ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A CROSS LINGUISTIC

ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A ‎CROSS-

LINGUISTIC STUDY

BY

SITI AFIFAH HASHIM

A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

English Language Studies

Kulliyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and

Human Sciences

International Islamic University Malaysia

JANUARY 2018

ii

ABSTRACT

This study mainly examines grammatical signs that convey six verb function messages in

English and Malay; Linguistic Trueness (Factuality), Immediacy, Control, Person, Focus

Number and Purpose and how consistently these grammatical signs convey all the

messages. This cross-linguistic study also seeks to discover if there are similarities and

differences in the use of the grammatical signs and also to discover how much English and

Malay rely on grammatical signs to convey all the six verb functions messages. Knowing

how much the two languages rely on grammatical signs to communicate the various

messages is essential in providing some hints or clues for the researcher to make an

assumption as to whether or not the English and Malay are synthetic in nature. Using a

meaning-based framework proposed by Reid (1991) and Govindasamy (2005), both

advocates of the Columbia School of Linguistics, this study examines the verb features or

grammatical signs in English and Malay from two different genres; academic and

journalistic. Data was culled from 30 English academic articles (TESOL Quarterly), 30

English journalistic articles (The Economist), 30 Malay academic articles (Jurnal

Pendidik/Asia Pacific Journal) and 30 Malay journalistic articles (Dewan Masyarakat).

Results showed that the verb functions Factuality, Immediacy, Control, Person and Focus

Number are supported by grammatical signs in English; English relies on grammatical signs

to convey these messages. It was found that that these verb functions i.e. Factuality,

Immediacy, Control, Person and Focus Number are supported partially in Malay; Malay

does have grammatical signs to convey these messages but fewer compared to English. The

verb function Purpose is supported by grammatical signs in Malay but not in English. There

are grammatical signs that convey the Purpose message in Malay but no specific

grammatical signs were found to convey such message in English. When there are no

grammatical signs found to convey the message, it means that context is needed to help

language users interpret the intended message. It was discovered that there are a few verb

features that interfere the provision of the information on the six verb functions; To+V

(English), Untuk+V (Malay), Modal+V (English, Malay), V+ing (English), V+en (English),

V+ed (English), Syntagmatic Relation (English) and Others (English). It has to be noted that

even though these verb features or grammatical signs do not convey the verb function

messages, they do carry other meanings. The overall results also showed that both English

and Malay do not qualify/do not meet the criteria to be regarded as synthetic languages.

They are both analytical as much context is needed to communicate the verb function

messages.

iii

البحث ملخصABSTRACT IN ARABIC

دراسةعد ت الدراسة النحوي باختلاةتقابلي ةغوي ل ىذه العلامات استخدام مدى وظائفر لإيصال ة

وظائففعليةىي:الصحةة.تقومىذهالدراسةبالنظرفيست ة،والملايوي الأفعالفياللغتينالإنجليزي عددالأطرافالمعنيةبالحدث، (،Immediacy،مدىتزامنالفعل/الحدثمعالنطق)(Factuality)ةغوي الل

الأو الشخص بصيغة المعنية وأفعالالأطراف والمجهول، للمعلوم الأفعال بناء والثالث، والثاني، ل،( وبالإضافةPerformativesالتحقيق التشابو (، مواضع اكتشاف إلى الدراسة ىذه تسعى ذلك إلى

ىاتيناللغتينةللتحققمنأن ة،والملايوي اللغتينالإنجليزي بينةوالاختلاففياستخدامالعناصرالنحوي ( تركيبيتان )Synthetic Languagesلغتان ريد منهج الدراسة ىذه اعتمدت وكوفنداسامي1991(. م(،

قام2002) التحليليالمبنيعلىالمعنى. ة،ةفياللغتينالإنجليزي بتحليلالعلاماتالنحوي ةالباحثت م(الأكاديمي ةيوي والملا الكتابات والإعلامي في تضم ة أكاديمي ة. نصا ثلاثين تحليل البحث ىذا منشوران ا

(The Economist)الاقتصادية،وثلاثينمقالاإعلاميامنمجلة(الإنجليزي TESOL Quarterly) فيمجلةقامالإنجليزي المقابل وفي أكاديمياةالباحثت ة. نصا ثلاثين التربية ملايوي بتحليل مجلة من

