Inaugural Issue
Asia-Pacific Studies
Volume 1, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 44-57
Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia
Su-Hie Ting[a],*; Fung-Ling Tham[b]
[a]
Centre for Language Studies, Universiti Malaysia, Sarawak, Malaysia.
[b]
Sabah Education Department,Wisma Jabatan Pendidikan Sabah,
Malaysia.
*Corresponding author.
Received 14 October 2014; accepted 10 November 2014
Published online 26 November 2014
Ting, S.-H., & Tham, F.-L. (2014). Vitality of Kadazandusun language
in Sabah, Malaysia. Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57. Available from:
http://www.dcthink.org/index.php/aps/article/view/0138
Abstract
The study examined the vitality of the Kadazandusun
(KD) language based on the language choice and attitudes
of Kadazandusun teenagers in Sabah, Malaysia. A survey
of 205 KD teenagers aged 13 to 19 living in Kota Belud
participated in the study. The results showed that 60% of
the KD teenagers acquired their ethnic language before
schooling age, showing that it is their native language.
Since KD has been taught in school since 1997, the KD
teenagers are literate in KD. The results showed that the
KD teenagers’ oracy skills are better than their literacy
skills. Their proficiency ranged from knowledge of a
few words to ability to comprehend television shows,
magazines or newspapers in KD, and to talk or write
in KD at this level. Although there is intergenerational
transmission of KD language, the results showed a
decrease in KD use from the grandparents’ generation
to the KD teenagers’ generation. The language that is
taking root in the KD community is Sabah Malay dialect,
not only in the friendship, education and religious
domains but also in the family domain. In spite of that,
the KD teenagers have positive attitudes towards their
ethnic language. In the context of the Expanded Graded
Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS), the results
suggest that the vitality of KD language may correspond
to Levels 4 (Educational), 5 (Written) and 6b (Threatened)
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
www.dcthink.org
www.dcthink.us
depending on the language use situation in the family.
Bigger scale studies are needed to identify the vitality
status for the KD community at large.
Key words: Kadazandusun; Malaysia; Language
choice; Language attitudes; Language vitality
INTRODUCTION
Studies have examined the language choice of migrant
communities in various settings and found that the official
and often the national language have more functionality
than the ethnic languages of the migrant communities.
Many of the migrant communities experience a language
shift (Michel, Titzmann, & Silbereisen, 2012; Vedder &
Virta, 2005), and the maintenance of the ethnic language
depends on factors such as peer influence and literacy
practices (Luo & Wiseman, 2000; Zhou & Li, 2003 on
Chinese-American children in the United States), parents’
direct promotion of the ethnic language (Cheung, 1981;
Mah, 2005 on Chinese-Canadian children in Canada),
interethnic contact, motivation and locality with urban
settings being more prone to language shift (Bayley,
Schecter, & Torres-Ayala, 1996 on Mexican-American
in the United States; Morita, 2003 on Thailand; Naji,
Ibtisam, & David, 2003; Ting, 2006; Ting & Mahadhir,
2009 on Malaysia). These studies indicate that the younger
generations of migrants are proficient in the dominant
language of the society and their families struggle to
maintain their ethnic language.
For indigenous communities, research has also
indicated a shift towards dominant languages in the
community, which tends to be the official and/or national
language of the country. For example, the Garifuna
children in Belize (Bonner, 2001) would rather speak
Creole English than their own language, and the Bidayuh
in Sarawak, Malaysia are shifting towards Malay (Coluzzi,
Riget, & Wang, 2013; Ting & Campbell, 2007). In another
Malaysian state, Sabah, the Kadazandusun are also
44

