Translingual practice as a representation of heritage languages and regional identities in multilingual society

1 Introduction

By drawing attention to the translingual practices in Malaysian Mandarin (MM), this study aims to use lexical variations of the “translingual MM” as an analytical lens through which the changes in the linguistic dimensions can be viewed from a social perspective. We present translingual practice as a communicative, rather than a pedagogical, resource that has broader applied relevance in multilingual society.

Similar to other terminology, such as “translanguaging” (Cenoz and Gorter 2020; Creese and Blackledge 2010; García and Li 2014; Li 2018) practice, which is identified by applied linguists, translingual practice encourages bi/multilingual speakers to use their entire linguistic repertoires and semiotic resources and thus allows the fluid transition between and across languages (Canagarajah 2013, 2018; Li 2022).

Using MM as the focus of study, we argue that translingual practice has not only been a pedagogical practice of classrooms/schools but, for decades, has also been a language practice—albeit a nonstandard practice—within various Chinese communities, which appears to be the “traditional multilingualism in regional varieties of Chinese” (Li 2018: 14) to enact a socially significant identity. Nevertheless, given the tendency to shift from heritages languages (HLs)/dialects towards Mandarin in Chinese Malaysian communities and the linguistic dislocation problem faced by older generations (e.g., Ding and Chee 2023), the questions regarding whether translingual practices are affected in daily communication and whether these practices can continue to play a role in HL and identity representation remain unclear. This study relates the notion of translingual practice to lexical variation over time, by HL and in place/region, to explore how and why translingual practice matters and the dynamic nature of its variation in MM, heritage/regional languages and identities in multilingual society.

2 Lexical variation: a translingual approach

In general, the focus of research on language variation has been mostly on phonetics (e.g., Chirkova et al. 2018; Nance et al. 2016), with a few exceptions that emphasise lexical variation or change (Bamman et al. 2014). Nevertheless, lexical change is probably the most frequent type of language change and certainly the easiest to observe (Robinson 2007). From a societal perspective, while variationist sociolinguistics aim to understand how social meanings are constructed and contextualised and are correlated with and indirectly caused by social changes (Labov 1990), Van Dijk (1993: 261) suggests that the influence of power will be much less direct and immediate on the levels of syntax, morphology, or phonology, while dominance may be observed in intonation, lexical or syntactic style. In other words, areas of a lexicon that engage ideology are particularly likely to be socially indexical (Eckert 2019). Chambers (1990) approach to lexical variation over time is worth mentioning. Taking the lexical term “chesterfield” as a specific example, Chambers (1990) illustrates how the shift from “chesterfield” in a generation to “sofa” or “couch” in later generations indexes the changes in the broader society of Canada due to the impact of the more powerful American English. Lexical variation is therefore a possible means through which the changes in everyday linguistic practices in society can be observed and examined with a careful consideration of social distinctions.

Translingual practice in its many guises, such as translanguaging, has contributed significantly to verbal resources in communicative practice (Canagarajah 2013). The prefix “trans” indexes a way of looking at communicative practices as transcending autonomous languages, involving flexible use of named languages, language varieties and other semiotic resources (Canagarajah 2018; Li 2018). It permits speakers to act naturally using multiple languages/resources and is different from codeswitching, which is a speech style in which bilinguals choose to alternate languages between or within sentences (MacSwan 2017). In other words, translingual practice is not always the case of borrowing or switching but occurs because of the underlying speakers’ experiences and limitations of their existing linguistic repertoires (Busch 2017; Ding and Chee 2023) in daily conversations. Translingual repertoires are deemed necessary in this context for all communicative repertoires/resources to work together for efficient interactions.

While Canagarajah (2013) introduced translingual practice as a new way of looking at English and Li (2018) research showed an insightful glimpse on the translanguaging situations in Singapore, few studies have analysed translingual practices other than English. Using the lenses of lexical variation in translingual MM, this study highlights how variation in everyday translingual practice, that is, the shift or maintenance of common words by individuals, can index important changes in the broader society.