Jurnal Pendidik/Asia Pacific Journal))بالل و إعلاميا مقالا الملايوي ثلاثين ةغة مجلة المجتمعمن ديوان(Dewan Masyarakat) التحليل نتائج وأظهرت الل . في الأفعال لوظائف واضح نحوي دعم غةوجود

ةةتعتمدعلىالعلاماتالنحوي غةالإنجليزي الل ،أيأن (Performatives)الإنجليزية،باستثناءأفعالالتحقيقيخصالل فيما أما الوظائف. ىذه الملايوي لإيصالمغزى فكشفغة نحويةالباحثتة، دعم وجود عن

كل ي(Immediacy)(،ومدىتزامنالفعلمعالنطقFactualityة)جزئيلوظائفالدقةاللغوي ،ودعمنحويكماوجدالباحثأنالنحوPerformativesلوظائفبناءالأفعالللمعلوموالمجهول،وأفعالالتحقيق) .)

أكدت بالفعل. الأطرافالمعنية عدد والملايوي اللغتينالإنجليزي نتائجالبحثأن الملايويلايدعم ةة،أنضرورةإيصالمعان ةإلىالباحثتوصلتتعتمدانعلىالسياقالعاملأجلاستيعابمعانيالنصوص.

غتينالل لقارئ.ختاما،أظهرتنتائجالدراسةأن للغويةأخرىقديتعارضمعإيصالوظائفالأفعالوالملايوالإنجليزي تركيبي ي ة، لغات منهما كلا تجعل التي العناصر تمتلكان لا تعد ة فإنهما وعليو منة، ان

.لإيصالرسائللإيصالرسائلوظائفالأفعالغوي ةالتيتعتمدعلىالسياقالل غاتالتحليلي الل

iv

APPROVAL PAGE

The dissertation of Siti Afifah Hashim ‎ has been approved by the following:

__________________________________

Subramaniam Govindasamy

Supervisor

__________________________________

Rozina Abdul Ghani

Internal Examiner

__________________________________

Nor Hashimah Bt. Jalaluddin

External Examiner

__________________________________

Stefanie Shamila Pillai

External Examiner

__________________________________

Mohd Feham Md Ghalib

Chairperson

v

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this dissertation is the result of my own investigation, except

where otherwise stated. I also declare that it has not been previously or concurrently

submitted as a whole for any other degrees at IIUM or other institutions.

Siti Afifah Hashim

Signature…………………....………. Date …….……………….

vi

COPYRIGHT

INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF COPYRIGHT AND AFFIRMATION OF

FAIR USE OF UNPUBLISHED RESEARCH

ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A ‎CROSS-

LINGUISTIC STUDY

I declare that the copyright holder of this dissertation are jointly owned by the

student and IIUM.

Copyright © 2018 Siti Afifah Hashim and International Islamic University Malaysia. All rights

reserved.

No part of this unpublished research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the copyright holder

except as provided below

1. Any material contained in or derived from this unpublished research may

be used by others in their writing with due acknowledgement.

2. IIUM or its library will have the right to make and transmit copies (print

or electronic) for institutional and academic purposes.

3. The IIUM library will have the right to make, store in a retrieved system

and supply copies of this unpublished research if requested by other

universities and research libraries.

By signing this form, I acknowledged that I have read and understand the IIUM

Intellectual Property Right and Commercialization policy.

Affirmed by Siti Afifah Hashim

……..…………………….. ………………………..

Signature Date

vii

DEDICATION

Dedicated to my parents and my teacher,‎

with love and sincere appreciation.‎

Thank for your support.‎

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, Praise be to Allah S.W.T. for the strength and patience

He ‎bestowed on me in completing this thesis. ‎

A deep felt appreciation goes to my respected professor cum supervisor,

Assoc ‎Prof Dr Subra Govindasamy, who has been very kind, understanding

and ‎helpful to me in completing this thesis. In fact, my understanding of

this ‎cognitively demanding subject (Semantics) has to be solely attributed to him. ‎His

advice boosted my confidence to attempt difficult tasks and never give up ‎when I

failed in doing certain tasks. As the saying goes, Self-esteem grows ‎from the beliefs of

others. When teachers believe in students, students believe ‎in themselves. When those

you respect think you can, you think you can. Also, ‎my heartfelt gratitude goes to

Assistant Prof Dr Rozina who, as my post-viva ‎supervisor, guided me till the revision

of the thesis was complete. Thanks to my ‎dear professor, Dr Subra for helping me in

preparing for my defense and in ‎refining my writing during the revision period

(despite the fact that he has ‎retired). I have always felt indebted to all my lecturers

from the Department of ‎English Language and Literature, IIUM, for their moral

support and ‎encouragement. Special thanks to Dr Nora Nasir and Dr Haja Mohideen

Thank ‎you for leading me to where I am now. ‎

I must record my thanks to the University, particularly the Scholarship

and ‎Study Leave Committee, MSD IIUM, for the study leave granted to me.