shifting towards Malay. Jawing and Ting (2011) studied the
language use of 52 members of five Kadazandusun families
from Kota Kinabalu, Tuaran, Apin-apin, Keningau and
Tambunan. At least one of the parents was Kadazandusun
and spoke the language. Jawing and Ting found that when
the parents spoke different Kadazandusun dialects, they
chose Sabah Malay dialect for family communication.
In one family, “Tambunan Dusun was lost within two
generations of Sabah BM [Sabah Malay dialect] coming
into the family” (Jawing & Ting, 2011, p.112). The choice
of Sabah Malay dialect for communicative efficiency
and children’s educational advantage was irrespective of
whether the families were living in rural or semi-urban
areas. Jawing and Ting (2011) used the term “Sabah
BM” but this Malay dialect is referred to as “Sabah
Malay dialect” in this paper, following Wong (2000) who
compared its linguistic structure and social functions with
Standard Malay and concluded that Sabah Malay dialect is
“qualified as a dialect of Malay” (p.70).
Other researchers such as Lasimbang and Kinajil
(2000) and Smith (2003) have written about the
Kadazandusun, but more studies are needed to understand
why the community is shifting so quickly towards Sabah
Malay dialect despite it being the largest indigenous group
in Sabah. To find out the vitality of the Kadazandusun
in Sabah, studies on language choices of the younger
generation are necessary to determine the extent of use
and the vitality of the language.
This study employed an established framework for the
description of the vitality of the Kadazandusun language
so that the findings on language shift can be compared
across settings for the development of theory on language
shift and maintenance. Based on the descriptions of
various languages reported in academic papers, the
vitality status of the languages under study seemed to be
either threatened, shifting or at endangered levels, using
descriptors from the Expanded Graded Intergenerational
Disruption Scale (EGIDS) by Lewis and Simons (2009).
However, because of the use of different descriptors
and indicators, it is difficult to compare the vitality of
ethnic languages in different contexts. To facilitate the
comparison of findings across settings, it is necessary
to use a common framework for data collection and
comparison (Laitin, 2000).
1. PURPOSE OF STUDY
The study examined the vitality of the Kadazandusun
language (KD henceforth) based on the language choice
and attitudes of Kadazandusun teenagers in Sabah,
Malaysia. The specific objectives of the study were to:
(a) identify KD teenagers’ proficiency in KD;
(b) determine the language choice of KD teenagers
in the family, religion, friendship and education
domains; and
45
Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014).
Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57
(c) describe the KD teenagers’ sense of ethnic
identity associated with the KD language.
2. SOCIOCULTURAL BACKGROUND ON
KADAZANDUSUN IN SABAH
2.1 Population
The study was conducted in Kota Belud in the Malaysian
state of Sabah, located in the northern part of Kalimantan
(Figure 1). Kota Belud has a population of 91,272,
comprising 41.74% KD, 34.52% Bajau, 13.82% other
Bumiputera, 6.43% non-Malaysians, 1.50% Malay,
1.28% Chinese, 0.44% others, 0.19% Murut and 0.08%
Indian (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2011). “Other
Bumiputera” literally translated is “Other indigenous
peoples” (the history behind the use of this term will be
explained later).
As Figure 1 shows, Kota Belud is located along the
west coast of Sabah between Kota Kinabalu, the capital
of Sabah, and Kudat on the northern tip of Sabah. The
Dusun people are more numerous in Kota Belud and its
hinterland, and the Kadazan people live mainly along the
coast between Kota Kinabalu and Papar (Reid, 1996).
This was before the official recognition of the Kadazan
and Dusun people as one group. Now it is correct to say
that the bulk of the Kadazandusun people live along the
western coastline of Sabah and some distance inland
(Lasimbang, 2004).
Figure 1
Map of Sabah Showing the Location of Kota Belud
(Underscored)
Note. Source: http://www.borneo.com.au/sabah
The ethnic breakdown of the 3.1 million Sabah
population is as follows: 27.89% non-Malaysians, 20.57%
other Bumiputera, 17.84% KD, 13.98% Bajau, 9.13%
Chinese, 5.63% Malay, 3.24% Murut, 0.23% Indian, and
1.51% others (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2011).
Besides the main ethnic groups which are listed in the
2010 national population census, other ethnic groups
include the Bonggi, Bisaya, Sungai, Kedayan, Bugis,
Iranun, Ida’an and Brunei (Mansur, Kogi, & Madais,
2010). The population of these smaller ethnic groups is
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia
counted in the category of “Other Bumiputera” in the
2010 population census.
The Sabah government reports that there are at least
30 indigenous groups speaking more than 50 different
languages and over 80 dialects (Kerajaan Negeri Sabah
[Sabah State Government], n.d.). Lasimbang (2004)
puts the number of indigenous languages in Sabah as
54, and categorises them into four language families:
Dusunic, Murutic, Paitanic, and Sama Bajau. Putting
aside the substantial percentage of non-Malaysians
and other Bumiputera which comprises many small
indigenous groups, KD is still “the largest single language
community” in Sabah (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000,
p.415).
Reid (1997) pointed out that the KD people have been
variously registered in the population census. In the 1960
census, they were all called Dusuns, in the 1970 census
they were all called Kadazans, in the 1980 census, they
were all called Pribumi (indigenous people), and in the
1991 census, KD speakers were registered as “Kadazan”
and “Dusun” (Reid, 1997). In the latest 2010 census, they
were registered as Kadazandusun as a combined category.
This is because KD language has been used as “the
official name of the shared language” of the Kadazan and
Dusun speech communities (Lasimbang, 2004, p.10).
Reid (1997) explained that “the 1980 census listed
those who were not Chinese or Indian as simply
‘Pribumi’ (native), including Indonesian and Filipino
migrants” (p.124). Just before the 1980 census, the
Sabah government realised that the term “Bumiputera”
had been rejected by many KD and designated the term
“Pribumi” to include all Sabah people of “Malay stock
and related groups” (Reid, 1997, p.131). Therefore, in the
1980 census, Kadazan was not a category in the ethnic
breakdown and the indigenous peoples of Sabah were
all categorised as Pribumi, along with the Malays but
this lasted only one census. By the 1990 census, the term
“Pribumi” had been “buried”, to use Reid’s (1997, p.133)
words.
The seed for the acceptance of the idea that Kadazans
and Dusuns are “one and the same people” (Daily
Express, 18 August 1989 cited in Reid, 1997, p.135) was
sown when the Kadazan Cultural Association changed
its name to Kadazan Dusun Cultural Association at the
fifth Biennial Delegates Conference on 5 November 1989
(Puyok & Bagang, 2011). Reid (1997) explained that the
British colonial government at that time referred to the
people as Dusun although the people view themselves and
their language as Kadazan. For further details of the socio-
political movement which culminated in the acceptance
of the category Kadazandusun to encompass both groups,
refer to Reid (1997) and Roff (1969).
2.2 Kadazandusun Language
The platform for the development of a writing system
for KD began as early as the 1950s due to the Kadazan
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
nationalism movement. The Kadazan movement was
fostered by the North Borneo News and Sabah Times, a
merger of North Borneo News (a fortnightly started in
1948) and Sabah Times (a daily started in 1953), officially
renamed as Sabah Times in 1963 (Roff, 1969). The editor
of North Borneo News and Sabah Times was Donald
Stephens who used the newspaper to create awareness of
indigenous rights and foster greater pride in their culture
(Roff, 1969). Donald Stephens’ father was Australian
and his mother was KD. As Roff (1969) puts it, “one of
Stephens’ principal concerns was to extend the use of
the Kadazan language, to standardize it, and to increase
educational opportunities for tribal people by having
the language taught in schools” (p.331). Roff (1969,
p. 331) stated that Stephens started a Kadazan corner
in the English newspaper and later initiated a Kadazan
edition with content on concerns of Kadazan community,
including the activities of the Kadazan associations.
Besides the media, the church played a role in
standardising KD through education. According to Reid
(1997), the Catholic Mill Hill Mission had established
schools for the KD people on the West Coast since 1882,
and by 1953 there were already 40 Catholic schools, also
referred to as “Native Voluntary Schools” (Roff, 1969).
These schools taught the rural folk initially in their local
KD dialect before shifting to English by the third or fourth
year. Reid went on to explain how a written form of KD
emerged from these literacy efforts:
From these schools, therefore, there emerged in the 1950s and
1960s a small elite of educated, Catholic KDs, fluent in English
but confident in speaking and writing also their own language
in romanized script. Although there were many pressures to
adopt the use of Malay and English during everyday exchanges
in the towns, familiarity with this standardized form of Kadazan
language was reinforced through the many editions of the
Kadazan Catholic catechism and prayerbook. (Reid, 1997, p.
125)
The spelling system for KD developed for the dialect of
Penampang and Papar by the Mill Hill missionaries was
in romanised Malay and Dusun (Kadazan) (North Borneo
Annual Report, 1953, pp.131-132; 1954, pp.124-125 cited
in Reid, 1997, p.125).
It is the Penampang dialect of Kadazan which became
the basis for the standardised Kadazandusun language
used in Sabah today. The standard KD that was finally
taught in Sabah schools was based on the
interior dialect of the Ranau and Tambunan area, but with some
concessions to coastal dialects. KDCA [Kadazan Dusun Cultural
Association] favours be calling this the Bunduliwan standard,
Bundu being one of the names of the coastal dialect, and Liwan
of the interior. (Reid, 1997, p.136)
Besides the newspaper, the radio was instrumental in
popularising use of KD in the media. Reid (1997, p.126)
documents the progress as follows: In 1953, Radio Sabah
began broadcasting in English, Malay and Chinese; in
1954 the first broadcast in Dusun (Kadazan) was made;
46

