Language contact is a key component in language, social and cultural change. Contact is reciprocal although it has typically been studied from the angle of contact of English with local languages such as Malay, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu or Tamil in South and South-East Asia. Up to the 1960s, contact outcomes were often seen as signs of the enrichment of the English language as such and were recorded in dictionaries. More recent outcomes have been seen as evidence of the localization of English and the growth of ‘Englishes’. Contact with Arabic is a different case. In Asia, Arabic has been deeply embedded in various languages habitats as a trade and religious language. It has influenced many languages which acted as carriers of Arabic influences into local languages such as Malay but also into English or Dutch. This chapter will address such issues and focus on loan words in English and Malay in Malaysia’s print media. We mention contact history but our principal interest will be contemporary outcomes. Does Arabic provide a religious-based linguistic layer in Malaysia and maybe other Islamic nations? As the role of Arabic is a neglected field of research, our chapter will add a new dimension to the study of varieties of English but also contribute to that of Malay in the region and connect outcomes with the political domain.

How does one communicate in a multilingual society with staggering linguistic diversity? To best characterize the multifaceted dimensions of multilingual communication in India, this chapter will focus on the contemporary and historical study of Hindi–Urdu and Indian English, and their spread in intranational diasporic contexts (e.g., from North to South India) and international diasporic contexts (particularly in South-East Asia). The chapter argues that multilingualism in India is shaped primarily by natural forces of networking and communication (e.g., media, literature, trade, multiple identities, etc.) rather than being the result of exclusive and externally imposed models based on government planning. Shaped by such natural forces, linguistic accommodation with multiple dimensions plays a key role in the formation of the linguistic and transactional characteristics of Hindi–Urdu in intranational and international contexts (as well as English).

The phonological origin of the modern-day Mandarin can be traced back to the fourteenth-century northern dialect. In this chapter, the discussion on the use of Putonghua and Cantonese in the Chinese territories, the former being the national common language, and the latter a particularly vitalized regional dialect spoken in the Pearl River Delta, including Hong Kong and Macao, shall start with a brief introduction of this phonological origin and the formation of the common language in China. This will be followed by information on its spread and use in the present day, and its interaction with the Cantonese dialect in the two above-named special administrative regions of China.

This chapter traces the history of the privileged role of English in the domains of power in Pakistan. English entered these domains and became a marker of the elite culture in South Asia. Its presence in the education sector, which is the supplier of people skilled in English to all other domains, is given special attention. As English became a second language, it became a non-native variety in its own right as it did in African and other Asian countries. This variety is called Pakistani English (PakE) and some aspects of it are described synoptically. Moreover, the way English is used informally, and sometimes even in formal written discourses, involves the use of expressions from indigenous languages. Code-switching is regarded as a form of linguistic corruption or incompetence by some, but, among other things, is a device for signalling power-relations or class. It may serve the function of crossing into the desiderated class of fluent English speakers. In order to illustrate that code-switching is not English-induced, samples of it in Persian and Urdu from the Medieval Period will be provided; they show that code-switching is not a corruption of English but is both local and recognized in high literature. By presenting historical and sociolinguistic background, this chapter will provide a more holistic understanding of the interaction of English with the history of South Asia in general and that of Pakistan in particular.

This chapter discusses the sociolinguistic situation in the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union, namely, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, with their official languages belonging to the Turkic family. The policy of nationalization that was taken by the new independent states has led to a considerable reduction of bilingualism that was characteristic of the Soviet republics, with a decrease in the role of the Russian language, though it is still the major means for intercultural communication, acquiring information in the domains of politics, economics, science, technology and culture and obtaining jobs in Russia. A new type of bilingualism based on English is observed, geared towards raising the national elite. In some countries, Turkish is also gradually gaining weight.

The aim of this chapter is to provide a historically and culturally grounded overview of the Russian language as a lingua franca in Far East Asia. Among the factors that contributed to the spread of Russian in the Far East are the colonization of Siberia and the Far East during the Tsarist Empire, the constitution of the USSR as a multinational state as well as Soviet language policy and the revivalist neo-communist politics of Vladimir Putin. On the other hand, the use of Russian as a means of international communication in East Asia (especially in China) is a consequence of globalization and work-related migration. However, due to the long history of conflicts between Russia and its neighbours and to the current prestige of global English, English remains the preferred lingua franca in international trade in Far East Asia.