To understand the distinctive contexts that underpin the translingual practice in Chinese Malaysian communities, some background information is deemed necessary.

3 Malaysian Mandarin and translingual practice

Malaysia is a typical example of a multilingual country with “a variety of unrelated languages each with its own literacy tradition” (Rustow 1968: 102), consisting of four main languages (i.e., Malay, English, Mandarin, Tamil) and other minority languages (including indigenous languages and the various HLs/dialects).

As Tam (2020) argues, the various HLs were not just dialects but distinct languages, as different from one another as many of the languages spoken in Europe. Since Mandarin is the language originating from North China but local HLs/dialects of Chinese Malaysians are the languages of Southern China, over time, mixing of the North and the South and among the other local/international main languages has developed as the primary feature of MM in daily interactions. With Mandarin as the dominant and the matrix language, whereas HLs/dialects (e.g., Cantonese, Hakka, Hokkien, Teochew), English and Malay are the main embedded languages, MM, as one of the community languages in the Chinese Malaysian society, denotes what is traditionally considered a variety of Mandarin that is linguistically (sound, grammar and lexis) and stylistically different in nature from Standard Mandarin (SM, the Mandarin taught in the Malaysian Chinese schools, which follows standard Putonghua).

Nevertheless, since the 1990s, new waves of migration from China and the great influence of China as a global economic power have had novel impacts on overseas Chinese populations (Tan 2018). The shifts in linguistic repertoires create an increasing tension for the maintenance of HLs (Ding 2022) and the existing translingual practices. As a result, nonstandard translingual MM seems to undergo changes over time.

Notably, place/region also plays an important part in this context. Given that “different speakers may orient to place, linguistically, in very different ways for very different purposes” (Johnstone 2004: 66), linking a lexical feature with the environment where it is used means that variants may be associated more readily with certain places (Becker 2009; Devlin et al. 2019; Ding et al. 2019). On the one hand, an individual’s languages are usually similar to the individual languages used by members of his/her linguistic community and thus confine variation to narrow limits (MacSwan 2017). On the other hand, increased language contact with outsiders often results in a levelling (Dyer 2002; Trudgill 1986) of localised HL/dialect features. While some HL speakers mount a kind of resistance that extends the linguistic distance between themselves and others where “linguistic distinctiveness is heightened” (Schilling-Estes and Wolfram 1999: 488), others switch between languages or shift from HL to another main language. As suggested by Canagarajah (2018), situating communicative interactions in space and time accommodates diversity and unpredictability.

This research presents two findings. First, we elaborate how MM is interwoven with translingual lexical features of various HLs/dialects and major/powerful languages, such as English and Malay; second, we examine how translingual words in MM vary from or standardise towards SM over time, by HL and in place/region.

4 Methods

A mixed-methods approach was chosen for this study. As it is common practice in Malaysia to map linguistic differences according to dialect dominance places if one is asked to identify places “where people speak differently” (Gordon 2019: 438), ethnographic observations and recording of natural conversations among selected participants in five major townships where different HLs/dialects are dominant were completed prior to the surveys. Questionnaires were then gathered in these townships, four of which were in West Malaysia: Georgetown (GT) and Bukit Mertajam (BM) in the north, the capital city of Kuala Lumpur (KL) at the centre, Malacca City (MC) to the south, and Kota Kinabalu (KK) in East Malaysia. The places selected exemplify different regions and different types of HL/dialect groups, that is, Cantonese (KL), Hakka (KL and KK), Hokkien (GT and MC), and Teochew (BM). All these HLs are not mutually comprehensible with Mandarin (Branner 2000; Kurpaska 2010). Accordingly, six HL/dialect groups from five cities (i.e., KK Hakka, KL Hakka, KL Cantonese, BM Teochew, GT Hokkien and MC Hokkien) were identified for the survey.

A pilot test was conducted among some students to ensure that the questionnaire covers all possible choices of saying the chosen lexical items in Mandarin. This test also serves the purpose of checking if the wordings of the questionnaire in both Mandarin and English were understood correctly. A few modifications were made and more choices of saying the chosen lexical items were included after the pilot test. A few language experts were consulted before the choices that represent SM were finalised.

