This paper examines how the alignment with the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) has fundamentally transformed English language practices in Malaysia, a postcolonial Global South nation characterised by its multi-ethnic population, emerging economy status, and complex linguistic landscape. As a nation straddling postcolonial legacies and global aspirations, Malaysia's experience with CEFR implementation offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by Global South countries in adopting international language frameworks. The introduction of standardised speaking and listening assessments, combined with modified approaches to reading and writing evaluation, has created new challenges for students in negotiating between international benchmarks and local linguistic realities. While CEFR offers a flexible and neutral framework for describing language proficiency, its application in Malaysia reveals tensions between global aspirations and local realities. Malaysia’s decision to align its English curriculum with CEFR reflects a broader desire to position itself within the global linguistic and economic market, but this alignment raises important questions about how international benchmarks interact with local forms of linguistic capital.

Building on Bourdieu’s theoretical tool of linguistic capital, this study introduces “English language capital” as a theoretical lens to explore how Malaysian students and teachers negotiate between CEFR-aligned standards and local linguistic hierarchies. In Malaysia, English holds a complex status: it is simultaneously a colonial legacy, a marker of socioeconomic mobility, and now a globally recognised competency benchmark. However, the European-made descriptors, while neutral in design, are often interpreted as part of a broader push for internationalisation, which can inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities among students from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. This paper details initial findings that is part of a larger investigation that also examines the perspectives of teachers and policymakers, but this paper concentrates on the student experience. Additionally, this paper acknowledges that English language capital represents one part of a broader application of Bourdieu's thinking tools, such as habitus and field. These tools will be expanded upon in the main research, leaving the door open for deeper exploration without overcomplicating the current discussion.

This research argues that the current Malaysian English language curriculum policies, while adopting CEFR descriptors as a benchmark for global competitiveness, have not adequately accounted for the nuanced ways in which English functions within Malaysia’s unique socio-linguistic landscape. Specifically, the emphasis on CEFR alignment risks privileging certain forms of English proficiency—often associated with urban, middle- and upper-class students—while marginalising those whose linguistic practices do not conform to these standards. For rural and working-class students, this creates additional barriers to accessing the benefits associated with English language capital. Through a comparative case study of rural and urban Malaysian schools, this research examines how students navigate the intersection of CEFR-aligned expectations and local linguistic capital. It explores how these negotiations are shaped by intersecting factors of ethnicity, social class, and geographical location. 

This research is particularly timely as more countries, outside of Europe, adopt this global language frameworks in their educational systems. The findings highlight the importance of moving beyond superficial alignment with international standards to address the deeper sociolinguistic challenges posed by postcolonial, multilingual educational settings. By examining the interplay between CEFR descriptors and local linguistic hierarchies, this study provides a critical perspective on how global benchmarks can be recontextualised to serve diverse educational landscapes without perpetuating existing inequities.

This study employs a qualitative comparative case study design to examine how CEFR standards intersect with local forms of English language capital in Malaysia. The research focuses on Form Four (age-16) English language classrooms across rural and urban settings in Northern Malaysia, a strategically chosen region that encompasses stark socioeconomic contrasts and remains understudied in educational research. The selection of Northern Malaysia addresses a significant gap in educational research, which has historically concentrated on central and southern regions, while providing valuable insights into how national language policies manifest across diverse socioeconomic landscapes. Data collection comprises three main components. First, classroom observations document how CEFR standards are implemented in daily teaching practices, capturing both teacher adaptations and student responses. Second, semi-structured interviews with 20 students explore their experiences with and perceptions of CEFR-aligned English language learning. These students were purposively selected to represent different ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographical backgrounds, ensuring diverse perspectives on how various social groups navigate CEFR requirements. Third, document analysis of curriculum materials, assessment guidelines, and policy documents provides insights into the formal frameworks governing CEFR implementation. The classroom serves as the primary unit of analysis, conceptualised as a space where global language standards meet local linguistic capital. This conceptualisation enables examination of how social factors such as class, ethnicity, gender, and location mediate the implementation of CEFR standards in Malaysian classrooms. Using Bourdieu's theoretical framework as an analytical lens, data analysis employs thematic analysis to identify patterns in how students and teachers navigate between CEFR requirements and local linguistic practices. This analytical approach examines how various forms of capital influence educational experiences and outcomes across these diverse settings, particularly focusing on how students from different backgrounds engage with and respond to CEFR-aligned curriculum requirements.

Preliminary analysis suggests several significant insights about the implementation of CEFR standards in postcolonial contexts. The study reveals tensions between global language frameworks and local forms of English language capital, particularly in how these intersect with existing social and educational inequalities. Initial findings indicate that students' engagement with ther new curriculum is significantly mediated by their access to various forms of English language capital, which is often shaped by their geographical location, social class, and ethnic background. The research is expected to make three key contributions to understanding CEFR implementation in Global South contexts. First, it will provide theoretical insights into how English language capital operates within CEFR-aligned educational systems, offering a framework for understanding the complex interplay between global standards and local linguistic practices. Second, it will illuminate how students from different social backgrounds navigate between standardised language requirements and their lived linguistic experiences, particularly in contexts where exposure to certain forms of English usage may be limited. Third, it will offer practical implications for policy development, suggesting how CEFR standards might be more effectively adapted to serve diverse educational landscapes without perpetuating existing inequities. These findings will contribute to both theoretical discussions in language policy studies and practical approaches to curriculum development in postcolonial, multilingual contexts. By examining how English language capital functions within CEFR-aligned systems, this research aims to inform more equitable approaches to language policy implementation, particularly in contexts where global frameworks intersect with local linguistic realities.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Byram, M., & Parmenter, L. (2012). The Common European Framework of Reference: The globalisation of language education policy. Multilingual Matters. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge University Press. Franz, J., & Teo, A. (2018). 'A2 is Normal' – Thai Secondary School English Teachers' Encounters with the CEFR. RELC Journal, 49(3), 322-338. Gill, S. K. (2014). Language policy challenges in multi-ethnic Malaysia. Springer Netherlands. Hashim, A. (2009). Not plain sailing: Malaysia's language choice in policy and education. AILA Review, 22(1), 36-51. Lee, H. G. (2007). Ethnic politics, national development and language policy in Malaysia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2007(186), 53-73. May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Nguyen, V. H., & Hamid, M. O. (2021). The CEFR as a national language policy in Vietnam: Insights from a sociogenetic analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 42(7), 652-666. Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Ridge, B. (2004). Bangsa Malaysia and recent Malaysian English language policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 5(4), 407-423. Street, B. V. (2014). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. Routledge. Tollefson, J. W., & Tsui, A. B. (Eds.). (2004). Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose agenda? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Watson, K. (2007). Language, education and ethnicity: Whose rights will prevail in an age of globalisation? International Journal of Educational Development, 27(3), 252-265. Yi, Y. (2019). Exploring writing pedagogy across contexts: Toward a glocal framework. TESOL Quarterly, 53(2), 447-471.