My ‎gratitude to Assoc Prof Dr Engku Haliza (former Dean of CELPAD) and

Assist ‎Prof Dr Faridah (Head of English Language Division) for their support. ‎

Thank you to my good friends, Sr Shamshad (Kak Sham) and Sr

Nazira ‎‎(KakNazira) for their undying support. Alongside my professor, Dr Subra

and ‎my mum, Pn Zakiah, they have always been there to listen and to give advice ‎and

moral support throughout my journey. May Allah bless and reward all of ‎you.‎

A million thanks goes to my beloved parents; my late dad who is better-

known ‎as En. Abu Bakar and my mum, Pn. Zakiah for their never-ending

support. ‎Their love, care and understanding have kept me focused in achieving

my ‎dreams and goals. Thanks are due to my aunt, Pn. Zuraidah; my late ‎grandparents,

En. Johari and Pn. Asthma who would always want the best for ‎me. Thank you.‎

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract .................................................................................................................... ii Abstract in Arabic .................................................................................................... iii Approval Page .......................................................................................................... iii

Declaration ............................................................................................................... v Copyright ................................................................................................................. vi Dedication ................................................................................................................ vii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. viii List of Tables ........................................................................................................... xii

List of Figures .......................................................................................................... xvii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background of the Study ........................................................................ 4 1.2 Statement of the Problem........................................................................ 7 1.3 Significance of the Study ........................................................................ 11

1.4 Research Objectives................................................................................ 13 1.5 Research Questions ................................................................................. 13

1.6 Definition of Concepts ............................................................................ 14

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 21 2.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 21

2.1 Elements of Communication: Language, Language Users and

Context ................................................................................................... 21 2.2 English Grammar: A Functional Approach ............................................ 27

2.3 Grammar Teaching and Learning ........................................................... 40 2.4 Cross linguistic analysis ......................................................................... 48

2.5 Review of Related Studies on English and Malay Verbs ....................... 52 2.6 Review of the Meaning-based Approach ............................................... 86

2.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 90

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................. 91 3.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 91

3.1 Research Design ..................................................................................... 91 3.2 The Theoretical and Methodological Framework .................................. 94 3.3 Purposive Sampling ................................................................................ 97

3.4 Data Collection ....................................................................................... 98 3.5 Data Analysis .......................................................................................... 98

3.5.1 Linguistic Trueness/Factuality ...................................................... 99 3.5.2 Immediacy ..................................................................................... 101 3.5.3 Control .......................................................................................... 103

3.5.4 Person ............................................................................................ 105 3.5.5 Focus Number ............................................................................... 105 3.5.6. Purpose ......................................................................................... 106 3.5.7 Conversion of Raw Scores ............................................................ 110

3.5.8 Inter-rater reliability (Kappa) using SPSS .................................... 111

x

3.6 Methodological issues and Limitations .................................................. 112

3.7 Summary ................................................................................................. 113

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ............................................................................ 114 4.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 114 4.1 Linguistic trueness/ Factuality in English and Malay............................. 115

4.1.1 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Emphatic .................................. 118 4.1.2 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): High Factuality ........................ 122

4.1.3 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Highly Assuring

Hypotheticality ............................................................................. 125 4.1.4 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Low Hypotheticality ................ 128 4.1.5 Factuality: Context Independency and Context Dependency ....... 134

4.2 Grammatical Immediacy in English and Malay ..................................... 143

4.2.1 Low Immediacy: Past.................................................................... 146 4.2.2 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast ......................................... 149

4.2.3 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast Before ............................. 155 4.2.4 Immediacy: Low Immediacy Past Before ..................................... 159 4.2.5 Immediacy: Context Independency and Context Dependency ..... 163

4.3 Grammatical Control in English and Malay` ......................................... 170

4.3.1 Control: High Control ................................................................... 172 4.3.2 Control: Low Control .................................................................... 176