Following Chambers (1994) and Dollinger (2012) approaches to produce instantiations as much as possible, the participants were given the following instructions in the questionnaire: “In your daily communication in Mandarin, how do you name the following items/places/persons? (Names that first come to your mind).”

All lexical items asked in the questionnaire were carefully chosen based on two criteria: (1) common/frequently used words in daily life to reduce self-reporting bias and (2) translingual words that were influenced by HLs, Malay, English or Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin. These items include names of places (e.g., market and cafe), food (e.g., morning glory, tomato, chili), occupation (e.g., police), specific item (e.g., road bump, counter, food container), addressing (e.g., father, mother) and collective noun. Pictures for selected lexical items were presented in the questionnaire, and the participants were offered, for each picture, four (or more) alternatives with ‘the same (denotative) meaning’ (Bell et al. 2016: 400) but different sounds or vocabulary to gauge the lexical patterns. For instance, participants can pick from the six options given in the questionnaire under the picture of “morning glory”:

1. Kangkong

2. Eng Chai

3. Wēng Cài (蕹菜)

4. Kōng Xīn Cài (空心菜)

5. Ong Choy

6. Other …

Most participants completed the questionnaire face to face with the researchers and their assistants, especially the older respondents and those whom the research team surveyed at residence places, shops, schools, restaurants, on streets and alleys of the selected towns. Others were identified through referral (the snowballing technique), and they were then invited personally through email to complete the online questionnaire. We took great care to ensure that the respondents were not only from a wide range of social backgrounds but also members of the abovementioned HLs/dialects in the selected towns/states.

A total of 1,241 Chinese Malaysians of different ages, HLs/dialects, townships, and socioeconomic and educational backgrounds responded to the survey. Three age ranges were therefore chosen (reference year 2019): an older generation, born before 1960 (age 60 and above); a middle-age population, born between 1960 and 1989 (age 30–59); and a young generation, born after 1990 (age 15–29). The large quantitative results are essential to empirically verify the ethnographic observation.

In addition, online interviews were conducted with nine respondents of different ages, regions, and HL backgrounds (Table 1) for triangulation purposes. The interviews were designed to answer questions elicited by the results of the questionnaire survey. Some examples of the interview questions include the following:

1. What do you think about SM and your own Mandarin?

2. What examples (if any) of variation do you know about/notice (sound, lexical or grammatical difference) in different places/regions?

Consent was obtained from each participant prior to the questionnaire survey and interview. To protect the anonymity of the participants, all names used to identify participants in natural conversations and interviews in this article are pseudonyms.

All natural conversations and interviews were carried out in Mandarin, and the interactions were recorded, transcribed, and translated. These qualitative data were then categorised and coded before they were analysed. The categorisation and coding were very similar to those prescribed by Saldaña (2013). Recurring and ‘essential elements of the research’ (Saldaña 2013: 8) were captured and synthesised into major concepts or themes. The analysis was guided by the following research questions:

1. How is MM interwoven with translingual words of HLs/dialects and main languages?

2. How the translingual words varied from or standardised towards SM over time, by HL and in place/region?

We used natural conversation and online interviews as qualitative research tools to answer mainly the first research question and any possible questions elicited by the results of the questionnaire survey. A questionnaire survey was used as a quantitative research tool to answer the second research question.

5 Findings

5.2 How did the translingual words vary from or standardise towards SM over time, by HL and in place/region?

An SM score was computed from 14 lexical items that were included in the survey questionnaire. These items are market, fried radish cake, guava, tomato, small chili, water spinach, police, hips, road hump, counter, father, mother, and the collective nouns for table and watermelon. Pictures followed by a list of choices were given for each of these items. A score of one was given if they selected a term that was SM and zero otherwise. The average score for the 14 items was then computed to represent the SM score used in this analysis. The value of this score ranges from 0 to 1. Scores that are larger in value indicate greater use of SM. The mean score is 0.31 for the whole sample. The factors that contribute significantly to these variations include age cohort, HL, and current city of residence (p value < 0.000 for all the variables). These details are listed in Table 2.