at the beginning of 1957 a daily 15-minute Kadazan
programme was institutionalised; by the end of 1957 the
programme was increased to 45 minutes per day; and the
time allocated was raised to 14 hours per week by 1960.
Another crucial process in the standardisation of
KD was the printing of a KD dictionary. In 1958, the
first Kadazan-English and English-Kadazan Dictionary
was compiled by the Rev. A. Antonissen and printed in
Australia (Reid, 1997). Later, a Kadazan Dusun Malay
English Dictionary was published in 1987 by the Kadazan
Dusun Cultural Association. In planning the standard
language of KD, the terminology building challenges
were selecting new terms that can represent modern
concepts without relying on borrowing, and selecting
suitable terminology from existing KD dialects to
represent cultural knowledge and values of the community
(Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2004).
Community efforts to develop the Kadazandusun
language began with private language classes which
culminated in the teaching of the language in school. In
the Kadazandusun Language Foundation news (1999,
Issue 1, p.10), it was reported that:
… in October 1994, a private class was set up under the
Kadazandusun Language Center (KLC) in response to the felt
need in the community for mother-tongue classes. The first class
included children aged 7-14 fourteen years old and a year later,
15 students graduated. (Smith, 2003, p.56)
On 24 January 1995, a consensus was reached by
the Kadazan Cultural Association and the United Sabah
Dusun Association to declare “Kadazandusun” as “the
standard language of the dialects within the Dusunic
family” (Smith, 2003, p.56).
One of the milestones in the effort to preserve, develop
and promote the KD language and other indigenous
languages of Sabah is the setting up of the Kadazandusun
Language Foundation, a non-profit organisation, in 1995.
The Kadazandusun Language Foundation has been active
in conducting writers training workshops and writing
competitions to increase the number of publications in KD
(whether on cultural content or on present-day topics) as
well as organising singing and story-telling competitions
to preserve the oral tradition of KD and producing a
“Learning KD” CD-ROM (Lasimbang, 2004). The work
of Kadazandusun Language Foundation added on to the
earlier New Testament of the Bible in the language of
the Dusun of Ranau (1975) and the whole Bible in the
Bundu Dusun of Kota Belud (1990) (Reid, 1997). The
Kadazandusun Language Foundation has also assisted the
Sabah Education Department, Universiti Malaysia Sabah
and Perwira Tuition Centre with technical consultancy in
their preparation of the Kadazandusun language classes
(Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000). The recognition by the State
and Federal government as well as the community enables
the Kadazandusun Language Foundation to play its role in
language maintenance.
47
Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014).
Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57
The effort to preserve, develop and promote the KD
language culminated in the government approval for
Kadazan to be taught as a subject in government primary
schools, an effort initiated by the Kadazan Dusun Cultural
Association. In 1997, the Education Department of Sabah
started the first phase of teaching KD language in 15
primary schools in Sabah (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000).
By 2001, 30,000 children in primary 4 to 6 from 435
primary schools in 23 districts in Sabah had learnt KD
(Lasimbang, 2004). The teaching of KD in government
schools started in primary four but Suausindak was the
first school in Sabah to teach KD to pre-school children,
mainly due to the effort of the Kadazandusun Language
Foundation in providing input on linguistics in an annual
teacher-training workshop held by the Suausindak
community pre-school (Lasimbang, 2004).
Research has shown that the language that is
competing with KD is Sabah Malay dialect. Lasimbang
(2004) stated that the KD community became aware of the
possible loss of their language in the early 1980’s but they
still felt the need to use the Malay language in the home:
To encourage easy assimilation into the fast growing Malaysian
culture, also to safeguard social and economic status. … A heavy
use of Malay and English coupled with the need to excel in the
newly structured Malaysian education system had put mother
tongue use in question. Mixed marriages and the mass media
were other contributing factors. These factors all led to a decline
in the use of the mother tongue. (Lasimbang & Kinajil, 2000,
pp.4-5)
As early as the late 1990s, Reid (1997) had observed that
many educated KDs choose Malay or English over KD
for family communication and Catholic churches also
made the same language choices in the liturgy, leading
him to question whether it is still in time to “save a
language, or set of languages, which are no longer much
used for communication between peoples from different
areas” (p.136). Wong’s (2000) study on the Sabah Malay
dialect sheds light on the functionality of the language.
According to Wong (2000), Sabah Malay dialect is a
“lingua franca of all levels of the society in Sabah, be it
the language of the illiterates or literates, the urban or
rural people, the high class or the low class people” (p.66).
Sabah Malay dialect also cuts across ethnic boundaries,
and signifies a Sabahan identity. Wong asserted that Sabah
Malay dialect is not a bazaar variety, but developed from
interactions among Malays, non-Malays and immigrants
in urban areas. Unlike the neighbouring Malaysian state
of Sarawak where Sarawak Malay is the dialect and native
tongue of the Malays living in Sarawak, “Sabah Malay
dialect is almost no one’s native language except for the
first language of a small number of younger generations
who are of mixed parentage” (Wong, 2000, p.16). At the
time of Wong’s study, she could hardly find female native
speakers of Sabah Malay dialect above 50 years old.
Wong’s (2000) findings on the prevalence of Sabah Malay
dialect and the widespread acceptance may explain the
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia

language shift of the KD teenagers away from KD in this and English were forbidden (p.130) but he encouraged
study. Sabahans to adopt Islam, the state religion since 1973.
The years 1970-1972 also saw the expulsion of Christian
2.3 Kadazandusun Identity
missionaries. Instead of downing the Kadazan identity,
In addition to the language, the harvest festival these incidents spurred the educated KD in their pursuit
(Kaamatan) was later promoted as another symbolic of distinctive identity through political moves (see Reid,
marker of Kadazan identity. At the recommendation of the 1997 for details). By 1990, moves were made to reinstate
Annual Native Chiefs’ Conference, the British colonial teaching of KD in schools as 1997 is not the first time KD
government accepted Kaamatan as an ethnic festival as is taught in school. In the mid-1950s until the late 1960s,
a three-day holiday in 1956, and in 1960 it was included “the Kadazan language was taught in some mission-run
into the calendar of state-wide holidays (Reid, 1997). primary schools and Native Voluntary Schools (NVS)
Unfortunately, in the years following the entry of Sabah in Sabah” (Lasimbang, 2004, p.10). Since language is
into the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, the political a marker of ethnic identity (Giles, Taylor, & Bourhis,
situation changed. Reid (1997, p.132) also documented 1977), although not an essential criteria of ethnic group
that in May 1982, the Kaamatan holiday was shortened membership in all speech communities, it is important
to one day and declared as “a ‘people’s festival for all to find out whether the KD’s sense of ethnic identity is
Sabahans”, sparking off the Kadazan Cultural Association connected to their language use behaviour.
to organise its own festival in Tambunan and the KD
people rallied behind Pairin who was seen as the new 2.4 Theoretical Framework of Study
champion of the KD identity. Pairin became the Chief The theoretical framework for this study is Expanded
Minister in 1985, and during his term a two-day holiday Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (EGIDS)
was declared for the Kaamatan celebration. by Lewis and Simons (2009), a modified version of
What happened was that Donald Stephens who had Fishman’s (1991) GIDS. EGIDS has been a useful
earlier championed the Kadazan identity and nationalism framework to identify the vitality of minority languages
(the then first Chief Minister of Sabah) persuaded the in Asia (Lewis, 2009; Ting & Ling, 2012; Zaidi, 2011),
Kadazan community to lose their tribalism and unite Africa (Nyika, 2008) and Europe (Gorter, 2008).
with the Malays as Bumiputera on an Islamic basis EGIDS has 13 levels whereas GIDS has eight. The
(Reid, 1997). Reid (1997) pointed out that the term modifications are the addition of three entirely new levels
“Bumiputera” was “invented with Malaysia to replace (Level 0, International; Level 9, Dormant; and Level 10,
Malay as the ‘indigenous’ category entitled to special Extinct) to “describe languages at any and all stages of
privileges” (p.129). According to Reid (1997), Mustapha their life cycle”, and splitting of Level 6 (6a, Vigorous;
(the then first Governor of Sabah) adopted a policy of “one 6b, Threatened) and Level 8 (8a, Moribund; 8b, Nearly
language, one culture and one religion” and disallowed Extinct) to “adequately account for the directionality of
the teaching of Kadazan in school and subsequently in language shift versus language development” (Lewis &
1974 radio broadcasts in languages other than Malay Simons, 2009, p.7). See Table 1 for EGIDS.
Table 1
Expanded Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale (Lewis & Simons, 2009)
Level Label Description
0 International The language is used internationally for a broad range of functions.
1 National The language is used in education, work, mass media, government at the nationwide level.
2 Regional The language is used for local and regional mass media and governmental services.
3 Trade The language is used for local and regional work by both insiders and outsiders.
4 Educational Literacy is the language is being transmitted through a system of public education.
The language is used orally by all generations and is effectively used in written form in parts of the
5 Written
community.
6a Vigorous The language is used orally by all generations and is being learned by children as their first language.
The language is used orally by all generations but only some of the child-bearing generation are
6b Threatened
transmitting it to their children.
The child-bearing generating knows the language well enough to use it among themselves but none are
7 Shifting
transmitting it to their children.
8a Moribund The only remaining active speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation.
The only remaining speakers of the language are members of the grandparent generation or older who have
8b Nearly extinct
little opportunity to use the language.
The language serves as a reminder of heritage identity for an ethnic community. No one has more than
9 Dormant
symbolic proficiency.
10 Extinct No one retains a sense of ethnic identity associated with the language, even for symbolic purposes.

Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute 48

 Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014).
Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57

To identify the vitality status of a language, five
diagnostic questions on identity functions, vehicularity,
intergenerational transmission, literacy acquisition status
and societal profile of generational language use need to
be answered:
(a) What is the current identity function of the
language? Historical (Extinct, Level 10) or Heritage
(Dormant, Level 9) or Home (Go to Question 3)
or Vehicular (lingua franca, Go to Question 2)
(b) What is the level of official use? International
(Level 0) or National (Level 1) or Regional (Level
2) or Not official (Trade, Level 3)
(c) Are all parents transmitting the language to their
children? Yes (Levels 4, 5, or 6a, Go to Question 4)
or No (Levels 6b, 7, 8a or 8b, Go to Question 5).
(d) What is the literacy status? Institutional
(Educational, Level 4) or Incipient (i.e., literacy
has been introduced but has not been acquired by
most community members, Written, Level 5) or
None (Vigorous, Level 6a)
(e) What is the youngest generation of proficient
speakers? Great grandparents (Nearly Extinct,
Level 8b) or Grandparents (Moribund, Level
8a) or Parents (Shifting, Level 7) or Children
(Threatened, Level 6b)
The five diagnostic questions were used to assess
the vitality of KD language based on the results of this
study and the EGIDS Diagnostic Decision Tree is used to
summarise the results (Figure 2).

Level 4
Institutional Educational
Question 4 – What is
the literacy status?
Incipient
(some
without Level 5
Yes literacy in Written
Question KD)
1 - What Question 3 – Are all the
is the Home parents transmitting the
identity language to their children?
function?

No

Question 5 – What is the

Level 6b
youngest generation that has Children Threatened
some proficient speakers?

Figure 2
EGIDS Diagnostic Decision Tree for KD

3. METHOD Table 2
Age and Gender Distribution of the KD Participants
3.1 Participants
The participants in this study were 205 KD students Male Female Total
Form
from eight secondary schools in Kota Belud: Sekolah n % n % N %
Menengah Kebangsaan (SMK) Arshad, SMK Narinang,
1 13 34.2 25 65.8 38 18.5
SMK Taun Gusi, SMK Tambulion, SMK Usukan, SMK
Pekan 1, SMK Pekan 2, and SMK Agama Tun Said. 2 10 33.3 20 66.7 30 14.6
Of these, 87 (42.4%) were male and 57.6% (118) were
3 13 52.0 12 48.0 25 12.2
female. The selection criteria were students between the
ages of 13 and 19 with both parents of KD descent. At this 4 14 38.9 22 61.1 36 17.6
age, the students were from Form 1 to Upper Sixth Form. 5 21 55.3 17 44.7 38 18.5
Table 2 shows the age and gender distribution of the KD
students who participated in this study. The focus of this Lower 6 4 33.3 8 66.7 12 5.9
study was on the teenagers because this is a cognitively Upper 6 12 46.2 14 53.8 26 12.7
and linguistically critical period in their multilingual
Total 87 118 205 100.0
development (Yu, 2005).

49 Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute

Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia
3.2 Questionnaire
A questionnaire on language background, proficiency
in KD, language choice and language attitudes was
formulated in Bahasa Malaysia (Malay henceforth).
As the students’ medium of education was Malay, the
questionnaire would be comprehensible to them. The
items in the questionnaire were adapted from Ayeomoni
(2006) and Yeh, Chan and Cheng (2004).
The items in the first section on language proficiency
included items on the first language acquired since birth
(Table 3), and the frequency of using this language with
parents (Table 4). The participants were also asked to
assess their proficiency in KD in terms of their listening,
speaking, reading and writing skills (Table 5). Self-reports
of language ability are considered reliable and are widely
used in language studies (Portes & Hao, 1998; Portes &
Schauffer, 1994 cited in Mah, 2005).
The second section of the questionnaire dealt with
language choice in four selected domains: family,
friendship, religion, and education (Table 6). These are
the domains of language use that are the most relevant to
teenagers as they are still in school and domains such as
employment and transactions are not relevant to examine.
For the family domain, language choice for interactions
with their father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather,
grandmother, uncle, aunt and cousins were examined.
However, in reporting of results, the frequencies were
averaged so that the results were reported for different
generations: grandparents, parents, siblings, and other
relatives. For the religious domain, the participants
reported their languages used with their religious leaders,
and with others from their age group. As the religious
domain is usually ethnically homogeneous (Ting, 2012;
Ting & Ling, 2012), the influence of ethnicity on language
choice was not examined. For the friendship domain, the
participants were asked to state the main language they
used with friends, and new friends and neighbours who
are KD and non-KD. The latter allows the lingua franca in
the community to be identified. Lastly, for the education
domain, the interactants focussed on the teachers or
principal, teachers of English, and classmates. For these
members of the school, the participants were asked to
report their language choices depending on whether they
were KD or non-KD. For the friendship and education
domains, ethnicity is an important factor to explore in
language choice because previous research has shown that
it influences language choice (Ting, 2007, 2010, 2012).
The third section of the questionnaire on attitudes
towards their ethnic language (KD) was based on Mah
(2005) and Yu (2005), and dealt with the participants’
feelings on the need to keep a KD identity and if they
were to lose the KD language.
3.3 Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
Eight secondary schools in Kota Belud were identified
and a letter was written to the Ministry of Education
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
to seek permission for the study to be conducted in the
selected schools. Upon obtaining the ministry’s approval,
the second researcher made appointments to see the
principals of the selected schools and hand them a copy
of the approval letter. The Ministry of Education had
also sent a copy to the principals but the visit allowed the
second researcher to discuss the schedule for carrying out
the study in the schools with the principals. During the
visit, the second researcher also met with the class teacher
of the classes identified for the survey to explain the
purpose of the study and the procedures involved.
The class and subject teachers assisted in distributing
the questionnaires to students in their classes. The
teachers were told to give the questionnaire to only KD
students with KD parents. Prior to the distribution of the
questionnaires, the teachers referred to the school record
to identify students who met the selection criteria. The
questionnaires were completed and returned on the same
day. A total of 280 questionnaires were distributed, but
only 210 were returned and 205 were usable. The average
number of usable questionnaires was 26 per class (range
from 21 to 31).
The questionnaire responses were keyed into the
Excel sheet, and frequency counts and percentages were
computed. Some limitations of the study were the uneven
spread of the participants from ages 13 to 19 as there were
fewer students in the sixth form.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 KD Teenagers’ Language Proficiency
The vitality of a language depends on the younger
generation having proficiency in it as well as frequently
using it on a daily basis.
Table 3
Age at Which KD Teenagers First Learnt KD
Language
Age Frequency Percentage
Below 7 years old 123 60
7 years old (Primary 1) 30 15
8 years old (Primary 2) 9 4
9 years old (Primary 3) 5 2
10 years old (Primary 4) 24 13
11 years old (Primary 5) 6 3
12 years old (Primary 6) 5 2
Never learnt KD 3 1
Total 205 100
Table 3 shows that 60% of 205 KD teenagers in the
study learnt their ethnic language before they entered
primary school at the age of seven. As KD is learnt
informally at home at a young age, a majority were native
speakers of KD. Interestingly, 13% of the KD teenagers
first learnt the language in Primary 4. This is because
50