4.3.3 Control: Context Independency and Context Dependency ........... 180 4.4 Grammatical Person in English and Malay ............................................ 188

4.4.1 Person: First .................................................................................. 190

4.4.2 Person: Second .............................................................................. 192

4.4.3 Person: Third ................................................................................. 194

4.4.4 Person: Context Independency and Contextual Dependency ....... 196 4.5 Grammatical Focus Number in English and Malay ............................... 204

4.5.1 Focus Number: Focus on ONE Entity .......................................... 206 4.5.2 Focus Number: Focus on MORE THAN ONE Entity .................. 208 4.5.3 Focus Number: Context Independency and Context

Dependency .................................................................................. 211

4.6 Grammatical Purpose in English and Malay .......................................... 219 4.6.1 Purpose: High Purpose .................................................................. 222 4.6.2 Purpose: Low Purpose .................................................................. 223 4.6.3 Purpose: Context Independency and Context Dependency .......... 225

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ......................................................................... 229 5.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 229

5.1 Linguistic Trueness/Factuality in English and Malay ............................ 229 5.1.1 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Emphatic features .................... 229 5.1.2 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): High Factuality ........................ 233 5.1.3 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Highly Assuring

Hypotheticality ............................................................................. 237

5.1.4 Linguistic Trueness (Factuality): Low Hypotheticality ................ 241 5.1.5 Factuality: Extent of Grammatical Support .................................. 243 5.1.6 Factuality: Context Independency and Context Dependecy ......... 245

5.2 Grammatical Immediacy in English and Malay ..................................... 250 5.2.1 Immediacy: Low Immediacy Past ................................................. 250

xi

5.2.1 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast ......................................... 252

5.2.3 Immediacy: Low Immediacy Past Before ..................................... 255 5.2.4 Immediacy: High Immediacy NonPast Before ............................. 256

5.2.5 Immediacy: Extent of Grammatical Support ................................ 258 5.2.6 Immediacy: Context Independency and Context Dependency ..... 259

5.3 Grammatical Control in English and Malay ........................................... 263 5.3.1 Control: High Control ................................................................... 263 5.3.2 Control: Low Control .................................................................... 265

5.3.3 Control: Extent of Grammatical Support ..................................... 267 5.3.4 Control: Context Independency and Context Dependency ........... 268

5.4 Grammatical Person in English and Malay ............................................ 273 5.4.1 Person: First Person ...................................................................... 273 5.4.2 Person: Second Person .................................................................. 273

5.4.3 Person: Third Person ..................................................................... 274 5.4.4 Person: Extent of Grammatical Support ....................................... 276

5.4.5 Person: Context Independency and Context Dependency ............ 277 5.5 Grammatical Focus Number in English and Malay ............................... 281

5.5.1 Focus Number: Focus on ONE entity ........................................... 281 5.5.2 Focus Number: Focus on MORE THAN ONE entity .................. 282

5.5.3 Focus Number: Extent of Grammatical Support ........................... 284 5.5.4 Focus Number: Context Independency and Context

Dependency .................................................................................. 285 5.6 Grammatical Purpose in English and Malay .......................................... 290

5.6.1 Purpose: High Purpose .................................................................. 290

5.6.2 Purpose: Low Purpose .................................................................. 292

5.6.3 Purpose: Extent of Grammatical Support ..................................... 295

5.6.4 Purpose: Context Independency and Context Dependency .......... 296 5.6.5 Summary of the findings based on the Research Objectives ........ 296

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 305 6.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 305

6.1 Summary of the study ............................................................................. 306

6.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 314 6.3 Limitations of the study .......................................................................... 316 6.4 Implication of the Study on Teaching and Learning .............................. 316 6.5 Recommendations for future research .................................................... 318

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 321

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF ENGLISH ARTICLES ANALYSED IN THIS

STUDY ..................................................................................... 330 APPENDIX 2: LIST OF MALAY ARTICLES ANALYSED IN THIS

STUDY ..................................................................................... 332 APPENDIX 3: INTERPRETATION OF KAPPA VALUE .......................... 335

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table ‎2.1 Huffman‘s (1989) Probability model 63

