Singapore
English: Learning and Use
Language
Acquisition and Development, Christine C. M Goh & Rita Elaine
Silver
[ Introduction ]
Singapore English (Singlish) is one of several international
varieties of English that have evolved through a process of
colonization, contact and localization. These new varieties of English may
have a unique place in the local society, but their growth and use
are sometimes considered to be problematic by those who encourage
English language learning for commercial and political
purposes. An 'international standard' of English is
important for the latter purposes (as opposed to the use for
communication within family, for example). However, it's difficult
to determine what an international standard might be.
This chapter looks at Singapore
English, the local variety that has grown and developed over the
years, how it is learned and used within Singaporean society. The
chapter will be more of a 'peek' than a 'look' because we cannot
hope to cover all that has been learned about developing varieties
of English or even about Singapore English. Instead, this chapter
will cover basic issues that are of most immediate interest to
English language teachers in local schools.
The chapter will address three
broad questions which are related to sociolinguistic issues:
1.
Where does Singapore English come from?
2.
What are some of its most basic features?
3.
Who uses Singapore Colloquial English, when and where?
Based on the information from these two questions, we will also
briefly consider two questions that are more psycholinguistic and
pedagogical:
4.
What is the impact of this development
(historical and descriptive) on individual English language
learning in Singapore?
5.
What does this mean for English language classroom
teaching?
[ Historical Background ]
Colonization by the British is a well-known feature of Singapore's
history. In colonizing Singapore, the British established English
as a language of government, commerce and education. It also became
a language with status as those who knew English were able to rise
to more lucrative and powerful positions in society. However,
English was not used in isolation. Singapore has always been a
multilingual society with many of its residents using multiple
language varieties in their daily lives. In the 1960s and 1970s, a
Singapore or Malaysia Chinese might have spoken three or four
language varieties to varying degrees of proficiency. Other
languages might have been used as well. English may or may not have
been one of the most proficient varieties for an
individual. It
usually includes the native Chinese dialect, the dominant Chinese
dialect, one or more additional Chinese dialects, Bahasa Pasar. It
may include English, Baba Malay, Bahasa Malaysia/Malay, Mandarin (
- typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean or Malaysian Chinese,
1980).
The national education system,
established after Singapore became an independent nation in 1965,
has changed the language mix that Singaporeans know and use in
their daily lives. It usually includes English,
Mandarin, the native Chinese 'dialect'. It may include another
Chinese dialect, a foreign language (Japanese, French), Malay (-
typical verbal repertoire of a Singaporean Chinese Undergraduate,
1990). However, the educational system has also consistently
promoted bilingualism through instruction in English and one of the
other national languages (i.e., Mandarin, Malay, Tamil). This sort
of bilingualism, with English as one of the key languages, is
common enough internationally to have its own name,
"English-knowing bilingualism" (Kachru, 1982a, p. 42).
As English in Singapore came in
contact with other, local languages, it was influenced by the
features of those other languages. Not all change is due to contact
with other languages, however. There is historical change in every
language as well as adaptation to new circumstances, new ideas and
new cultural patterns. A common example nowadays is applying
general-use terms to specific meanings related to computers (e.g.,
memory, mouse, surf, web) and the use of specialized computer terms
as part of everyday speech to accompany the everyday use of
computers (download, e- [e-mail, e-commerce, etc.]). If a person in
Singapore, Hong Kong or Malaysia said they spent the evening
'surfing', most of us would imagine the person sitting at a
computer, not at the ocean with a surfboard. Thus, it is not
surprising that localised varieties of English have taken on
features, especially the adoption of lexical items, which are
relevant to the local context.
[ Features of Singapore English ]
What, then, are some of the common linguistic features of English
in Singapore? It's difficult to address this topic by pure
description without reference to other Englishes. This also leads
to questions about our assumptions. If we compare Singapore English
(SE) with British English (BE) based on BE being an older variety,
are we claiming that British English is better or highlighting ways
in which SE doesn't measure up? This goes against basic linguistic
principles which presuppose that all language varieties are equal
in the sense that all languages complex systems making use of
language form, semantics, phonology and pragmatics;, all are
rule-governed systems and all have communicative value.