This chapter outlines the relationship between Bahasa Indonesia and Malay (Bahasa Melayu), the official languages of the modern states of Indonesia and Malaysia. We trace the historical development of these two varieties of Malay from their classical source, Malay, before the advent of government by the colonial powers, and focus our discussion on factors resulting in the divergence that is visible today. We also discuss efforts to standardize the two postindependence languages, including the language policies adopted by the major Malay-speaking countries in the region. The chapter analyzes the differences between Bahasa Indonesia and Malay in terms of vocabulary and grammatical structure and advances certain hypotheses for some of the major remaining differences. Given the geopolitical proximity of Brunei and Singapore we cannot but include what happens to Malay there.

The Australian project of accommodation to the Asia-Pacific region as the dynamic centre of the world’s economy can now be dated in decades. Successive Federal and State governments have focused on shifting the national consciousness from its predominant, inherited Western cultural dispositions, towards Asia. Driven by the overriding concerns of trade and economic relations, more than $400 million of additional funding has been invested in the prioritization of Asia studies and Asian languages, with considerable additional resources for research, cultural studies, exchanges, etc. Policies and funding have endeavoured to dramatically increase Australia’s ‘Asia literacy’ to aid economic engagement with what has come increasingly to be called ‘the region’ or ‘our region’. All major political configurations adhere to the broad outlines of such engagement, lending the entire endeavour a sense of inevitability; so much so that there is little problematizing of the educational consequences of the shift of economic power from the ‘West’ to the ‘East’. However, despite ambitious plans and substantial funding, Asian language policies have consistently fallen short of targets. This chapter discusses some intricacies involved in formulating an Asia-prioritizing agenda, referring to the wider communication ecology. Language policies must acknowledge the pluralization of modern forms of communication as well as the emergence of multiple cultural and linguistic identities in the transnational reality of contemporary society. The Australian experience highlights the importance of crafting Asia-focused policies within a wider framework of comprehensive language planning (Lo Bianco 2010), that values existing cultural and linguistic diversities, as well as envisioned ones, along with a pragmatic sense of the limits to what can be asked of school knowledge in relation to trade and diplomatic petitions.

The different language policies adopted by Malaysia and Singapore in relation to the English language from the period of independence from British rule onwards signals the beginning of divergence. This has come about because of the distinct routes taken by both countries in their formulation of language policies, leading to differing linguistic landscapes in each country. Malaysia regarded English as a symbol of colonial rule and embraced Malay as the national language for nation-building. There were brief periods in recent times of assigning some prominence to the English language but this was accompanied by policy reversals and the concomitant de-prominence of English in relation to Malay. Singapore, on the other hand, took the pragmatic stance that English is both ethnically and culturally neutral and is therefore suitable to be the de facto official language and de jure working language of the country. The final section of this chapter explores, from a study of the latest acoustic research on selected phonological features of English in Singapore and Malaysia, whether the impact of these differing language policies has led to the development of two phonologically divergent varieties of English and highlights areas urgently needed for future research.

This chapter will begin with a brief historical review of languages which have operated as lingua francas across East and Southeast Asia. It will then review the development of English in selected Asian countries and its role in those countries today. It will be argued that the role of English in Asia has now extended beyond operating at intranational level, as evidenced by the existence of established varieties of English such as Malaysian and Filipino, to becoming an interregional lingua franca. That is to say, a major Asian role of English is as a medium of interregional communication for Asian multilinguals for whom English is an additional language. Evidence for this comes, for example, from the legislation of English as the sole working language of the ten countries which make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Drawing on research based on a study of which languages are currently being used as languages of education in school curricula in selected Asian countries, using the Philippines and Indonesia as case studies, the chapter will consider the educational impacts of the role of English as a lingua franca in Asia. This section of the chapter will include tentative predictions for the respective roles of English and Asian languages. The chapter will conclude with suggestions for a ‘Communicating with Asia’ skill-set which Europeans might find useful.