Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

LANGUAGE IN INDIA
Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow
Volume 10 : 12 December 2010
ISSN 1930-2940

Managing Editor: M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.
Editors: B. Mallikarjun, Ph.D.
Sam Mohanlal, Ph.D.
B. A. Sharada, Ph.D.
A. R. Fatihi, Ph.D.
Lakhan Gusain, Ph.D.
K. Karunakaran, Ph.D.
Jennifer Marie Bayer, Ph.D.
S. M. Ravichandran, Ph.D.

G. Baskaran, Ph.D.




Contents List

 Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies ...
Tania Rahman, M.A.






1-27

 Listening, an Art? ...
Arun K. Behera, M.A., PGDTE, DDE, PGDJ, AMSPI, Ph.D., PDF

28-32

 Bilingual Persons with Mild Dementia - Spectrum of Cognitive Linguistic Functions ...
Deepa M.S., Ph.D. Candidate and Shyamala K. Chengappa, Ph.D.
33-48

 How does Washback Work on the EFL Syllabus and Curriculum? -
A Case Study at the HSC Level in Bangladesh ... M. Maniruzzaman, M.A., M. Phil., Ph.D. and
M. Enamul Hoque, M.A., M. Phil., Ph.D.



49-88

 Impact of Participative Management on Employee Job Satisfaction and Performance in
Pakistan ... Saeed ul Hassan Chishti, Ph.D., Maryam Rafiq, M.B.A., Fazalur Rahman, M.Phil.,
M.Sc., M.Ed., Nabi Bux Jumani, Ph.D. and Muhammad Ajmal, Ph.D.
89-101

 Homeless in One's Own Home - An Analysis of Arundhati Roy's The God of Small Things and
Lakshmi Kannan's Going Home ... Pauline Das, Ph.D.


102-106

 Formative Influences on Sir Salman Rushdie ... Prabha Parmar, Ph.D. 107-116

 Role of Science Education Projects for the Qualitative Improvement of Science Teachers at the
Secondary Level in Pakistan ... Ghazala Shaheen, Ph.D., Sajid Rehman, Ph.D., Aijaz Ahmed
Gujjar, Naeemullah Bajwa, Ph.D. and Muhamamd Ramzan, Ph.D.
117-128
Language in India www.languageinindia.com

i
10 : 12 December 2010
Contents List

---

 Perception of Phoneme Contrast in Children with Hearing Impairment in Telugu ...
S. Raja, M. Sc. (Audiology & Speech Language Pathology), S. B. Rathna Kumar, M. Sc. (Speech
& Hearing), Ph.D. (Applied Linguistics) Scholar, S. G. R. Prakash, M. Sc. (Speech & Hearing),
Ph.D. (Applied Linguistics), and B. Madhu Sudarshan Reddy, B. Sc. (Audiology & Speech
Language Pathology) Student





129-145

 Motivation: Extrinsic and Intrinsic ...
B. Reena, M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D. Candidate and Rosalia H. Bonjour, Ph.D.
146-153

 Speech and Language Characteristics of Monozygotic Twins - A Case Study ...
Rhea Mariam Korah, M.Sc. Student, Prasad, J. M.Sc. Student & N. Sreedevi, Ph.D. 154-166

 Language Shift among the Tribal Languages of India - A Case Study in Bihar ... Richa, Ph.D.
167-189
 Interrogative Structures and Their Responses as Speech Initiators and Fluency Booster for
Second Language Learners ... K. Sathya Sai, Ph.D. and G. Baskaran, Ph.D.
190-196

 English as a Second Language Learning Strategies and Teachability ... Muhammad Saeed
Akhtar, Ph.D. and Muhammad Shaban Rafi, M.Phil.



197-203

 Identifying an Unknown Language Bahai in and around Kanpur Area ...
Md. Sohel Rana, Ph.D.






204-226

 Character Analysis of Andrews in Graham Greene's The Man Within ...
Sresha Yadav, Ph.D. Scholar and Smita Jha, Ph.D.



227-233

 Shangshak Tangkhul and Pushing Tangkhul Numerals - A Comparative Presentation ...
Th. Lakhipriya Devi, Ph.D. Candidate





234-242

 A Review of A Course in Academic Writing by Professor Renu Gupta ...
G. Baskaran, Ph.D. and M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.



243-248

 Web-Based Training in Gaining Proficiency in English Language ...
A. Selvalakshmi, M. A., M.Phil., B.Ed., Ph.D.