Table 2:

Mean standard Mandarin score by age, heritage language/dialect and place/region.

Variable	Category	Std Mandarin score
Age cohort	60 and above	0.2905
	30–59	0.3352
	Below 30	0.2859
Heritage language	Cantonese	0.3188
	Hakka	0.3466
	Hokkien	0.2736
	Teochew	0.2802
Place/region	Bukit Mertajam, Penang	0.2749
	Georgetown, Penang	0.1944
	Kota Kinabalu, Sabah	0.3228
	Kuala Lumpur	0.3441
	Malacca City, Malacca	0.3170

Those in the 30–59 age group have a higher score than the older and younger cohorts. Such differences due to age mainly result from the higher score of the middle-age group than those of the other two groups, which are somewhat similar. As the effect of age could be confounded by other factors, we conducted a further analysis, as described below.

Variations in HLs show that those who are Hokkien and Teochew are more likely to use translingual words than those who are Cantonese or Hakka. While HLs have affected the way Mandarin is spoken, these effects are not independent of place/region. Table 3 compares the mean SM scores of those who are of the same HL but reside in different cities. Two cities in Penang, BM and GT, have the two lowest scores, indicating a strong HL influence. In contrast, those residing in KL have a higher tendency to speak SM and are less affected by HLs/dialects. The Mandarin spoken by Hokkiens in MC is closer to SM than it is in GT. These differences between the MC and GT Hokkien, as well as the KL and KK Hakka, show the influence of locality on how Mandarin is spoken using the same HL. The place/region effect also impacts various HLs differently. In this instance, although both Hokkien and Teochew in Penang are affected by this factor, the effect is greater on the former than on the latter. Similarly, the way Mandarin is spoken by the Cantonese in KL is more affected by the location factor than by how Hakkas in the same city speak Mandarin. These results suggest an interaction of the HL and place/region effects that impact how Mandarin is spoken, i.e., HL/dialect group effects.

Table 3:

Mean standard Mandarin score by heritage language and place/region.

Heritage language	Place/region	Mean score	p value
Hakka	Kota Kinabalu, Sabah (KK)	0.3243	0.003a
	Kuala Lumpur (KL)	0.3705
Hokkien	Georgetown, Penang (GT)	0.2175	0.000b
	Malacca City, Malacca (MC)	0.3171
Cantonese	Kuala Lumpur (KL)	0.3211	0.001c
Teochew	Bukit Mertajam, Penang (BM)	0.2797	0.000d

1. Note: ^{a, b, c, d} p value of t test for differences in the mean score of Hakka in KK versus Hakka in KL, Hokkien in GT versus Hokkien in MC, Cantonese in KL versus Hakka in KL, and Teochew in BM versus Hokkien in GT, respectively.

In short, standardisation towards SM is higher among the Cantonese and Hakka communities but more limited among the Hokkien and Teochew communities. The effects of place/region are higher in GT and BM than in the other cities. The range of the mean SM score was also smaller for younger age cohorts, indicating that the variations due to HL/dialect and place/region narrowed over time.

Given that the languages that contribute significantly to translingual practice are HLs/dialects and major languages, we conducted the following analysis to further illustrate such lexical variations by age, HL, and place/region by specifically investigating the use of English, Malay, HL/dialect, and Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin words in MM.

5.2.1 English

A score was computed to assess the use of English words when respondents speak MM (Figure 1). Nine items in the survey questionnaire were included in this computation: food container, road bump, counter, tomato, police, hips, guava, father, and mother. The mean is 0.32 for the whole sample. Although moderate, translingual practice was significantly associated with age, HL, and HL/dialect group (p value < 0.000 for all the variables).

Figure 1:

Mean score for the use of English words in MM by different variables.

While the results could reflect the overall younger people’s usage of English, locality also plays a crucial role. The Teochew and Hokkien communities, especially the Hokkien in GT, are more likely to use English words while speaking MM.