when the formal teaching of KD was implemented
in 1997, it was first introduced in Primary 4 in Sabah
primary schools. Prior to this, KD was used as an oral
language but with formal teaching of KD in school,
written literacy in KD became possible.
Table 4
Frequency of KD Teenagers’ Usage of KD With
Parents
Frequency of speaking KD Frequency Percentage
Every day 140 68.3
Most of the time 17 8.3
Sometimes 41 20.0
Never 7 3.4
Total 205 100.0
Table 5
KD Teenagers’ Proficiency in KD According to Skills
Level Skills
None I can’t (understand/speak/read/write) KD at all
Entering I can (understand/say/read/write) a few words in KD
I can (understand speech/speak/read/write) about everyday
Beginning
topics in KD
I can (understand speech/tell others about TV shows and radio
Developing programmes/read magazines, newspapers or stories /write
letters or stories) in KD
I can (understand speech/speak/read documents /write
Expanding documents) about complex or unfamiliar topics in academic
or professional settings using KD
Total
The KD teenagers’ proficiency in the four skills is
broadly categorised as entering, beginning, developing,
expanding and bridging based on language performance
definitions in the Pennsylvania English Language
Proficiency Standards (State of Pennsylvania, 2007).
However, only the first four levels were presented in the
questionnaire, stopping at the expanding level whereby
learners can “process and understand specific and some
technical language of the content areas” and “can use and
produce oral and written academic and technical language
of varying complexity in content with nominal errors”
(p.7). This is because the language performance at the
final level approaches that of native speakers, and KD had
not been used in written communication before the formal
teaching of KD was introduced in Sabah schools in 1997.
First, the results for the KD teenagers’ oracy skills
in KD are described. The results showed that 27.3% of
KD teenagers were at the entering level in their listening
skills and could understand a few words in KD, 40.0% of
the KD teenagers were beginners in their listening skills
and could understand speech about everyday topics in
51
Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014).
Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57
Table 4 shows that 68.3% of the KD teenagers
spoke KD every day with their parents and 8.3% use
the language most of the time. Added together, 76.6%
of the KD teenagers speak the language frequently
with their parents. Table 2 shows that 76% of the KD
teenagers learnt KD at 7 years old or younger. When these
percentages of KD usage are compared with the results
on the age at which KD teenagers learnt the language, it
can be deduced that those who learnt KD earlier in life are
more likely to use it frequently with their parents. Since
the KD teenagers included in the study had both parents
who were KD, it is assumed that their grandparents would
be mostly KD. In fact, 97% of the KD teenagers’ parents
speak KD with their parents, and the remainder used
Sabah Malay dialect (percentages are not shown in the
tables).
Listening Speaking Reading Writing
Freq(%) Freq(%) Freq(%) Freq(%)
0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%)
56(27.3%) 73(35.6%) 88(42.9%) 95(46.3%)
82(40.0%) 98(47.8%) 72(35.1%) 79(38.5%)
47(22.9%) 27(13.1%) 32(15.6%) 23(11.3%)
20(9.8%) 7(3.5%) 13(6.4%) 8(3.9%)
205(100%) 205(100%) 205(100%) 205(100%)
KD, and 22.9% were developing their listening skills to
understand KD when used in television shows and radio
programmes. As a group, their speaking skill was at a
lower level than their listening skills. Table 5 shows that
35.6% of the KD teenagers were at the entering level,
47.8% at the beginning level, and 13.1% were developing
their speaking skills in KD, and they can tell others about
television shows and radio programmes in KD. A minimal
number of KD teenagers were expanding their oracy skills
in KD to understand and talk about complex or unfamiliar
topics. In other words, their listening ability was better
than their speaking ability in KD.
The KD teenager’s literacy skills in KD were lower
than their oracy skills as shown by larger percentages of
KD teenagers at the entering level for both reading (42.9%)
and writing (46.3%). They could only read or write a few
words in KD. A small percentage of the KD teenagers
were beginning to learn to read and write about everyday
topics in KD (35.1% and 38.5% respectively). Even fewer
had developed skills in reading magazines, newspapers or
stories in KD (15.6%), much less produce these texts in
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia

KD (11.3%). Generally, the KD teenagers’ literacy skills Table 6

were at similar levels for their receptive and productive Percentages of KD Teenagers Speaking KD and Sabah
Malay Dialect as Main Languages in Four Domains
skills.
There are some anomalies in the results - none of the Sabah Malay
Domain Interactants KD Others*
dialect
KD teenagers reported no knowledge of KD (Table 4)
although three KD teenagers reported that they had never Grandparents 83.4 16.6 0
learnt KD (Table 3), and seven had never spoken KD with Parents 60.5 39.5 0
Family
their parents (Table 4). Nevertheless, the non-KD user Siblings 49.7 46.8 3.5
category accounts for less than 3.5% of the sample. The Other relatives 46.3 53.6 0.1
other results provide a good indication that almost all the Religious leader 15.8 84.2 0
KD teenagers were proficient in KD, three-quarters of Religion
Friends of similar age 11.5 88.5 0
them used it frequently with their parents but for most,
their proficiency level did not allow them to use it for KD friends 69.0 18.9 12.1
handling complex or unfamiliar topics in academic or KD new friends or
43.6 56.3 0.1
professional settings. Despite the formal teaching of KD, neighbours
Friendship
the language is still mainly for conversational use. Non-KD friends 0 91.7 8.3
In the context of EGIDS, the answer to the first Non-KD new friends or
0 86.1 13.9
diagnostic question on the current identity function of neighbours
KD is that it is a home language because the language is KD principal or
0 77.0 (BM) 23.0
used for daily oral communication in the home domain by teachers
most of the KD teenagers. The next diagnostic question KD teachers of English 6.8 29.3
63.9
is No. 3 on the intergenerational transmission of the (English)
language. Almost all the parents are transmitting the KD KD classmates 49.7 29.8 20.5
Education
language to their children since only 3.4% did not speak Non-KD principal or
0 87.3 (BM) 12.7
KD with their parents. On this basis, the intergenerational teachers
transmission of the language is intact, widespread and Non-KD teachers of
0 31.2
68.8
ongoing. The next question to answer is No. 4 on the English (English)
literacy status of the KD language. The KD language Non-KD classmates 0 60.0 40.0
has an institutional literacy status because literacy in KD Note. *Others refer to English, Mandarin and a number of
can be acquired through a system of education supported indigenous languages but where the percentage for a particular
by a sustainable institution since 1997, and in the case language is high, it is indicated in brackets
of KD, it is the government education system and other
community-based institutions such as churches and the However, because of the patrilineal society in
Kadazandusun Language Foundation. Based on the Malaysia, the children often take on the father’s ethnic
answers to these diagnostic questions, the vitality status of group and this is put on the identification card. Since
KD seems to correspond to EGIDS Level 4 (Educational). this is the officially recognised identity, the people often
However, since KD is considered a community language define themselves as such. The mother’s ethnic group is
and students can decide whether or not to take it as a recorded in the child’s birth certificate only. Therefore, if
subject, it is possible that some community members the mother is not KD but the father is KD, the child would
have not acquired literacy in the KD language despite be identified KD on his/her identity card. In this study,
literacy being introduced into the community. If this is although the KD teenagers had both parents who were
so, then the vitality status of KD corresponds to EGIDS KD, they could have one or both grandmothers who are
Level 5 (Written). Next, the language choice results were not KD (either the paternal or maternal) but this would not
examined to confirm the level of vitality of KD. be reflected in the official record on the ethnic group of
the KD teenagers’ parents. The presence of intermarriage
4.2 KD teenagers’ Language Choice in the KD teenagers’ grandparents’ generation may explain
With the grandparents, the KD teenagers had little choice why KD was not the main language used by all the KD
but to speak KD because it was often the only language teenagers with their grandparents. KD use with the parents
their grandparents were comfortable with or able to speak. decreased even further because the mothers being primary
Table 5 shows that 83.4% of the KD teenagers spoke supporters of education often choose to speak the school
mainly KD with their grandparents. With their parents, it language rather than their ethnic language to their children
can be seen that the majority spoke KD (60.5%) but more to give them a head start (Ghazali, 2010).
KD teenagers had started using the Sabah Malay dialect When it comes to their siblings, the percentage of KD
with their parents (39.5%) compared to their grandparents teenagers speaking KD dropped even further to 49.7%
(16.6%). This is bearing in mind that both parents were and a similar percentage (46.8%) used the Sabah Malay
KD based on the school record. dialect. In the future for the KD teenagers’ communication

Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute 52


with their children, the Sabah Malay dialect use may
exceed KD use. In the family domain, the greatest use
of the Sabah Malay dialect was with the aunts and
uncles (53.6%). Intermarriages often introduce common
languages of communication into the family domain as
shown by Kow (2003) and Kuang (2002) for the Chinese
community in Malaysia.
In the religion domain, surprisingly the Sabah Malay
dialect was the main language used with religious leaders
and friends of the same faith for a majority of the KD
teenagers (84.2% and 88.5%, respectively). Further
analysis revealed that 72.7% of the KD teenagers were
Christians and 27.3% were Muslims, and there is greater
likelihood for KD and Sabah Malay dialect to be used
by these two groups respectively. However, the results
indicate that Sabah Malay dialect is obviously the
commonly used language to discuss religious matters. A
majority of KD are Christians (Reid, 1997) but despite
the availability of Kadazan Catholic catechism and
prayerbooks, they have probably been using Bibles in
either Bahasa Malaysia or Bahasa Indonesia. In Sarawak,
however, it is the ethnic language which is used more in
the religion domain. In her study on teenagers in Sarawak,
Ting (2012) found that the Malay teenagers used more
Sarawak Malay dialect than Malay in the religion domain
but for the Chinese, Mandarin use exceeds that of Chinese
dialects (e.g., Foochow, Hokkien, Teochew). In Ting
and Ling’s (2012) study on 568 Sarawak indigenous
teenagers, use of their own ethnic languages was reported
450 times, Bahasa Malaysia 251 times, English 116
times, Sarawak Malay dialect 69 times and Mandarin
nine times. In both of these Sarawak studies, the Malay
and indigenous teenagers used their own ethnic language
more than standard languages (Malay or English) – the
Chinese teenagers’ frequent use of Chinese Mandarin is an
exception because the younger Chinese in urban areas in
Sarawak have reached a stage whereby they hardly speak
their ethnic language but use Mandarin Chinese in many
domains, including the family domain even when both
parents are from the same Chinese dialect groups (Ting,
2010; Ting & Chang, 2008; Ting & Chong, 2008; Ting
& Hung, 2008; Ting & Mahadhir, 2009). Among the KD,
Sabah Malay dialect is undoubtedly the language of the
religion domain irrespective of whether they are Christian
or Muslim.
In the friendship domain, Table 6 shows that Sabah
Malay dialect was used for non-KD interactants regardless
of whether they were long-time friends or new friends/
neighbours (91.7% and 86.1%, respectively). In contrast,
with KD friends, the more familiar they were, they more
likely they were to speak KD; otherwise Sabah Malay
dialect was chosen. This comparison highlights the role of
Sabah Malay dialect as a lingua franca.
The ethnic delineation of language choice evident
in the friendship domain becomes even clearer in the
education domain. The KD teenagers did not use KD with
53
Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014).
Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57
non-KD members of the school regardless of who they
were but with KD members of the school, the status of
the interactants determined the language choice. With KD
principal or teachers, the main language used was Bahasa
Malaysia. With KD teachers of English, the main language
used was English and with KD classmates, 49.7% of them
used KD (Table 6). As more formal languages tend to
be used with those of higher status, Bahasa Malaysia is
definitely higher on the continuum than the KD language,
which is reserved for communication within the KD
speech community. The use of English with teachers of
English is a special situation because that is when an
exception can be made to deviate from the use of Bahasa
Malaysia as the official language.
On the EGIDS levels, the ability of the KD teenagers
to use the language for full social interaction in a
variety of settings (family, religion, friendship and
education in this study) indexed an unbroken chain in
the intergenerational transmission of the KD language
(Question No. 5). Nevertheless, language shift may be
in its beginning stages because there is already evidence
of almost half of the KD teenagers not speaking their
ethnic language with their siblings, KD friends and KD
classmates. This situation would place the KD language at
Level 6b, Threatened.
4.3 KD teenagers’ Sense of Ethnic Identity
Associated With Language
To find out the KD teenagers’ sense of ethnic identity
associated with the KD language, the teenagers were
asked whether they felt pride or sensed impending danger
of losing their ethnic language. Table 6 shows 63.4% of
the KD teenagers categorised themselves as modern KD,
24.4% as pure KD and 12.2% as half KD. The notion of a
modern KD is an antithesis of the pure KD, characterised
as one who knows and practises the KD culture, speaks
the KD language on all occasions and lives among the KD
community in the traditional home ground.
Table 7
Characterisation of KD Identity by KD Teenagers
KD identity Frequency Percentage
Pure KD 50 24.4
Modern KD 130 63.4
Half KD 25 12.2
Non KD 0 0
Total 205 100.0
When asked whether they think that the KD would
be in danger of being lost in Kota Belud, 13.7% of the
KD teenagers were not sure (Table 8). More felt that the
KD language might be lost (57.1%) whereas only 29.3%
felt that the loss is unlikely to happen. However, since a
majority of the KD teenagers felt that the ability to speak
the KD is not an integral part of being a pure KD (63.4%),
the possibility of the language loss may only be keenly felt by
36.4% of them (these percentages are not shown in tables).
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia

The value they attached to the KD language was cross- Table 9

checked by asking them on the importance of preserving Importance of Preserving KD to KD Teenagers
the KD language; 96.6% felt that it is important. Using Frequency Percentage
sense of impending danger of language loss to assess
Very important 75 36.6
whether a language is endangered (Level 6b, Threatened
in EGIDS) is not easy because the kind of response Important 123 60.0
depends on how the question is posed to members of Unimportant 7 3.4
the speech community, as indicated by the somewhat
contradictory results in Tables 8 and 9. Totally unimportant 0 0
Table 8 Total 205 100
Sense of KD language Loss to KD Teenagers
Frequency Percentage
Yes 69 33.7 Finally the KD teenagers’ attitudes towards KD people
Maybe yes 48 23.4 and language were examined using 15 items. Table 10
Not sure 28 13.7 shows that the KD teenagers expected to be multilingual
Maybe not 19 9.3 and KD is one of the languages in their language
No 41 20.0 repertoire (Items 1-3).
Total 205 100.1