249-253

 A PRINT VERSION OF ALL THE PAPERS OF DECEMBER, 2010 ISSUE IN BOOK FORMAT.
This document is better viewed if you open it online and then save it in your computer. After
saving it in your computer, you can easily read all the pages from the saved document.
1-253

Language in India www.languageinindia.com

ii
10 : 12 December 2010
Contents List

---

LANGUAGE IN INDIA
Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow
Volume 10 : 12 December 2010
ISSN 1930-2940

Managing Editor: M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D.
Editors: B. Mallikarjun, Ph.D.
Sam Mohanlal, Ph.D.
B. A. Sharada, Ph.D.
A. R. Fatihi, Ph.D.
Lakhan Gusain, Ph.D.
K. Karunakaran, Ph.D.
Jennifer Marie Bayer, Ph.D.
S. M. Ravichandran, Ph.D.
G. Baskaran, Ph.D.


Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

Tania Rahman, M.A.


Abstract

This paper is based on an investigation of the standard - colloquial debate among the four
official languages, English, Mandarin, Tamil and Malay in Singapore. The aim of the
study is to examine (1) major steps/movements in the history of Singaporean language
policies that have been influential in forwarding the debate in the country and (2) how
this debate has been reflected in the country‘s educational policymaking.

Expanding on Gupta‘s (1989, 1994, 2001) ―diglossia model‖, the study examines the
diglossic ―H‖ - ―L‖ relationships among the languages to understand the standard –
colloquial issue in the country.

The outcomes of this study reveal that (1) the standard - colloquial debate can be
extended beyond the ―Singlish‖ - Singapore Standard English (SSE) question to the other
three official languages, and (2) the Singapore government‘s drive for standard language
usage marks significant shift in language use and attitudes of the speakers towards the
vernacular languages in the country.

Keywords: varieties of language, standard and colloquial varieties, diglossia, ―H‖ and
―L‖ varieties, language policy, Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) or ―Singlish‖,
Language in India www.languageinindia.com
1

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---

Singapore Standard English (SSE), Literary Tamil (LT), Spoken Tamil (ST), Sebutan
Baku (SB) and Johor-Riau system of pronunciation.

Introduction

The debate between the standard and the colloquial varieties of language is age-old and
the promotion of the standard variety is still debated in many parts of the world today. An
interesting case is the language situation in Singapore where the standard – colloquial
debate concerns multiple languages and their speakers.

Standard English is treated as the ―High‖ (H) language in all communications and the
local variety of English known as ―Singlish‖ is considered as the ―Low‖ (L) variety as
reflected in government statements.

Mandarin is considered to be the second prestigious language among the majority
Chinese community members whereas other Chinese dialects such as Hokkien,
Teochiew, Hakka, Cantonese are regarded as the ―Low‖ varieties to be spoken in
informal situations like marketplace and home.

Tamil, the language chosen as a majority Indian language in the country, is also marked
by the standard – colloquial distinction between Literary Tamil (LT) and Spoken Tamil
(ST).

The H – L distinction is also present in the use of Malay language in Singapore, as it
varies according to Sebutan Baku (SB) or standard Bahasa Melayu and Johor – Riau
varieties of Malay pronunciation.

Language Policies in Singapore

The language policies since independence of the country, particularly in the education
sector, have been influential in engendering the current debate on the use of standard and
colloquial varieties of languages in the country.

In Singapore, the spoken variants such as the Chinese dialects (Hokkien, Hakka,
Teochew, Cantonese), spoken Tamil, and other languages are considered as ―Low‖
varieties as proficiency in these varieties is neither recognized by the government nor the
general public (Rubdy, 2007), despite being favored by the young generation students
(Lee, 1983 and Pakir, 1997), because of the official use of ―exonormic‖ Mandarin, RP
English, Literary Tamil, and standard Bahasa Melayu (Schiffman, 1997). In fact the
Singaporean education system regards these vernaculars as a ―problem‖ that needs to be
eradicated, rather than a ―resource‖ (Schiffman, 1997; Rubdy, 2007).

The Goal of This Paper

Language in India www.languageinindia.com
2

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---

The present paper aims to examine how the language policies in the country have
reinforced the debate between the standard varieties of the four official languages in the
country - English, Mandarin, Tamil and Malay and the vernaculars, i.e., the mother
tongues of different communities. In search of an answer to this question, the paper
explores the major policy attempts undertaken by the Singapore government regarding
language use in the country since independence. The focus will be on the domain of
education as it has been a crucial implementation tool for the government to materialize
the language policies for bringing significant changes in language use in the country.