5.2.2 Malay

The score for the use of Malay words (Figure 2) was computed using a similar method to that for the score of English words. Although only four items, namely, market, small chili, morning glory, and police, were included in this computation, the score was calibrated according to the number of items as in the other scores. The mean is 0.48 for the whole sample and is statistically significant (p value < 0.000). This influence was significantly associated with age cohort, HL, and HL/dialect group (p value < 0.000 for all the variables).

Figure 2:

Mean score for the use of Malay words in MM by different variables.

Similarly, there is a higher usage of Malay words in MM among the younger generation. Although the Hokkien people are most likely to use Malay terms, Malay’s influence is stronger on MC Hokkien than on GT Hokkien. Again, despite having the same HL, KK Hakkas use more Malay words than KL Hakkas.

5.2.3 HLs/dialects

A total of ten items were included in the computation of this score: coffee/tea shop, small chili, hips, morning glory, road bump, guava, market, father, mother, and the collective noun for watermelon. The mean score (Figure 3) is 0.43 for the whole sample and is significantly associated with age cohort, HL, and dialect group (p value < 0.000 for all the variables).

Figure 3:

Mean score for the use of heritage language(s)/dialects in MM by different variables.

Contrary to the usage of English and Malay words, the older generation’s translingual practice tends to be influenced by HLs/dialects more than the younger generations. The Hokkien community seems less likely to use HLs/dialects in MM, but this low usage is more evident among the MC than the GT Hokkien. HL/dialect usage is particularly strong among the Hakkas (more on KK than KL Hakkas) and the KL Cantonese.

5.2.4 Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin

A total of six items were included in the computation of this score: guava, small chili, police, tomato, market and the collective noun for watermelon. The mean score is 0.057 for the whole sample (Figure 4) and is rather low. Nevertheless, while this usage is not as high as the others (Malay, English, HL/dialect), it remains statistically significant (p value < 0.05). This usage was significantly associated with the HL and HL/dialect groups (p value < 0.000), while the association with age was only significant at the 10 % level (p value = 0.09).

Figure 4:

Mean score for the use of Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin words in MM by different variables.

The middle-age generation tends to be more influenced by Putonghua and Taiwan Mandarin. The significance of the generation factor mainly stems from the differences between the two older cohorts. In terms of locality, the influence is greater on those residing in KL, particularly KL Hakkas. Finally, MC Hokkien uses more Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin words in MM than GT Hokkien.

5.2.5 Translingual variation over time, by HL and in place/region

Accordingly, the above analyses show that the translingual practice among the younger generation is increasingly influenced by English and Malay, while the older generation is more likely to use HL/dialect words while speaking MM. Moreover, place/region tends to have a larger impact. Further analysis entailed running a regression with the SM score as the dependent variable to examine the factors that have driven translingual practices. These control variables include age, HL/dialect group (an interaction of the HL and place/region effects), and the use of translingual words (English, Malay, HL/dialect, or Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin). This regression allows an analysis of the net effect of one factor on SM while the effects of the other variables are kept constant. The results are reported in Table 4.

Table 4:

Regression results.

Variable	Unstandardised coefficients		Standardised coefficients
Constant	0.546a	(0.016)
Influence of English score	−0.390a	(0.015)	−0.503
Influence of Malay language score	−0.114a	(0.013)	−0.154
Influence of HL/dialect score	−0.418a	(0.017)	−0.434
Influence of Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin score	0.292a	(0.016)	0.369
Age Cohortc
30–59	0.053a	(0.006)	0.170
Below 30	0.060a	(0.007)	0.184
HL/Dialect groupd
GT Hokkien	−0.028a	(0.008)	−0.061
BM Teochew	−0.022a	(0.008)	−0.051
KK Hakka	0.031a	(0.008)	0.076
KL Hakka	0.031a	(0.007)	0.079
KL Cantonese	0.018b	(0.007)	0.044

1. Note: The dependent variable is the standard Mandarin score. ^{a, b}Significant at 1 % and 5 %, respectively. The figures in parentheses are standard errors. ^cThe reference group is age 60 and above. ^dThe reference group is MC Hokkien.