Equally problematic, a comparison
of SE with BE assumes that BE is a monolithic linguistic code, when
we know that it has a great deal of variety (e.g. Cockney English,
Received Pronunciation [RP], etc.). In fact, there are two problems
here: determining a
standard and determining a
norm (Kachru, 1982b). Determining a standard as well as
determining similarity to or deviation from that standard, has to
do with prescriptive ideas about language: what is right, what is
proper. However, determining a norm has to do with description:
establishing what is accepted, common practice within a specific
context. Knowledge of SE norms is still developing with current
research projects including, for example, The NIE Corpus of Spoken
Singapore English (Deterding & Low, 2001) and the Grammar of
Singapore English Corpus (Lim, Fong, Ni & Wee, n.d.).
With reference to standards, two
forms of SE are commonly referred to:Singapore Standard
English (StdE) and Singapore Colloquial
English (SCE). StdE is a 'high variety' of English which,
in this chapter, is intended to indicate that it is the more
formal, more educated variety. (See Chapter 17.) It is very similar
to other standard forms of English (Gupta, 1986). SCE, on the other
hand, can be distinguished between StdE and SCE especially in
syntax and morphology. Both of them may share a similar
'Singaporean' phonology which is somewhat different to other
standard Englishes. both make use of some localized lexical items,
including borrowings from other local languages.
We will describe features of StdE
and SCE following major categories described by Gupta (1991, 1994).
As she notes, "These are not the only differences between the two
varieties, but are analytically straightforward salient features"
(1994, p. 9). As such, they are perhaps readily identifiable to
language teachers in EL classrooms. Gupta's classification relies
on describing each variety, StdE and SCE in its own right, so the
comparison is not completely balanced.
[ Language Form ]
Gupta (1994) describes two features of SCE and two of StdE that are
related to syntax. Other forms relate to morphology. As you will
see in the discussion, it is not easy to completely separate some
of the syntactic and morphological patterns because they influence
each other.
Syntax
Question forms with inversion are part of StdE syntax. These can be
used with yes/no questions, wh-questions and questions with two
verbs. In SCE, only two verbs are commonly used with inversion,
'be' and 'can'. In addition, fronting is possible with all wh-words
in StdE. However, the rules for SCE questions with fronting are
more complex: 'why' and 'how' are always fronted; 'what', 'where'
and 'who' are sometimes, but not always, fronted, and, 'which' and
'how many' are normally not fronted (see Gupta, 1994, for detailed
discussion).
As we saw in Chapter 3, there is a
developmental sequence for question forms in English, including
stages for fronting and inversion. Although Gupta does find a
developmental sequence for question forms ('interrogatives' in her
terms) in SCE, this sequence is somewhat different to the sequence
normally found for English first language children and the one for
L2 English learners, as summarized in Table 3.3 (Chapter 3). The
acquisition of wh-words ('what', 'why', etc.) is similar
cross-linguistically for children and Gupta reports that it is
similar in SCE for the four children she studied.
However, the acquisition of word
order and question forms is more complex. As noted above, there are
some similiarities to and differences from StdE, at least partially
because other features of SCE interact with question forms. One
feature of SCE is verbless and subjectless sentences. If it is
possible to understand the grammatical subject of the sentence from
the context, it is not necessary to state it. In Example 1, you can
see that when the grammatical subject is necessary for
comprehension ('mummy' and 'papa') the child includes them.
However, when the grammatical subject is understood from the
context ('then [I] no eat loh'), it is omitted.
Example 1 Subjectless sentences in context
A: Have you eaten sushi before?
C: No
A: Why?
C: Mummy no buy, then no eat loh. Papa also no buy.
Likewise, verbs are not always necessary, especially copula 'be'.
In addition, 'ing' forms can be used as the finite verb (e.g.,
"Today I going swimming.').
If we take this information
together, we can see that SCE learners cannot use inversion in some
cases. Clearly, you cannot invert the grammatical-subject and the
verb to form a question if the sentence does not use a grammatical
subject (e.g., 'Why got it?'). However, we also saw in Example 1
that even with a grammatical subject, SCE speakers sometimes do not
invert (e.g., 'Why he don't want?'). Likewise, SCE speakers are
unlikely to use complex questions that make use of relative clauses
with wh-words because SCE constructs relative clauses
differently.