In discussing the language policies of the country, background information on the
country‘s ethnolinguistic situation is explored which reveals the complex nature of the
multilingual and multiethnic nation.

For analyzing the standard – colloquial debate in the Singaporean context, I have
examined Gupta‘s (1989, 1994, 2001) diglossic model and found that the H – L
relationship between the standard and colloquial varieties of English in Singapore,
recognized now respectively as Singapore Standard English (SSE) and Singapore
Colloquial English (SCE) or Singlish, are also evident in the other three official
languages – Mandarin, Tamil and Malay. In order to discuss the standard – colloquial
situation in Singapore, it is important to understand what exactly the term ―standard‖
signify which is discussed below.
The Standard - Colloquial Debate in Language
The question of what makes a particular variety of a language the standard variety is
problematic. The ―standard variety‖ is defined as ―the historically legitimated,
panregional, oral and written language form of the social middle or upper class‖ and also
―subject to extensive normalization (especially in the realm of grammar, pronunciation,
and spelling)‖ (Bussmann, 1996, p. 451 cited in Grzega, 2000). Usually it is characterized
as
 ―written variety‖ (Grzega, 2000),
 ―codified‖ (Dittmar, 1997; Huesmann, 1998),
 ―supraregional‖ (Dittmar, 1997; Huesmann, 1998; Grzega, 2000),
 ―preferred in institutional contexts and official situations‖
(Grzega, 2000),
 ―of overt prestige‖ (Huesmann, 1998),
 ―taught in school, and hardly occurring in everyday speech in its
idealized form‖ (Dittmar, 1997, p. 201; also in Grzega, 2000).
Huesmann (1998, p. 34) mentions some ―additional empirical features‖ of standard
varieties which characterize them as -
 ―group-specific‖,
 ―prescriptive‖,
Language in India www.languageinindia.com
3

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---

 ―multifunctional‖,
 ―used in written language‖
Unlike Huesmann (1998), Grzega (2000) identifies two sorts of standard varieties: ―(a) a
formal one - codified, prescribed by recognized authorities, relatively homogeneous, used
in public situations (particularly monologs) – and (b) an informal one - more subjective,
more flexible, part of a standard-nonstandard continuum, basically used in private
dialogs, all in all: a pluralistic concept‖.
On Defining Standard English

Keeping these definitions and characteristics of the standard variety in mind, it is not easy
to agree on the norm or norms that should apply to define varieties such as Standard
English. For example, Hansen, Carls & Lucko (1996, p. 28) distinguish between ―an
official standard variety‖, a variety that is ―orientated toward one of the two main norms
of English (English English or American English)‖ and ―an inofficial standard variety‖
which has potentially more national features.
Trudgill (1999) considers Standard English as a ―dialect‖ rather than a ―language‖,
―accent‖, ―style‖, ―register‖ or ―a set of prescriptive rules‖ defining it as ―simply one
variety of English among many‖ or ―a sub-variety of English‖. Biber, et al. (1999, p. 18),
however, further classify between ―standard‖ English, ―standard English‖, and ―standard
spoken English‖ according to their uses in written and spoken ―registers‖:
For written registers, we adopt an implicit, descriptive approach to characterize
‗standard‘ English, in that we describe the grammatical forms and patterns
actually used in published texts (as opposed to prescribing explicitly the forms
that should be used in ‗standard English‘). [...] we define standard spoken English
as including grammatical characteristics shared widely across dialects, excluding
those variants restricted to local or limited social/regional varieties.
Prescriptivist Attitude
In Singapore, the attitude of policymakers, like decision-makers in many parts of the
world, have been more or less ―prescriptivist‖ on the use of non-standard varieties such
as Singaporean Colloquial English (SCE) or ―Singlish‖, a ―contact variety‖ (Gupta,
1998), which is regarded as detrimental to the development of English proficiency among
the general public, particularly in the education sector and hence branded as ―bad
English‖. Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore‘s former Prime Minister, once commented:
I think it‘s important that you know the English language because it is the
international language, and you speak it in the standard form.

Language in India www.languageinindia.com
4

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---

Do not speak Singlish! If you do, you are the loser. Only foreign
academics like to write about it. You have to live with it. And your
interlocutors, when they hear you, their ears go askew. You detract from
the message that you‘re sending.

I don‘t have to speak with an English upper-class accent. But I speak in a
way which makes it easy for them to understand me and, therefore, they
are not distracted by my background.