The estimated regression has an adjusted R-squared of 0.779. It displays a high goodness-of-fit ratio, which is significant. This suggests that 80 % of the translingual lexical variation could be explained by age, HL/dialect group, and the influence of English, Malay, HL/dialect, or Putonghua/Taiwan Mandarin. In general, the standardised coefficients reveal that translingual practice using English causes the largest variation from SM, followed by that of HL/dialect and Malay. Age was the second most dominant factor, followed by the HL/dialect group. The youngest cohort tended to speak SM more than the other two age groups. This shows that SM usage has increased over time, which is very much influenced by school policies and the Mandarin language curriculum development mentioned earlier.

6 Discussion

Drawing on a translingual approach, this study examines the lexical variation in MM over time, by HL and in place/region, indicating not only an existing semantic differentiation between MM and SM but also some degree of “standardisation” towards SM.

Given that Chinese Malaysians in general do not speak “standard” Mandarin, MM is not spoken as a standard language but rather as a local practice. MM is traditionally a highly HL-/Malay-/English-influenced variant that combines the sounds of Southern China and local languages. It is not just “macaronic blends or interlingual corruptions of standard languages” but interweaves “genuine languages in their own right” (Decamp 1971: 15). Translingual practices are deemed important not only for variation or levels of linguistic competences in language classrooms/schools but also for everyday linguistic practices among speakers who come with different HLs, language repertoires, learning experiences and competencies. Various languages—English, Malay, or HLs/dialects—are spoken for certain activities, under certain contexts, and to express certain desires. Translingual MM allows the dynamic use of their complete and diverse expressions of perspectives and experiences by affirming the value of linguistic diversity (MacSwan 2017) while addressing broader sociolinguistic and sociopolitical concerns (King 2020).

While widespread translingual practices in MM may indicate less shift towards the more dominant SM, our findings, supported by the large number of quantitative results, reveal a clear translingual lexical variation over time. Given that a shift from the lexis of one generation to another lexis among later generations indexes changes in a broader society (Chambers 1990), the findings highlight a common shift from HLs to Mandarin, English and Malay and from nonstandard MM towards more standard Mandarin. Notably, region/place and particular language groups play important roles in this process in maintaining the existing translingual practice and the existing MM. The GT Hokkiens and BM Teochews in Penang seem to particularly emphasise the maintenance of their local voices by speaking more MM and having the lowest usage of SM.

The ecology between different languages can be understood as a competition-and-selection model of language forms (Mufwene 2008). While one of the important factors has to do with the power/powerless, dominant/marginalized economic and political situations of people who speak the small languages (Ding 2022; Skutnabb-Kangas and Harmon 2018), the historical context of each language, such as patterns of colonial expansion and particular political climates, are expected to also have substantial impacts (Romaine 2018) and serve as local/contextual factors on language practices.

In the context of Malaysia, Penang (and Malacca) were focal points of commerce in the Malay Archipelago for several centuries and important destinations for early migrants from China. These migrants, who were mainly Hokkien speakers from Amoy, then formed a distinct and highly respected community in Malaya, namely, the Chinese Peranakans (Shellabear 1913; Tan 2021[1988]). Nevertheless, unlike Malacca, which was rooted in a distinctively Malay past (Worden 2003), Penang presented a heritage and a creation of the British colonial era. While Chinese Peranakans in Malacca generally speak Baba Malay, Penang Peranakans speak more English and Baba Hokkien. These translingual practices of Chinese Peranakans are believed to have important impact on translingual MM used by MC Hokkien (i.e., Malay language’s influence is stronger on MC Hokkien) and GT Hokkien (i.e., GT Hokkien are more likely to use English words while speaking MM). Moreover, as the first British Straits Settlement in Malaya, Penang comprised of Prince of Wales Island (with GT as the capital of the Straits Settlements) and Province Wellesley (which centred near BM). This unique history of dominant Peranakan culture and special status of GT and BM as two important cities during the British era may have contributed to the sense of pride of being a Penangite/Penang-lang (Mok 2017) and a positive group self-representation. There are also more active processes of linguistic normalization in Penang with varying degrees of commitment (Ong 2020) and therefore permitting the persistence of local practices in shaping more of MM than SM, as shown in the results of GT Hokkien and BM Teochew.