Table 10
KD Teenagers’ Attitudes Towards KD People and Language
Agree Neutral Disagree
Attitudes towards KD people and language
Freq % Freq % Freq %
1. It is important for KD to learn to speak multiple languages. 178 86.8 11 5.4 16 7.8
2. Learning KD language should not take priority over learning other languages. 165 80.5 21 10.2 19 9.3
3. It is important to be able to speak KD. 127 62.0 55 26.8 23 11.2
4. I wish there were more TV shows broadcast in KD language in Malaysia. 144 70.2 33 16.1 28 13.7
5. It is important to me to maintain the customs and traditions of KD. 170 82.9 16 7.8 10 9.3
6. I participate in customs and cultural practices of my ethnic group. 177 86.3 12 5.9 16 7.8
7. KD community benefits from knowledge of KD cultures. 175 85.4 13 6.3 17 8.3
8. I know western culture better than KD culture. 138 67.3 22 10.7 45 22.0
9. I feel pressured by my parents and/or my family to keep KD culture and customs. 22 10.7 30 14.6 153 74.6
10. In Kota Belud, there is no need to keep a KD identity. 26 12.7 12 5.9 167 81.5
11. I am proud of KD people. 152 74.1 34 16.6 19 9.3
12. I am sometimes embarrassed by the behaviour of some KD people. 33 16.1 34 16.6 138 67.3
13. A lot of problems faced by KD people today are their own fault. 118 57.6 25 12.2 62 30.2
14. I believe that compared to people of other ethnic groups, KD people are
148 72.2 16 7.8 41 20.0
superior.
15. If I could choose, I would choose to be a member of another ethnic group. 61 29.8 15 7.3 129 62.9

The results for Items 4-7 illustrate the traditional view
of preserving the KD culture, by ensuring that there are
television programmes in KD and that the community
knows and practises the culture. However, there are
already signs of a move away from this traditional view
– 67.3% of the KD teenagers admitted that they knew
Western culture better than KD culture and 74.6% of the
KD teenagers’ parents did not pressure them to keep KD
culture and customs (Items 8-9). In Ting and Campbell’s
(2013) study on 151 Bidayuh people (an indigenous
group) living in Kuching, Sarawak, listening to Bidayuh
radio station, listening to Bidayuh songs, wearing Bidayuh
costume and listening to and telling Bidayuh folktales are
regarded as unimportant ethnic markers. Instead the salient
markers of Bidayuh identity are language, parentage and
the ethnic festival (Gawai). Based on these findings, Ting
and Campbell (2013) concluded that transmitting cultural
norms and folk literature to the younger generation may
not be an effective means to preserve the culture.
Items 10-15 deal with the KD identity. The KD
teenagers felt that it is important to keep a KD identity in
Kota Belud. Most of them were proud of the KD people
and were not embarrassed at the unbecoming behaviour
of some members of their community although a sizable
proportion (57.6%) felt that a lot of problems faced by KD
people today were their own fault. The KD teenagers also
felt that the KD people were superior and would choose
to remain a member of their community, if given a choice.

Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute 54


The strong sense of KD identity among the KD teenagers
is unmistakable, possibly an outcome of earlier efforts to
instil the KD identity in the community (see Reid, 1997;
Roff, 1969).
CONCLUSION
Several possible levels of language vitality can be
identified for the KD language (see Figure 2). Based on
the results of the KD teenagers’ language choice in the
family domain and the age at which they first learnt the
KD language, the identity function of the language is the
home language. Two home situations arise: In most KD
homes, the parents are speaking KD with their children; in
a small percentage of KD homes, the parents are speaking
the Sabah Malay dialect with their children. Where there
is intergenerational transmission, the literacy status of
the KD language is institutional because literacy can be
acquired through the government education system as well
as other community-based institutions. This corresponds
to EGIDS Level 4 (Educational). For others, the literacy
status is incipient because although literacy has been
introduced into the KD community, it has not been
acquired by most community members. This is bearing
in mind that KD is a community language in school, and
students can choose whether or not to take the subject.
This corresponds to EGIDS Level 5 (Written). However,
where there is no intergenerational transmission of the
KD language, the youngest generation of proficient KD
speakers needs to be identified, and it is the children – the
KD teenagers in this study. This corresponds to EGIDS
Level 6b (Threatened). The KD language is threatened
because language shift may be in its beginning stages
as shown by the results on other languages, particularly
Sabah Malay dialect, moving into domains of language
use such as religion, friendship and education for
communication within the KD community. This study has
identified three possible levels for the vitality of the KD
language at this point in time based on a study of 205 KD
teenagers because of different situations of language use
among its speakers. To reach a more definitive assessment
of the KD language vitality, a wider scale study of the
KD population in Sabah is needed. Although KD is the
dominant ethnic group in Sabah, the status of the KD
language would not extend to national use (Level 1),
regional use (Level 2) or trade use (Level 3) because KD
is an indigenous group that is endemic to Sabah. Although
there are KD living in other parts of Malaysia because of
studies or work, the number is too small for their language
to be used outside of the KD community.
REFERENCES
Ayeomoni, M. O. (2006). Code-switching and code-mixing:
Style of language use in childhood in Yoruba speech
community. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15(1), 90-99.
55
Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014).
Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57
Bayley, R., Schecter, S. R., & Torres-Ayala, B. (1996). Strategies
for bilingual maintenance: Case studies of Mexican-origin
families in Texas. Linguistics and Education, 8(4), 389-408.
Bonner, D. M. (2001). Garifuna children’s language shame:
Ethnic stereotypes, national affiliation, and transnational
immigration as factors in language choice in Southern
Belize. Journal of Language in Society, 30, 81-96.
Cheung, Y. W. (1981). Effects of parents on ethnic language
retention by children: The case of Chinese in urban Canada.
Sociological Focus, 14(1), 33-48.
Coluzzi, P., Riget, P. N., & Wang, X. (2013). Language vitality
among the Bidayuh of Sarawak (East Malaysia). Oceanic
Linguistics, 52(2), 375-395.
Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2011). Population
distribution by local authority areas and mukims: 2010.
Putrajaya: Department of Statistics, Malaysia.
Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Ghazali, K. (2010). National identity and minority languages.
UN Chronicle, 47(3), 1-5. Retrieved 2014, November 13
from http://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-245885919/
national-identity-and-minority-languages
Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1977). Dimensions of
Welsh identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7,
165-1974.
Gorter, D. (2008). European minority languages: Endangered
or revived? In T. De Graaf, N. Ostler., & R. Salverda
(Eds.), Endangered languages and language learning,
Vol. 12 (pp.169-175). Bath: Foundation for Endangered
Languages.
Jawing, E., & Ting, S. H. (2011). Pressures prompting language
shift in Kadazandusun families in Sabah. Digest Polytechnic
Kota Kinabalu, 1, 105-114.
Kerajaan Negeri Sabah [Sabah State Government]. (n.d.).
Mengenai Sabah: Rakyat dan Sejarah Sabah [About Sabah:
People and History of Sabah]. Retrieved 2014, November
17from http://www.sabah.gov.my/main/ms-MY/Home/
About
Kow, K. Y. C. (2003). Language shift and language maintenance
in mixed marriages: A case study of a Malaysian-Chinese
family. International Journal of Sociology of Language,
161, 81-90.
Kuang, C. H. (2002). Code switches: A measurement for
language shift? A case study of a Malaysian Chinese family.
In M. K. David (Ed.), Methodological and analytical issues
in language maintenance and language shift studies (pp.91-
111). Frankfurt: PeterLang.
Laitin, D. D. (2000). What is a language community? American
Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 142-155.
Lasimbang, R. (2004). To promote the Kadazandusun languages
of Sabah. ABD, 34(2), 10-12.
Lasimbang, R., & Kinajil, T. (2000). Changing the language
ecology of Kadazandusun: The role of the Kadazandusun
language foundation. Current Issues in Language Planning,
1(3), 415-423. doi: 10.1080/14664200008668015
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
Vitality of Kadazandusun language in Sabah, Malaysia
Lasimbang, R., & Kinajil, T. (2004). Building terminology in
the Kadazandusun language. Current Issues in Language
Planning, 5(2), 131-141. Doi: 10.1080/13683500408668253
Lewis, M. P., & Simons, G. F. (2010). Assessing endangerment:
Expanding Fishman’s GIDS. Revue Roumaine de
Linguistique, 2. Retrieved 2014, November 14 from
http://www2.sil.org/~simonsg/preprint/EGIDS.
pdf
Luo, S. H., & Wiseman, R. L. (2000). Ethnic language
maintenance among Chinese immigrant children in the
United States. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 24(3), 307-324.
Mah, B. (2005). Ethnic identity and heritage language ability
in second generation Canadians in Toronto (Unpublished
Master’s Thesis). Ryerson University.
Mansur, K., Kogid, M., & Madais, S. J. (2010). Human capital
investiment: Literature review analysis and a study case
among Kadazan-Dusun of Pulutan Village, Menggatal, Kota
Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. The Social Sciences, 5(3), 264-
269.
Michel, A., Titzmann, P. F., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2012).
Language shift among adolescent ethnic German
immigrants: Predictors of increasing use of German over
time. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36(2),
248-259.
Morita, L.C. (2003). Language shift in the Thai Chinese
community. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 24(6), 485-495.
Naji, I. M. H., & David, M. K. (2003). Markers of ethnic
identity: Focus on the Malaysian Tamil community.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 161,
91-102.
Nyika, N. (2008). Our languages are equally important:
Struggles for the revitalisation of the minority languages
in Zimbabwe. Southern African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies, 26(4), 457-470.
Portes, A., & Hao, L. (1998). E pluribus unum: Bilingualism
and loss of language in the second generation. Sociology of
Education, 71(4), 269-294.
Portes, A., & Schauffler, R. (1994). Language and the second
generation: Bilingualism yesterday and today. International
Migration Review, 28(4), 640-661.
Puyok, A., & Bagang, T. P. (2011). Ethnicity, culture and
indigenous leadership in modern politics: The case of the
Kadazandusun in Sabah, East Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia,
29(1), 177-197.
Reid, A. (1996, May). Endangered identities: Kadazan and
Dusun in Sabah. Paper presented at 14th IAHA Conference,
Bangkok.
Reid, A. (1997). Endangered identity: Kadazan or Dusun in
Sabah (East Malaysia). Journal of Southeast Asian Studies,
28(1), 120-136.
Roff, M. (1969). The rise and demises of Kadazan nationalism.
Journal of Southeast Asian History, 10(2), 326-343.
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute
Smith, K. J. (2003). Minority language education in Malaysia:
Four ethnic communities’ experiences. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 6(1), 52-
65. DOI: 10.1080/13670050308667772
State of Pennsylvania. (2007). Pennsylvania English language
proficiency standards. Pennsylvania: Author.
Ting, S. H. (2006, July 31-August 1). A case study of language
use with the younger generation in Foochow families.
Proceedings of 8th Biennial International Conference of the
Borneo Research Council (BRC), Kuching, Malaysia.
Ting, S. H. (2007) Influence of ethnicity and hierarchical
status on language choice in a multilingual organisation in
Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal, Special issue No. 7 on
Social Science and Humanities, LXIV(85), 221-250.
Ting, S. H. (2010). Impact of language planning on language choice
in friendship and transaction domains in Sarawak, Malaysia.
Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 397-412.
Ting, S. H. (2012). Variable impact of Malaysia’s national
language planning on non-Malay speakers in Sarawak.
Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada, 12(2), 381-403.
Ting, S. H.,& Campbell, Y. M. (2007). Bahasa Melayu sebagai
bahasa komunikasi keluarga: Kajian kes sebuah keluarga
Bidayuh di Sarawak.[Bahasa Melayu as a language of
family communication: Case study of a Bidayuh family
in Sarawak]. In Nor Hashimah Jalaluddin, Imran Ho
Abdullah & Idris Aman (Eds.), Linguistik teori dan
aplikasi [Linguistics theory and application] (pp.278-293).
Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Ting, S. H., & Campbell, Y. M. (2013, November 16-17).
Salience of ethnic identity as an ethnic marker: A snapshot
of the Bidayuh in Sarawak, Malaysia. Proceedings of
International Conference on Languages 2013 (ICL 2013),
Phuket, Thailand.
Ting, S. H., & Chang, Y. S. (2008, July 29-31). Communication
in a close-knit extended Hakka family in Kuching, Sarawak:
Mandarin or Hakka? Proceedings of 9th Biennial Borneo
Research Council (BRC) Conference, Kota Kinabalu,
Sabah, Malaysia.
Ting, S. H., & Chong, N. M. (2008, August 24-29). Making
language choices based on appearance in intercultural
communication: Fruit seller-customer interactions. Paper
presented at 15 th International Association of Applied
Linguistics (AILA 2008), Essen, Germany.
Ting, S. H., & Hung, Y. L. (2008, August 5-7), Mothers and
mother tongue: Their role in promoting Foochow to their
children. Proceedings of 6th International Malaysian Studies
Conference (MSC6) “Engaging Malaysian Modernity: 50
years and Beyond”, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Ting, S. H., & Ling, T. Y. (2012). Language use and
sustainability status of indigenous languages in Sarawak.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
33(6), 1-17. Doi: 10.1080/01434632.2012.706301
Ting, S. H., & Mahadhir, M. (2009). Towards homogeneity in
home languages. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
(ARAL), 32(2), 11.1-11.22.
56

Vedder, P., & Virta, E. (2005). Language, ethnic identity,
and the adaptation of Turkish immigrant youth in the
Netherlands and Sweden. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 29(3), 317-337.
Wong, J. K. L. (2000). The Sabah Malay dialect. Kota Kinabalu,
Malaysia: Pusat Penataran Ilmu & Bahasa, Universiti
Malaysia Sabah.
Yeh, H. N., Chan, H. C., & Cheng, Y. S. (2004). Language use
in Taiwan: Language proficiency and domain analysis.
[Normal University: Humanities and Social Sciences
Journal], 49(1), 75-107.
57
Su-Hie Ting; Fung-Ling Tham (2014).
Asia-Pacific Studies, 1 (1), 44-57
Yu, S. (2005). Family factors in bilingual children’s code-switching
and language maintenance (pp.1-275). Auckland: Auckland
University of Technology. Retrieved 2007, September
5 from http://repositoryaut.lconz.ac.nz/theses/2014.
Zaidi, A. (2010). Language maintenance and language shift: A
sociolinguistic study of the Punjabis in Brunei Darussalam
(Unpublished Ph.D Thesis). University of Brunei Darussalam.
Zhou, M., & Li, X. Y. (2003). Ethnic language schools and the
development of supplementary education in the immigrant
Chinese community in the United States. New Directions for
Youth Development, (100), 57-73.
Copyright © Developing Country Think Tank Institute