rather than 
).
Phonetic symbols are retained only for ‘difficult or unusual words’ (p. xi)
and is reinforced by respelling (‘say
hah-buh’) – a useful measure as, from my experience, school pupils
seldom bother to learn phonetic symbols.REVIEW ARTICLE
Macquarie Junior Dictionary: World English – Asian Context
Edited by Arthur Delbridge, at al.
North Ryde, NSW: Macquarie Library, 1999. xi + 241 pp.
ISBN 1 876429 05 4
The introduction of the Macquarie Junior Dictionary: World English – Asian Context proclaims this as the first Macquarie dictionary to be published outside Australia and is aimed at upper primary school pupils in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei (ages 10–12), which also incorporates items from Singaporean, Malaysian and Bruneian English (SMBE). This is therefore not to be confused with the Macquarie Junior Dictionary aimed at Australian upper primary pupils. This is not the first dictionary to include features of the regional English. Times-Chambers Essential English Dictionary, 2nd edn. was the first, although this is aimed at the intermediate learner (secondary pupils). (This was reviewed recently in Asian Englishes.) The appearance of this dictionary therefore does fill a gap in the market, and in a time when there is increasing confidence in local norms in the language, answers the needs of teachers and pupils.
The dictionary is laid out in a straightforward manner. Nouns are defined elliptically, whereas verbs are usually defined in full sentences. There are plentiful examples as well. Optional items include pronunciation and notes. The notes are generally usage notes, although many of the SMBE items have notes on etymology. This is a departure from the usual practice in learners’ dictionaries, but a defensible practice in view of the fact that many of the target users will be familiar with some of the source languages. There about half a dozen pages devoted to line drawings. Proper nouns are not included in the dictionary, although there is a page devoted to Festivals and Holidays (p. 79), where items like Deepavali, Hari Raya Puasa and Mid-Autumn Festival are mentioned.
What I found interesting, however, is the way Macquarie would adapt itself to the context of Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. Macquarie has always been closely associated with Australian English; this variety is not an appropriate point of reference for teachers and learners in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei, mainly for historical reasons. The solution was to opt for the traditional point of reference instead – standard British English and RP (described as ‘standard British English’ pronunciation). We are therefore left with a de-Australianised, as well as an Anglicised and Asianised dictionary! Items from the local variety that could cause potential problems for users of other varieties of English are therefore highlighted by reference to ‘standard British English’, as in the following note under the headword alphabet:
The sentence Look it up under its alphabet in the index would, in standard British English, be Look it up under its letter in the index. In SMBE it is possible to have an alphabet made up of alphabets from A to Z. In standard British English the alphabet is made up of the letters A–Z.
It has, however,
continued to maintain the Macquarie-style phonetic alphabet which does not use
the traditional length marks (therefore harbour
is rather than ).
Phonetic symbols are retained only for ‘difficult or unusual words’ (p. xi)
and is reinforced by respelling (‘say
hah-buh’) – a useful measure as, from my experience, school pupils
seldom bother to learn phonetic symbols.
I was also very interested in the new tripartite grouping of Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei and the new category SMBE. Traditional accounts have grouped Singaporean and Malaysian English (see, for example, Tongue 1979; Platt and Weber 1980). Although a sceptic might want to point at the larger potential market for the dictionary, the grouping is defensible: Brunei shares with Singapore and Malaysia the British colonial experience; in all three countries, Malay and the Chinese languages (Mandarin, Hokkien, Cantonese, etc.) are important languages that affect the local varieties of English. In view of this grouping, I found it rather strange that the three consultants singled out for mention are based in Brunei, Malaysia and Hong Kong. (From the names, it appears that only the Malaysian consultant is a local one.) I suspect that this is the cause of some of the unevenness in the dictionary mentioned below.
The dictionary includes many SMBE items, and sensibly I think eschews the less established and highly colloquial items. Cultural items therefore abound. There are food and drink items (mee goreng – fried noodles), clothing (sarung kebaya – a style of Malay dress), titles and terms of address (Mak Cik – polite term of address to older women), flora (angsana – a species of tree), literature (pantun – a Malay verse form), music (kompang – a Malay drum). Some of the more colloquial items included are the pragmatic particle lah (but none of the others appear), the supposedly Singaporean trait of being kiasu (afraid of losing out), kaypoh (busybody) and kayu (stupid). This seems to be about the extent to which informal, borrowed SMBE items are in the dictionary.
All the borrowed SMBE items contain etymological entries, and it is here that there has been some unevenness. The policy seems to be to indicate, as far as possible, the ultimate (as opposed to the intermediate) source of a word. Therefore, syariah (Muslim law) is said to be a borrowing from Arabic, although the spelling convention is the Malay one. If this is the case, it would be extremely inconsistent if mee (noodles) and mee hoon (thin rice noodles) are both said to be derived from Malay, when the ultimate source is Hokkien Chinese. Even kuching (Chinese plucked string instrument – usual spelling kucheng) is labelled as being derived from Malay, when the source is Mandarin Chinese (gu zheng).
Sometimes, the dictionary distinguishes between the different Chinese languages, and sometimes it does not, and this leads to some inconsistency. For example, cheongsam (Chinese tight-fitting dress) is said to be from Cantonese, whereas samfu (Chinese woman’s trouser suit) is said to be from Chinese. The latter is also from Cantonese Chinese, and I cannot work out why in one case the particular variety of Chinese is mentioned, and in another it is not in these two cases where the etymology is not in dispute. Worse still, in one instance, the wrong Chinese variety is mentioned: popiah (a kind of spring roll) is said to be from Cantonese, whereas it is from Hokkien.
A more minor complaint is that the spelling used in the dictionary for SMBE items do not reflect Singaporean preferences (English-based spelling, rather than Malay-based spelling), so in the dictionary we find kueh teow (flat rice noodles) rather than kway teow; taugeh (bean sprouts) rather than towgay.
In summary then, this dictionary is a much welcomed addition to learners dictionaries, but seems to suffer from some minor inaccuracies, particularly in Chinese-derived words. Priced at US$5.70, this should be well within the reach of most middle-class Singaporean, Malaysian and Bruneian pupils.
Platt, John and Heidi Weber. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
Times-Chambers Essential English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1997. Ed. by Elaine Higgleton, Vincent BY Ooi, et al. Singapore: Federal & Chambers.
Tongue, R K. 1979. The English of Singapore and Malaysia. 2nd edn. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.