Another feature of StdE syntax is
the use of complex verb groups including modal auxiliaries other
than 'can' (which is also used in SCE), auxiliary 'do' and 'have'
(e.g., 'why do you keep on opening and closing the door?' or
'Listen, C., I don't want you to spend hours watching the VCDs.').
This is unusual in SCE. Finally, SCE can form conditional and
temporal clauses without subordinating conjunctions 'if' or 'when'
(see example 2).
Example 2
C is a Singaporean pre school child. She is speaking with an
adult.
A: What are you doing?
C: I put table, people can sit.
A: How to 'sit'?
C: Put here, people come to sit, you know.
Morphology
We've seen several broad categories of differences in StdE and SCE
syntax, what about morphology? In this area too, we find some
differences. StdE uses inflectional morphology more than SCE. In
StdE, morphemes for third person singular 's' and past tense are
used. This is not required in SCE. StdE also uses noun inflections
to mark plurals and possessives; this is generally done with
pronouns in SCE but not with nouns.
As we saw in Chapter 6, morphemes
are commonly used to track English development of first language
children. However, SCE does not require inflectional morphology in
some case. As with the developmental sequences related to syntax,
we cannot assume that morphological models such as Brown's (1973)
exactly fit Singaporean children who grow up with SCE as their
first language. Therefore, development sequences for English from
other contexts must be applied carefully when teaching Singaporean
children. Developmental sequences from research on children in
contexts such as the US and the UK may indicate broad trends for
comparison with Singaporean children. However, we cannot expect a
perfect match. Stage of English development, developing biligualism
(with interactions between the two languages) and access to SCE all
influence normal development in English for Singaporean children.
Again this indicates, as stated elsewhere in this book, that some
knowledge of the child's home language background may be useful to
classroom teachers.
Semantics
It is difficult to talk about sematic differences in SCE and StdE
because vocabulary is very similar. If we speak about SE, however,
there are clearly some special vocabulary items that relate to the
local context. Some of these vocabulary item refer to cultural
aspect of Singapore ('hawker centre', 'void deck'); others are loan
words from other local languages ('karang guni', 'kiasu'). In some
cases we even find both: 'Maggie mee' is borrowed from the name of
the company and includes the loan item 'mee' from Hokkien. There
are also a few new creations, or coinages, such as 'Singlish' and
'handphone'. All of these phenomena for creating vocabulary words
are common in other languages and especially in other varieties of
English. As Strevens points out, "English" is inherently a
borrowing and an Anglicizing language" (1992, p. 31). All forms of
English make use of borrowing, loans and coinages.
In some cases, the same words are
used in different English varietis but with different meanings.
With the examples above, of vocabulary items that reflect local
contexts, it would be possible to explain the word meanings.
However, when two individuals use the same word with two meaning,
the situation is potentially more confusing. The American author of
this book recalls being surprised the first time a student reported
that her homework was 'spoilt'. It was possible from the context to
understand that there was some sort of problem, but 'spoilt' for
the American conjured up images of going bad due to natural
processes (such as spoilt food). Undoubtedly the student did not
mean that her homework became bad due to natural processes!
One feature of SE that is noticed
by all who come for even a short stay is the heavy use of acronyms
as part of everyday speech. All highways, many companies and
schools, all government departments are referred to by their
acronyms. It may be that in many cases individuals are not certain
what the acronyms mean. Acronyms are not uncommon in other forms of
English, so again, this is a difference of degree rather than an
absolute distinction.
Phonology
According to Gupta (1994), the phonology of SCE and StdE are not
distinctly different. However, observation will show that there is
a wide variety in the phonology of Singaporeans speaking English
(e.g., Poedjosoedarmo, 2000). We cannot deal with all of that
variety here. Suffice to say that there is phonological variation
in all language varieties. There are not only the well-known
differences such as British English as compared with American
English as compared with Singaporean English, but also variations
within British English and withing American English. (See Chapter
17.) Therefore, variation within Singaporean English is not
surprising.
If we compare SE with BE or
American English, we find differences in vowels and consonants
(especially vowels), stress and rhythm and intonation. Extended
discussion of this topic can be found in Brown, Deterding and Low
(2000) and an overview can found in Brown & Low (2003). Only a
few details are noted here.