(Lee Kuan Yew, speech to National University of Singapore students, 29 July 1994,
quoted in The Sunday Times, July 31 1994)

Hansen, Carls & Lucko (1996) and Lee Kuan Yew (1994) appear to be more
―prescriptive‖ in emphasizing standardized norms or rules and, in this way, by declining
existing non-standard varieties, they tend to brand non-standard forms as ―inferior‖.
Trudgill (1999) and Biber et al. (1999), on the other hand, are more ―descriptive‖ as they
focus more on describing and presenting language varieties considering language use in-
context than just dwelling on the standardized norms.

The prescriptivist attitude of the Singaporean government has been instrumental in the
rising debate concerning the diglossic ―High‖ (H) - ―Low‖ (L) relationships between
standard and non-standard varieties in the country.

Singapore Situation

It is, therefore, significant to examine the language situation in Singapore in the light of
diglossic relationships of languages in the country. In order to do so, it is first significant
to define diglossia and its features which are discussed below. The discussion is followed
by an examination of the language and language policy situation in Singapore revealing
diglossic relationships between the standard - non-standard varieties of different
languages in the country.

Diglossia

Propounded by Ferguson (1959), the concept of diglossia refers to ―a situation where two
languages or language varieties occur side by side in a community, and each has a clear
range of functions‖ (Deterding 1998, p. 18). The varieties are namely: the ―High‖ variety
or the ―H‖ variety and the ―Low‖ variety or the ―L‖ variety.

The H-variety is recognized as the ―standard‖ variety for use in formal or ―official‖
situations, such as public media (both print and electronic), education, law and religious
services. On the other hand, the situations for the use of the L-variety are generally
―informal‖, e.g. shopping and exchanges between family and friends.

Language in India www.languageinindia.com
5

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---

The ―archetypal‖ examples of diglossia include language situations in the Arabic, Swiss –
German and Tamil communities (Ferguson, 1959; Deterding, 1998) where a sharp
distinction between standard and colloquial varieties is maintained in the use of standard
varieties such as classical Arabic, Standard German and Literary Tamil in formal
situations, e.g., classrooms, literature and news media, limiting the colloquial or non-
standard in informal interactions such as exchanges among family members and friends.

As Deterding (1998) explains, a sense of ―high prestige‖ is attached to proficiency in
using the H-variety, even if everyone does not possess ―sufficient‖ education to attain
that level of proficiency (p. 18). Despite such high prestige, H-variety might seem ―quite
absurd‖ if it is used in informal situations like ―at home‖ or ―when chatting with close
friends‖ instead of the L-variety (p. 18).
Although Ferguson‘s (1959) H – L distinction entails a clear separation between the
―circumstances‖, linguistic features and proficiency in the use of the varieties, Fasold
(1984) questioned the ―strict separation between the two varieties‖ (Deterding 1998, p.
19) by predicting a possible continuum between the H and L varieties in the ―archetypal‖
diglossic Arabic and Tamil societies.
Such continua are significant to consider in multilingual societies such as Singapore
where it would be a fallacy to draw a strict line between the ―H‖ and ―L‖ varieties of
languages in the country. Fishman‘s (1967) concept of ―extended diglossia‖ is significant
in relation to the language situation in Singapore as here a number of ―genetically
unrelated‖ languages manifest the H – L functions, some being used in formal situations
such as pedagogical, administrative, religious or other similar ―prestigious domains‖
(Schiffman, 1997) and the others being used in informal contexts such as in the home
domain.
Extending the Concept of Diglossia to Singapore Situation

The article aims at discussing how the concept of diglossia can be extended and applied
to analyze the language situation in Singapore in search of ways in which the use of the
L-variety can be tolerated in educational institutions. For this purpose, the functions of
different languages and their varieties and dialects including the agents and instruments
emphasizing the standard variety over the non-standard ones in Singapore are identified.
As bilingualism is a crucial aspect in Singaporean language policies, a distinction
between languages, their varieties and dialects is maintained throughout the discussion in
the paper in light of bilingualism to understand the diglossic relationships of languages,
dialects and varieties in the country.

Bilingualism and Diglossia in Singapore

Language in India www.languageinindia.com
6

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---

With a population of more than 4.5 million (4,657,542 according to the CIA World
Factbook, July 2009 est.), Singapore is a multilingual and multiethnic state in Southeast
Asia. The country‘s demography comprises of 75.6% Chinese, 13.6% Malays, 8.7%
Indians and 2.1% of ―Others‖ (2005 General Household Survey, Singapore Department
of Statistics).