Table ‎3.1 Research Design 94

Table ‎3.2 Huffman‘s (1989) Probability model 95

Table ‎3.3 Coding and Tallying Worksheet for Linguistic Trueness

(Factuality) verb features in English 107

Table ‎3.4 Coding and Tallying Worksheet for Linguistic Trueness

(Factuality) verb features in Malay 109

Table ‎4.1 Distribution of the Emphatic features in English and Malay

texts 119

Table ‎4.2 The use of the Emphatic features in English and Malay texts

(academic and journalistic texts) 120

Table ‎4.3 Distribution of High Factuality verb features in English and

Malay texts 122

Table ‎4.4 Distribution of High Factuality verb features in English and

Malay (academic and journalistic) articles 124

Table ‎4.5 Distribution of Highly Assuring Hypotheticality verb features

in English and Malay texts 126

Table ‎4.6 Distribution of Highly Assuring Hypotheticality verb features

in English and Malay (academic and journalistic) texts 127

Table ‎4.7 Distribution of Low Hypotheticality verb features in English

and Malay texts 129

Table ‎4.8 Distribution of Low Hypotheticality verb features in English

and Malay (academic and journalistic) texts 130

Table ‎4.9 Distribution of Highly Assuring Hypotheticality and Low

Hypotheticality verb features in Englishand Malay (academic

and journalistic) texts 132

Table ‎4.10 Distribution of the Context Independent and Context

Dependent verb features in English and Malay (Factuality) 136


Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts

(Factuality) 137

xiii

Table ‎4.12 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+Verb features in English and

Malay texts 139

Table ‎4.13 Distribution of Verb + en feature 140

Table ‎4.14 Distribution of the Verb+ing 141

Table ‎4.15 Distribution of the syntagmatic relation cases 142

Table ‎4.16 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past in English and Malay 146

Table ‎4.17 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past verb features in English

and Malay texts (academic and journalistic) 148

Table ‎4.18 Distribution of the High Immediacy NonPast verb features in

English and Malay 150

Table ‎4.19 Distribution of High Immediacy NonPast verb features in

English and Malay texts (academic and journalistic) 151

Table ‎4.20 Distribution of NonPast and Past verb features in English and

Malay texts (academic and journalistic) 153

Table ‎4.21 Distribution of the High Immediacy NonPast Before in English

and Malay 156

Table ‎4.22 Distribution of High Immediacy NonPast Before verb features

in English academic and journalistic texts 156

Table ‎4.23 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past Before verb features 159

Table ‎4.24 Distribution of Low Immediacy Past Before verb features in

English academic and journalistic texts 160

Table ‎4.25 Distribution of the Low Immediacy Past Before and High

Immediacy NonPast Before verb features in English texts

(academic and journalistic) 161

Table ‎4.26 Contextually independent and dependent verb features in

English and Malay texts 164

Table ‎4.27 Distribution of the Contextual Independent and Dependent

verb features in English and Malay texts 165

Table ‎4.28 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+verb features in English and

Malay texts 167

Table ‎4.29 Distribution of VERB + en in English and Malay texts 168

Table ‎4.30 Distribution of the Verb+ing in English and Malay texts 169

Table ‎4.31 Distribution of the Syntagmatic Relation cases 170

xiv

Table ‎4.32 Distribution of High Control verb features in English and

Malay 173

Table ‎4.33 Distribution of High Control verb feature in English and Malay


Table ‎4.34 Distribution of the Low Control verb feature in English and

Malay 176

Table ‎4.35 Distribution of Low Control verb feature in English and Malay


Table ‎4.36 Distribution of High Control and Low Control verb features in

English and Malay (academic and journalistic texts) 179

Table ‎4.37 Distribution of the context independent and context dependent


Table ‎4.38 Distribution of the context independent and context dependent


Table ‎4.39 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+Verb verb features in English

and Malay texts 184

Table ‎4.40 Distribution of Verb + en verb feature 185

Table ‎4.41 Distribution of the Verb+ing verb feature 186

Table ‎4.42 Distribution of the Modal+Verb in English and Malay texts 187


Table ‎4.44 Distribution of First Person verb features 190

Table ‎4.45 Distribution of First Person verb features in English (academic

and journalistic texts) 191

Table ‎4.46 Distribution of Second Person verb features 192

Table ‎4.47 Distribution of Second Person verb features in English


Table ‎4.48 Distribution of Third Person verb features 195

Table ‎4.49 Distribution of Third Person verb features in English



Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts (Person) 197

Table ‎4.51 Distribution of the Context Independent markers and Context

Dependency in English and Malay texts (Person) 198

xv

Table ‎4.52 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+V verb features in English and

