Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Grab, Taxi or Bus - Self selection by social class.

Will Barratt, Ph.D.
Fulbright Visiting Scholar, Universiti Malaya

I am relatively new (10 weeks) to my city and to my commute to my campus office so I am just beginning to see patterns.  Before I moved here to Kuala Lumpur I had never used an internet based ride service like Grab (the only one available here), so I had a steep learning curve. 

Since I like technology I loaded up the Grab app and started to use it to get to work in the morning.  I live in a new tower block apartment complex near campus and went to Gate A for my pickup. While waiting I would pay attention to the young professionals who were also waiting for their Grab car.   I was curious about the people in my building and people coming to work in the office block near me.

Across the street from my apartment building is a taxi stand, a bus station, and a Light Rail Train stop for the university.  The LRT is used by commuters coming from the suburbs into the city.  Campus, and offices, are served by the bus system at the LRT station and the same prepaid card works for LRT and bus.

I have three transportation options.  I can get Grab from my building, waiting with the young professionals.  I can walk 5 minutes to cross the street and jump into a waiting taxi. The taxi riders are typically office workers who have just commuted in from the suburbs.  Or I can stand in line and wait for a bus. The bus riders are frugal campus employees or students.

The economics are relatively simple and involve both time and money.  Grab and taxis cost the same most of the time, taxis cost less during high volume hours because the Grab rate varies by time of day and demand.  The bus is the lowest cost per ride. The wait time for Grab, in my experience, is 5-8 minutes, the wait time for the taxi is typically under 2 minutes, and the wait time for the bus can be as much as 15 minutes, and the bus ride to your destination takes longer than either Grab or taxi.

The cost analysis in time and money, Grab is at least as high as a taxi and has a longer wait.  Taxi is middle price and very low wait time.  The bus is long wait, long ride, and low cost. The best economic choice, for time and money, is a taxi.  And yet, the young professionals take the longer wait higher cost option. Hmmm.

The physical space is remarkably different for Grab, taxi, and bus.  Grab is in someone's clean car, a taxi is typically older than a private car and taxis have questionable suspension.  The bus, well, is a bus.  Our buses are nice, clean, and have padded seats, and they are still a bus. 

The transportation market segmenting is a self selection process, and is not based, as my economist friends would argue, on a rational economic choice.  As with the purses, transportation has become a positional good, a public marker of social status. 

tl;dr - upper class people in my neighborhood spend time and money taking Grab, the expensive option.

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Why you should learn and speak 'less prestigious' languages

David Yoong
Linguist at the University of Malaya who spends a lot of time examining how people interact with one another. 

Time and time again, we hear of people in power emphasising the need to use 'standard language' - proper pronunciation, proper spelling, and proper grammar. We are told of the dangers of not being able to use a 'standard language': people won't understand us, we will not be able to engage with others globally, and we will not be able to participate in knowledge acquisition. Additionally, socialisation with our leaders, teachers and even parents puts ideas into our heads that certain languages (e.g. Standard English and Standard Mandarin) are more important than others because these will help maintain the status quo and increase chances of upward social mobility. 

Sometimes children are told that there is no need to learn other 'less important' languages like indigenous languages and vernacular languages (e.g. Telugu, Hakka, Teowchew, Bahasa Temuan, etc.). In schools, we are indoctrinated to believe that the rules of grammar determine if language use is 'right' or 'wrong'. Using language 'wrongly', we are also told, is a sign of being uneducated (or sometimes, stupid). 

At this juncture, I should explain two things: First, I write as a Malaysian linguist. So, don't be surprised if the examples provided are from a Malaysian's point of view. Second, I use 'language' in this blog post to refer to 'a system of communication' that includes conventional concepts of 'dialects' (different language extended families e.g. Chinese - Cantonese, Hokkien) and 'lects' (different levels of hierarchies e.g. Standard English, Malaysian English, 'broken'/'mixed up' English). Trivia: Believe it or not, there are linguists who are challenging the conventional sense of 'language' and argue that even 'dialects' are 'languages'. As interesting as it may be, this will be a topic for another day. 

What our esteemed leaders and role models fail to acknowledge is that such a simplistic prescriptivist approach to language can be dangerous and even very harmful to one's self and to others. Let me explain. 

It is crucial to realise that languages are strongly tied with identity. People tend to accept those who speak like them, and they frown upon those who speak using a lower prestige language. As alluded earlier, speaking using 'broken grammar' or 'wrong' pronunciations risks someone viewing and treating you like an uneducated (and/or stupid) person whose points are not to be taken seriously. On the other hand, people may also see those who speak the language of the rich and educated (e.g. Queen's English), as arrogant, detached and out of touch elitists. This happens because people are just naturally tribalistic. 

People may also take cues from someone's use of language to mark them either as being part of the ingroup or outgroup. This social categorisation leads to exclusivity and otherness. In certain contexts, it can lead to racism, discrimination,  xenophobism, and loss of economic and social opportunities. In some instances, people can be singled out and punished if they do not speak the language of the powerful dominant ingroup. 

Political and social pressures that cause languages to lose popularity can also cause the extinction of culture and local knowledge. Children are told to learn English and Mandarin because these are more powerful than the language of their grandparents and ancestors. If a language shift were to occur, where later generations lose their ability to speak the tongue of their ancestors, cultures in stories, songs, idioms, metaphors, and even subtle yet significant local knowledge e.g. plant names, traditional medicines, can be forever lost. 

So, coming back to the title of this post ('why you should learn and speak 'less prestigious' languages')...

Having the ability to accommodate communicatively with different groups of people in different social situations enables one to navigate more easily in complex societies. Those who look down on 'less prestigious' languages fail to see the power of these languages in getting things done. 

Just imagine interacting with a fishmonger in a Chow Kit wet market in downtown Kuala Lumpur. Imagine speaking to them using Standard English. Now compare that with a colloquial English variety.

-"Dear sir/madam, could you kindly sell me a kilogramme of fish?" (Queen's English).  
-"Aunty/Uncle ah, this fish cheaper la, can or not? Aiyah, I always come back one la!"

Which style of interaction do you think will help you form bonds with the fishmonger, and to get you a better deal? 

Here is another scenario. Imagine you are an Indian politician entering a Hokkien community to make your presence known. And you want them to like you, so that they will vote you into office. Unlike your Indian competitor, you can speak Hokkien fluently. Who do you think the community is likely to support? The same principles apply with business pitching and sales. 

Now, do you see why our ideas of 'less prestigious' languages are actually flawed? 

Being fluent in all sorts of language systems also makes one realise that even the ones deemed as Bahasa Rojak or 'spoiled' language, may actually not be 'spoiled'. Rather, they may indicate creative expressions, especially if there is consistent application of language rules. Note that I'm not arguing that we should encourage disfluency. Neither am I saying that schools should embrace these 'less prestigious' languages in the classroom. 

What I'm saying instead is, there are a time and place where these 'less prestigious' languages can outshine the stereotypical notions of 'prestigious languages'. Educators should help students realise when both 'prestigious and non-prestigious languages' are appropriate, and according to what genre of interactions. Educators should not beat down 'less prestigious' languages, but realise their potentials. 

Long story short, learning and being competent in all variations of languages will actually open doors and empower the user in various aspects of life, compared to those who are only able to use the 'prestigous' variety.

tl:dr - learn to talk with people

keywords: prestigious languages, non-pretigious languages, diglossia, dialects, language policies, language education