The Chinese in Singapore are a ―diverse‖ community comprising sub-groups such as
Hokkien (43.1%), Teochew (22.1%), Cantonese (16.4%), Hakka (7.4%), Hainanese
(7.1%) and ―smaller communities‖ of Foochow, Henghua, Shanghainese and Hokchia
(David, Cavallaro and Colluzi, 2009, p. 165 - 166).

Another ethno-linguistically ―diverse‖ community comprises the Indians including
speech communities such as Tamils (63.9%), Malayalees (8.6%), Punjabis (6.7%) and
other ―smaller Indian linguistic communities‖ like the Bengali, Urdu, Sindhi, and
Gujerati (p. 166).

The Malays are a more ―homogenous‖ group than either the Chinese or the Indians in
Singapore despite being the ―descendents of various ethnic groups such as Boyanese,
Bugis or Javanese‖ (p. 168) comprising 13.6% of the total population in the country.

According to the Ethnologue report (2009), around 21 languages are spoken in Singapore
(Lewis, 2009) of which four languages have the status of official languages – English,
Mandarin, Malay and Tamil. Table 1 shows the distribution of different ethnic
communities and the languages spoken at home in Singapore (in percentage), according
to the 2005 General Household Survey:


Table 1: Major ethnic communities and their language usage at home in Singapore
(2005)
Ethnic communities
(%) of total Languages
Language Language
Population
use
at use
at
home
home
(2000)
(2005)
Chinese
75.6%
English
23.9%
28.7%




Hokkien (43.1%)
0.33%
Mandarin
47.2%
45.1%

Teochew (22.1%)
0.17%



Cantonese (16.4%)
0.12%
Dialects
30.7%
23.9%
Hakka (7.4%)
0.056%
Hainanese (7.1%)
0.054%


English
7.9%
13%
Malay
13.6%



Malay
91.6%
86.8%
Indians
8.7%
English
35.6%
39%
Language in India www.languageinindia.com
7

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---

Tamils (63.9%)
0.56%



Malayalees (8.6%)
0.007%
Malay
11.6%
10.6%



Punjabis (6.7%)
0.006%
Tamil
42.9%
36.8%

Source: 2005 General Household Survey, Singapore Department of Statistics

The term ―bilingualism‖ in Singapore refers to language skills in English and ―one other,
usually the child‘s proscribed ―mother tongue‖‖ (Pakir, 1999, p. 342). English has been
treated in Singapore as the ―non-ethnic and thus neutral official language‖ which in the
post-independence era has become the ―de facto dominant working language‖ in the
country (Kuo, 1983, 1999). It is treated as the ―high language for all formal official
functions‖ and ―the only language taught in all schools at all levels‖ (Kuo, 1983, 1999).
Mandarin has been selected as the lingua franca among the Chinese communities in
Singapore. Malay is the national language of Singapore with only some ―ceremonial
functions‖ limited to the national anthem and military commands (Rappa and Wee, 2006,
p. 82). Tamil, a language spoken by a major portion of the Indian population in
Singapore, has been selected as the major Indian language representing the Indian
communities in Singapore.
Historically and sociolinguistically, Singapore has had a multilingual and diglossic
language system. During the British rule, Singaporeans used to communicate either in
Bazaar Malay, a form of ―pidginized‖ Malay (Gupta, 1998), or in ―simplified‖ Hokkien
(used among the Chinese community), in the marketplace. English was used by the
colonial government for administrative purposes. Mandarin, generally used in formal
occasions as Chinese national holiday celebrations and marriage ceremonies and also
related to the rise of Chinese nationalism, was considered as prestigious, hence the
―High‖ variety among the Chinese community members, and so Chinese schools were
founded in large numbers at the beginning of the last century to teach in the variety. In
other words, Bazaar Malay and Hokkien were deemed as the street/market languages i.e.
the ―Low‖ varieties whereas English and Mandarin were regarded as the ―High‖
varieties, or the languages of education, administration, and formal celebrations. Other
tongues such as Cantonese, Teochew, Tamil, or Punjabi apart from the ―High‖ languages
were regarded as the language of the home and similar speech group assemblage.
Since the 1990s, English has been in use not only as the ―High‖ variety used in formal
situations but also as a ―Low‖ variant in its ―Singlish‖ form used in streets, marketplaces
and also at home replacing Bazaar Malay and market Hokkien. Today Mandarin,
Standard Malay and Literary Tamil (LT) enjoy the official status in Singaporean
language policy with the prestige of standard languages for the three major communities
in the country.

Standard versus Colloquial Debate in Singapore
Language in India www.languageinindia.com
8

10 : 12 December 2010
Tania Rahman, M.A.
Colloquial versus Standard in Singaporean Language Policies

---