Malay texts 200

Table ‎4.53 Distribution of V + en verb feature 201

Table ‎4.54 Distribution of the V+ing verb feature 201

Table ‎4.55 The distribution of the V+ed verb feature 202

Table ‎4.56 The distribution of the Modals+V in English and Malay texts 203


Table ‎4.58 Distribution of Focus on ONE Entity verb features 206

Table ‎4.59 Distribution of the Focus on ONE Entity verb features in

English academic and journalistic texts 207

Table ‎4.60 Distribution of the Focus on ONE Entity verb features in

English academic and journalistic texts (Converted scores) 207

Table ‎4.61 Distribution of Focus on MORE THAN ONE verb features 208

Table ‎4.62 Distribution of the Focus on MORE THAN ONE Entity verb

features in English academic and journalistic texts 209

Table ‎4.63 Distribution of the Focus on MORE THAN ONE Entity verb

features in English academic and journalistic texts (Converted

scores) 209

Table ‎4.64 Distribution of Focus on ONE and Focus on MORE THAN

ONE verb features in English academic and journalistic texts 210

Table ‎4.65 Distribution of Focus on ONE and Focus on MORE THAN

ONE verb features in English academic and journalistic texts

(Converted scores) 211


Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts 212

Table ‎4.67 Distribution of To+Verb/Untuk+V verb features in English and

Malay texts 215

Table ‎4.68 Distribution of the Modal+Verb in English and Malay texts 216

Table ‎4.69 Distribution of Verb + en verb feature 217

Table ‎4.70 Distribution of the V+ing verb feature 217

Table ‎4.71 The distribution of the V+ed verb feature 218


xvi

Table ‎4.73 Distribution of High Purpose verb features 222

Table ‎4.74 Distribution of High Purpose verb features in Malay academic

and journalistic texts 223

Table ‎4.75 Distribution of High Purpose verb features in Malay academic

and journalistic texts (Converted scores) 223

Table ‎4.76 Distribution of Low Purpose verb feature 224

Table ‎4.77 Distribution of Low Purpose verb feature in Malay academic

and journalistic texts 225

Table ‎4.78 Distribution of Low Purpose verb feature in Malay academic

and journalistic texts (Converted scores) 225


Dependent verb features in English and Malay texts 226

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ‎2.1 The English Differentiation System (singular only) 29

Figure ‎2.2 The English Kind of Differentiation System 31

Figure ‎2.3 The Process/Result semantic systems 39

Figure ‎2.4 The English Focus Number System 78

Figure ‎4.1 Differing levels of Factuality 116

Figure ‎4.2 Distribution of Grammatical Factuality verb features in

English and Malay 117

Figure ‎4.3 Distribution of Grammatical Immediacy in English and Malay 144

Figure ‎4.4 Distribution of Grammatical Control verb features in English

and Malay 171

Figure ‎4.5 Distribution of Grammatical Person in English and Malay 189

Figure ‎4.6 Distribution of Grammatical Focus Number in English and

Malay 205

Figure ‎4.7 Distribution of Grammatical Purpose in English and Malay 220

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The 4000 languages in the world must have many differences that make them unique

and distinctive from one another (Song, 2001). At the same time, because of the

common needs of the people, these languages must also be showing some

commonalities. Just how they differ as well as how they measure up to each other is

an intriguing area of study.

Cross-linguistic studies seek to classify languages according to their structural

features; investigation across languages is filled with the hope that there are more

similarities than differences. This search for commonalities has always been the major

thrust of all linguists associated with carrying out cross-linguistic studies. In such

areas of study, usually one language feature is examined across languages.

Cross-linguistics is an approach to the study of linguistic structure in bilingual/

multilingual contexts, a feature that makes it different from generative and functional

approaches; it is fundamentally comparative in nature (Croft, 2002). Such studies are

conducted with the main aim of discovering universals of language structure and with

a secondary aim of providing some explanations for such occurrences. Analysts‘

search for explanations is to find out the possible functions encoded by different

grammatical forms or the same function signalled by different forms.

If there is a search for language universals or what language in general is like, a

large number of languages are taken to be analysed. Such searches flourished in the

later half of the last century; and, they were further enhanced by linguists adopting the

2

empirical scientific approach and deriving the results inductively (Croft, 2002).