On the one hand, our results show that MM continues to deviate from SM in certain places/regions amidst an increasing tension for MM sustainability. The challenges and decisions in making use of translingual practices were intimately and intricately linked with personal identities and the environment/context of languages and can be seen as context-dependent (Nagashima and Lawrence 2022). The present study seems to resonate with earlier studies (e.g., Devlin et al. 2019), highlighting the value of local impacts using the lenses of lexical variation in translingual practice, underscoring the importance of maintaining the “sound of their voices” (Chambers 1990: 165).

On the other hand, the translingual variation in MM over time not only reaffirms a continuous shift towards major language(s) but also suggests a language problem among various HL communities. Political and economic situations through modernization (Bastardas-Boada 2018) and globalization with centralized government and increasing influence of commerce (Dobrin 2014) have propelled languages of power (including Mandarin) to spread (Romaine 2018). A growing number of studies also showing a negative impact of higher average years of schooling/formal education on linguistic diversity (e.g., Bromham et al. 2022). If compared to smaller cities such as KK or BM, the effects of neoliberal globalization and education on metropolitan city like KL are especially evident, even though the strong influences of the Hong Kong entertainment industry (Fonoroff 1988) had sustained the use of Cantonese in the city. The potential intersection with competing levelling pressures (Johnstone et al. 2002) on HLs and MM entails some valuable local linguistic features to give way or lose ground to standard and powerful language(s). It reflects not only a “standardisation” process at schools/in society but can be further interpreted as the decline of local translingual practices and local sounds, implying the risk of losing rich ethnic and regional heritage and cultural identities (Baker-Bell 2022).

Hence, although all HL or Sinitic groups in Malaysia are considered and proclaimed officially as (just) Chinese, the variances in the degree of maintaining/performing translingual practice reveal, in a subtle way, the diverse insistence or indifferent, persistent or inconstant attitudes towards HL maintenance and ethnic/regional identities. In other words, translingual/detranslingual practices can be used as a means to reflect the underlying language boundary and potential language disparity between the language of society (MM) and the language of power (SM).

7 Conclusions

The study of lexical variations in translingual practices offers some useful insights into MM—as a language of society and a representation of HL/regional identities in multilingual settings—that have broader social implications.

The “translingual MM”, which, from an essentialized view, is often ridiculed as linguistic degeneration or another inferior/nonstandard and therefore a less valuable variety. The lexical variation in this study reveals traces of the standardisation of MM or the “de-dialectised” phenomenon (Coupland 2016: 416) in which HLs/dialects cease to be culturally and linguistically prominent. Nevertheless, the continuity of the translingual MM serves, either consciously or unconsciously, to reflect both a “dis-identify[ing]” (Kang 2012: 168) or social distinctions (Gordon 2019) of Chinese Malaysians from the other “mainstream” Chinese communities. By giving a voice to the marginalised HL speakers, especially those who are not proficient in SM, we argue that the nonstandard MM implies a subtle act of resistance against dominant policies and discourses, in which the ordinary—the nonelite MM—could “talk back against the cultural hegemony of the standard” (Coupland 2016: 412) to unsettle the inequities (Rosa and Flores 2017).

To conclude, the study of translingual MM seeks to expand the Western focus on variation and translingual practice outside Europe and North America. By providing insights from Asia, this study goes beyond the description of an unstudied/understudied research site or linguistic phenomenon, implying important aspects of power and inequality. While diversity worked in the past through various translingual practices in different HL or ethnic minority communities, it may or may not work in the future. This aspect could be salient for advancing future studies and theories to address efforts to raise critical language awareness and advocate for more inclusive policies in multilingual society.