suggests delight upon hearing that
S1’s friend was joining the army. This is particularly so since S2 appears to think
that the friend in question is a fellow Korean.
The use of the interjection wah, as in the case of aiya and aiyo as well,
conveys a message about the speaker’s feelings and perception towards and/or
experience with the person, thing, situation or action in question. As previously
mentioned, the meaning conveyed by these elements of speech are not infre-
quently more immediately, and perhaps more effectively, communicated to the
recipient than the use of words (Besemeres 2004). Recognizing the communica-
tive effectiveness of the interjections, speakers from the various ASEAN coun-
tries appear keen to adopt them when interacting in ELF. Noteworthy is that
these interjections are not only used in the company of Malaysian and
Singaporean speakers in an attempt to accommodate but are also used in their
absence. This suggests that the speakers in the extracts above do not consider
themselves bound to their national varieties or to the norms of the native
speaker in any way; rather local features that are expressive are adopted to
convey a range of emotions and attitudes, both positive and negative. The use of
244 Azirah Hashim et al.

speech elements of the kinds examined above also evidence that ELF does more
than perform a transactional function. These speakers from ASEAN “draw on the
composite linguistic resource at their disposal” (Seidlhofer 2011: 105) to express
feelings and emotions that are universal.

4 Concluding remarks
This study was spurred by questions raised by international study experts on
the role of English in ASEAN and the lack of bonding elements in the diverse
ASEAN communities in spite of regional integration efforts that are taking
place across the region. Using the corpus of Asian English, we illustrate that
the use of particles and interjections are ways that ASEAN speakers create
rapport and familiarity amongst themselves, contributing to the role of English
as a language of identification. The data showed that particles are used to
express various emotive and affective attitudes, showing recognition and
acceptance of their communicative value; similarly with interjections.
Speakers’ apparent familiarity with these particles and interjections and their
adoption indicate that there may be growing recognition of common ASEAN
cultural values and norms. These local features that are expressive are adopted
to convey a range of emotions and attitudes indicating shared norms that
shape regional identity, thereby illustrating that ELF does more than perform
a transactional and functional role.
In a region that consists of a number of nation-states well described in
Kirkpatrick (2010) and Asmah (2003) and which differ in their demography and
socio-political systems, their religious heritage and their languages, it is hard to
speak of a common habitat. However, there are regional similarities and inter-
regional borrowing and processes of integration that lead to some overarching
commonness embedded in an ongoing ASEAN languages habitat (Leitner 2014).
Due to the limitations of our study, other features that create bonding are likely
to exist but were not examined here. It would be interesting to examine a body
of data collected after a period of time since the establishment of the ASEAN
community in December 2015 to determine if there are further developments in
the ELF that is used in the region. With greater mobility in higher education and
in professional domains with ASEAN integration, we are likely to see other
common features used in ELF. An increased focus on identity regionalism rather
than just practical or functional regionalism, on communicative and emotive
bonds that contribute towards region building, must be highlighted in efforts
towards building an ASEAN community.
 Identity regionalism and English 245

Appendix: Transcription conventions

The transcription conventions used follow those of the Vienna-Oxford
International Corpus of English (VOICE).
@@@ indicates laughter
<@> </@> Words/utterances spoken laughingly appear within such tags.
pre- Word fragments are indicated with a hyphen.
<8> <8/> Overlapping utterances appear within numbered tags.
() indicates words/phrases that cannot be identified
o:h Lengthened sounds are marked with a colon.
(.) a brief pause (up to 0.5 seconds)
? indicates words spoken with rising intonation
= indicates other-continuation that is immediate (without a pause)
<spel>a s c</spel> Words/abbreviations which are spelt out appear within such tags.
hunGRY Capital letters indicate syllables/words which are given emphasis.

References
Acharya, Amitav. 2009. Whose ideas matter? Agency and power in Asian regionalism. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Asmah Haji Omar. 2003. Language and language situation in Southeast Asia: With a focus on
Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Malaya.
Azirah Hashim & Gerhard Leitner. 2014. English as a lingua franca in higher education in
Malaysia. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1). 16–27.
Bell, Roger T. & Larry Peng Quee Ser. 1983. “Today la? ‘Tomorrow lah!’”; the LA particle in
Singapore English. RELC Journal 14. 1–18.
Besemeres, Mary & Anna Wierzbicka. 2003. The meaning of the particle lah in Singapore
English. Pragmatics and Cognition 11(1). 3–38.
Besemeres, Mary. 2004. Different languages, different emotions? Perspectives from autobio-
graphical literature. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25(2&3).
140–158.
Fiedler, Sabine. 2011. English as a lingua franca. A native- culture-free code? Language of
communication vs language of identification. Journal of Applied Language Studies 5(3).
79–97.
Gupta, Anthea Fraser. 1992. The pragmatic particles of Singapore Colloquial English. Journal of
Pragmatics 18. 31–57.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2014. English as a lingua franca in the international university. London &
New York: Routledge.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2011. Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of
misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics 8(1). 93–116.
Kaur, Jagdish. 2012. Saying it again: Enhancing clarity in English as a lingua franca (ELF) talk
through self-repetition. Text & Talk 32(5). 593–613.
246 Azirah Hashim et al.

Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2010. English as a lingua franca in ASEAN: A multilingual model. Hong Kong:
Hong Kong University Press.
Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2011. English as an Asian lingua franca and the multilingual model of ELT.
Language Teaching 44(2). 212–224.
Kirkpatrick, Andy. 2014. The language(s) of HE: EMI and/or ELF and/or multilingualism? The
Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1). 4–15.
Kumar, Sree & Sharon Siddique. 2008. Southeast Asia: The diversity dilemma: How Intra-
regional contradictions and external forces are shaping Southeast Asia Today. Singapore:
Select.
Kwan-Terry, Anna. 1978. The meaning and the source of the “la” and the “what” particles in
Singapore English. RELC Journal 9(2). 22–36.
Lee, Sheryn & Anthony Milner. 2014. Practical vs. identity regionalism: Australia’s APC
initiative, a case study. Contemporary Politics 20(2). 209–228.
Leitner, Gerhard. 2014. Transforming southeast Asian languageshabitats. World Englishes
33(4). 512–525.
Lim, Lisa. 2007. Mergers and acquisitions: On the ages and origins of Singapore English
particles. World Englishes 26(4). 446–473.
Low, Ee Ling & David Deterding. 2003. A corpus-based description of particles in spoken
Singapore English. In David Deterding, Low Ee Ling & Adam Brown (eds.), English in
Singapore: Research on grammar, 58–66. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Low, Ee Ling & Rachel Siew Kuang Tan. 2016. Convergence and divergence of English in
Malaysia and Singapore. In Gerhard Leitner, Azirah Hashim & Hans-Georg Wolf (eds.),
Communicating with Asia, 43–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milner, Anthony. 2011. Analysing Asian regionalism: What is an architectural perspective?
Australian Journal of International Affairs 65(1). 109–126.
Milner, Anthony. 2012. Studying ASEAN regionalism: What skillset is required. Kyoto Center of
Southeast Asian Studies Newsletter 65. 10–14.
Pakir, Anne. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Analyzing research frameworks in international
English, world Englishes, and ELF. World Englishes 28(2). 224–239.
Platt, John & Heidi Weber. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Polzl, Ulrike & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2006. In and on their own terms: The “habitat factor” in
English as a lingua franca interactions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
177. 151–176.
Richards, Jack C. & Mary W. J. Tay. 1977. The la particle in Singapore English. In William Crewe
(ed.), The English language in Singapore, 141–156. Singapore: Eastern University Press.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wong, Irene. F. H. 1983. Simplification features in the structure of colloquial Malaysian
English. In R. B. Noss (ed.), Varieties of English in Southeast Asia, 125–149.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre, Singapore University Press.
Wong, Jock. 2004. The particles of Singapore English: A semantic and cultural interpretation.
Journal of Pragmatics 36(4). 739–793.
Wong, Jock. 2014. The culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Identity regionalism and English 247

Bionotes
Azirah Hashim

Azirah Hashim is Professor in the English Language Department, Faculty of Languages and
Linguistics and, currently, Executive Director of the Asia-Europe Institute and Director of the
Centre for ASEAN Regionalism, University of Malaya. Her research interests are in Language
Contact in the region, Higher Education in ASEAN and Language and Law, and she has
published in journals like World Englishes, Multilingua, Discourse and Society and Text and
Talk. Her latest book, co-edited with Gerhard Leitner and Hans-Georg Wolf, Communicating with
Asia: The Future of English as a Global Language by Cambridge University Press was published
in 2016.

Jagdish Kaur

Jagdish Kaur is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of
Malaya. Her research interest lies mainly in the microanalysis of interactions in English as a
lingua franca, using conversation analytic procedures, to establish how speakers of ELF
communicate and to identify the kinds of competences they rely on to achieve success in
communication. She has published her findings on ELF in journals like World Englishes, Journal
of Pragmatics, Intercultural Pragmatics and Text and Talk.

Tan Siew Kuang

Tan Siew Kuang is Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics, University of
Malaya. Her research interests lie in Acoustic Phonetics and Socio-phonetics, Applied
Linguistics and World Englishes. She has published in journals such as Language and
Speech and English World-wide.

View publication stats