Studies of this nature have largely been concentrated on languages belonging to one

continent, from the same language family. Very seldom have there been attempts to

conduct cross-linguistic studies from entirely different language families, a gap which

this study aims to bridge. This study is an attempt to understand a functional linguistic

feature by bringing together Malay, a member of the Austronesian family, and

English, a Germanic language belonging to the Indo-European fraternity. Both are not

connected in any way; they do not come from the same cognate (Nor Hashimah,

Norsimah & Kesumawati, 2008). However, both share a historical bond over two

centuries together with social, economic and cultural ties; it is thus easy to assume that

there may be some similarities as well as differences between the two languages.

In Malaysia, much has been said about the differences, though. In fact, there

were suggestions that the differences that exist between the two languages have

negatively affected the students‘ understanding of English. A landmark study in the

country (Nor Hashimah, Norsimah & Kesumawati 2008) contended that a

contributing factor to students‘ poor mastery of the English language is because of the

different grammatical structures between Malay and English. Other similar works

have supported this claim (Govindasamy 1994; Haja Mohideen 1991; Marlyna, Tan &

Khazriyati, 2007). It is contended that Malay, an extremely economic language with

reduced redundancy grammaticity, for instance, does not subscribe to subject-verb

agreement features and as a result of the lack of this triggering factor, students tend to

commit grammatical errors in English (Nor Hashimah, Norsimah & Kesumawati,

2008). Additionally, Marlyna, Tan & Khazriyati (2007) claimed that students failed

to use the English copula be due to the difference in the use of the Malay grammatical

features ialah and adalah, the so-called copulas in Malay. The ialah and adalah

3

features appeared to share a similar function as the English copula be but there seems

to be a difference in use – the Malay ialah and adalah are not needed in all contexts.

Where do the similarities in grammatical functions begin and where do they

end appear to be a worthwhile pursuit for a cross-linguistic understanding of the two

languages. Having similarities means that second language learners are benefiting

from the bilingual context; having dissimilarities means they gain extra vision

embedded in the target language. The present study was carried out to examine just

one system: the verb. The accent on verbs in this study is mainly because verbs

involve the processes of having and doing and generally they carry out these multiple

functions:

i. verbs give us an idea of linguistic trueness (Factuality);

ii. verbs show how close they are to the moment of speaking, i.e. the tenses

(Immediacy);

iii. they provide an inkling as to the number of entities involved in the event

(Verb/ Focus Number);

iv. verbs indicate whether or not the entity is a first, second or third Person,

v. they show if the entity is active/passively involved in the event (Control)

vi. and finally, they are used to highlight Purpose.

In other words, the extensiveness of functional deployment of verbs offers a

scope that is larger than any other system for comparison purposes of both English

and Malay. A cross-linguistic study enables linguists to discover not only the

similarities and differences between the two languages but it may also help them to

garner insights into their analytic/ synthetic nature. Analytic and synthetic languages

differ mainly in terms of the inflections used. Generally, it can be said that languages

which make extensive use of inflections or grammatical items are said to be synthetic;

4

those with fewer inflections are more likely to be known as analytic languages. Unlike

highly inflected synthetic languages, analytic languages depend on prepositions,

auxiliary verbs and word order to communicate intended messages (Baugh & Cable

2002). Amid some controversy, contemporary English is claimed as an example of an

analytic language because of its dependence on prepositions and word order. Bybee

(1995) contend that the tenses verb function is highly inflected, especially the Perfect

tense in English, and as a result claim that English is a highly grammaticalized

language. They make a claim for English to be described as a synthetic language. This

study attempts, through empirical observation of the use of verbs in English as well as

Malay, to verify whether or not the two languages can claim to be synthetic.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

English has become an important language of communication and it is not surprising

that many countries in the world use it for this purpose and for all forms of

international transactions. For some countries, English is seen as a foreign language

with subdued emphasis on its use for official purposes. However, in countries like

Bangladesh, India and Malaysia, English is used alongside the national language for

business, research and international communication purposes and because of that a

reasonable proficiency in English is expected from all their citizens.

In Malaysia, English is used alongside Malay, the national language. At

present, English can be seen as the second most important language in Malaysia after

the national language (Asmah, 2016). The reason has been that it is widely used in

almost all domains in the Malaysian society including governance, education, the

various professions, business, industries and politics. It is not surprising to see official

documents written in both Malay and English (Asmah, 2016).

5

As mentioned earlier, Malay language is the national language of Malaysia.

The fact that English is used extensively in the country does not take away the status

of Bahasa Malaysia as the national language of Malaysia. This is clearly documented

in Article 152 of the Constitution of Malaya (Asmah, 2016). Malay was made the

medium of instruction after Malaysia gained independence. Before independence

particularly during the British colonial period, English was the medium of instruction

in all secondary schools. English primary schools were also highly sought after

although there were Malay, Chinese, and Tamil primary schools. Those attending

vernacular schools would have to enrol in a two-year transition programme if they

wished to continue their studies in secondary schools. At the secondary level, all

subjects were taught in English, and Malay was an elective subject. The status of these

two languages changed in a progressive manner after independence.

Just prior to independence, the Barnes Report (1950) recommended that the

Malay language be used as the medium of instruction in the national schools alongside

English. It was thought that this would promote the teaching of Malay at the national

level. This proposal was rejected, however. In 1956, a year before independence, a

committee set up to make recommendations completed its work; the detailed

document set the pace of change for a decade after independence. The Razak Report

(1956) proposed a national education system with Malay as the national medium but

at the same time, languages and cultures of other races were recognized. The standard

(primary) schools would have Malay as the medium of instruction whereas the

standard type (primary) schools would have a language other than Malay (i.e. Chinese

or Tamil) as the medium of instruction. In 1960, the features of the Rahman Talib

committee report were incorporated into the Education Act 1961. Malay was made a

compulsory subject in primary and secondary schools as well as in training

6

institutions; Malay language began to be used as the medium of instruction for all

subjects in English secondary schools and became the dominant language. After the

formation of Malaysia in 1963, Bahasa Melayu was changed to Bahasa Malaysia (the

language of Malaysia). In 1969, the remaining English-medium schools were

progressively converted into Malay-medium schools. English was still given

recognition as the second language (Thirusanku & Yunus, 2014) and it served as the

language of business and transactions.

The 70s saw the establishment of many teacher training colleges offering

training programme for the teaching of Malay. The language had also started to be

used widely in public universities as the medium of instruction and almost every

university had a Malay language department or Malay language centre to train

students to have a high level of proficiency in Malay.

When globalisation became the catch phrase towards the end of the last

century, there were complaints among educators that students were not able to use the

English language well despite making the teaching of English compulsory in all

Malaysian primary and secondary schools. National leaders and the Ministry of

Education were very aware of the falling standards in English. Two strategic moves

followed from this awareness. There was a liberalisation of the use of English as a

medium of instruction at the tertiary level. And, secondly, in a bold move, the

Education Ministry initiated a policy making English the medium of instruction for

two additional subjects in the schools: Mathematics and Science. For reasons less well

understood, the latter policy was discontinued from 2013.

A new policy was introduced which gives importance to both Bahasa Malaysia

and English. The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 emphasized bilingual

proficiency; students are expected to be proficient in English and Malay. The

7

implementation of this policy means that the number of hours of English classes is

increased and students are expected to use more English in their co-curricular

activities (Asmah, 2016). This new emphasis in bilingualism provides the background

for the present study.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

In the early years, the teaching of languages was based on the traditional grammar

paradigm; language learners were taught ways to combine features from different parts

of speech in order to produce grammatically correct sentences. Both English and

Malay were brought to the classroom using this approach. In the 1980s, the

communicative way of learning language made its presence felt and is still popularly

used though the approach has come under severe criticism recently for its lack of

application for academic and professional uses (Govindasamy, 2004). Despite the

approach‘s lack of depth, learning a language should be made communicative to assist

language users, as speakers, to know and adopt various ways to communicate precise

messages. This is also to enable listeners to get the intended messages conveyed by the

speakers. As mentioned by Finch (2003), ―Communication is a two-way process‖

(p.36) and that it requires both speakers and listeners to know the functions of

language features to convey and understand the intended messages. In the last two

decades, functionalists such as, Govindasamy (2005), Reid (1991) and Tobin (1990)

analysed language using a quantitative methodology and helped in providing meaning-

based explanations for the deployment of lexical/grammatical items for English and

other languages in the world. This functional approach has helped to increase language

users‘ understanding of the target language. When a user is initiated into looking at

language functionally, s/he notices different functions of language features (Rianto,

Documents

ENGLISH AND MALAY VERB FUNCTIONS: A CROSS LINGUISTIC