Long vowels tend to be shorter in
SE than in BE (Brown & Low, 2003), so some word pairs may not
be as distinctly different in SE. For example, 'bit' /bIt/ and
'beat' /bit/ may sound very similar. Vowel length interacts with
voiced consonants in at the end of words. In some words, like
'leak' and 'league', the final consonant is slightly different in
BE. This slight difference may be characterized as voiced or voiceless but
Brown and Low point out that the real difference is the influence
on the vowel: the /k/ sound of 'leak' makes the
vowel sound shorter. In BE, the /g/ sound of 'league' would make
the vowel longer; however, in SE, it may also sound like a short
vowel. With the shortened vowel, the distinction between the two
words is lost.
Stress and rhythm is another area
of difference if we compare SE and BE. In Chapter 9, we discussed
literacy development and the role of morphophemics. One part of
that is learning the changing stress patterns for some word
families. For example, exPLAIN becomes explaNAtion. However, this
sort of change in stress does not always occur in SE. For example,
'academy' may be similar in both SE and BE: aCAdemy. However,
'academic' shows a difference between the two:
a. SE aCAdemic
b. BE acaDEmic
In BE, the stress shifts, but in SE it does not (Deterding &
Poedjosoedarmo, 1998).
Goh (2000) has investigated the
use of intonation in discourse in SE. Her findings showed that
prominence is often given to the final word of a 'tone unit'. Tone
units are "perceptible phonological chunks in continuous speech"
(p. 36, based on Brazil, 1997). This is especially true for the
last unit of a stretch of speech, for example: //your
adVICE// is
absoLUTEly SOUND// (p. 37). In this case,
the speaker gives prominence to 'advice' and to 'sound'. Generally,
prominence is assigned to new information. However, Goh notes that
in SE, "...it is sometimes difficult to determine whether assigning
prominence is motivated by the speakers' intent to present matter
as new or for other reasons, such as to reiterate a point or to
signal the end of an utterance" (p. 38).
Goh (2000) makes two other
observations. SE makes use of level tones, rising tones, and
falling tones - as do other forms of English. However, SE seem to
have a high frequency of level tones. This is also true of
Malaysian English. Goh notes that this may be due to the influence
of Chinese. In addition, SE tends not to use a fall-rise tone
(common in BE). Instead SE tends to use a rising intonation
pattern. For example: //(rising)WHAT KIND of//
(rising)WRIting SYStem// (rising)do we USE//
(rising)when we WRITE ENGlish// (Goh, 2000, p.
41)
These uses of intonation and tone
patterns might create comprehension problems for non-Singaporean
English-speakers. Goh presents four possible problems due to SE
discourse intonation patterns (p. 43). Two are summarized
here:
- If speakers believe that prominence highlights new information;
the use of prominence when information is not new might be
confusing.
- Also, the frequent use of rising tone by give the impression that
the speaker is trying to dominate the conversation.
Pragmatics
Perhaps one of the most noticeable features of SE is the use of
pragmatic particles (Example 3). Gupta (1994) classifies these
according to assertiveness with some, such as 'ah', being the least
assertive, and others, such as 'lah', being more assertive. Two
particles, 'mah' and 'what' can be used to indicate
contradiction.
Example 3
K: Everyday hor after I eat my lunch at recess at school . . . I
finish already huh . . . I go to the drink stall and buy the 30
cents guava.
S: 30 cents guava . . . fruit is it?
M: How big is the guava?
L: Very small lah. Like that. Like that lah. (shows with her
hands)
S: You eat every day is it?
K: Yes. Not every day.
S: So healthy huh?
Many Singaporeans would claim that
whenever these pragmatic particles are used, the speaker is using
SCE. However, it is not always easy to draw a line between SCE and
StdE. 'Lah' for example, is sometimes used even in relatively
formal lecture settings. In addition, it is often combined in
sentences that might be considered StdE based on language form
(Example 4) or within conversations that have relatively standard
forms elsewhere (Example 5).
Example 4
A boy reiterating a point in a story with a fish as the main
character:
Child: Everyone has one scale lah
Example 5
A young adult (A) conversing with a child (C):
Adult: Then why didn't you ask your brother to go to class?
Child: He don't want.
Adult: Why he don't want? You are the jie jie (elder sister) right?
Jie Jie should ask him to go to class lor so that he can know about
maths mah? Correct or not?
It is interesting to note that up
to this point in the conversation, the adult in Example 5 had used
mostly StdE forms. However, after this exchange she continued to
use for SCE forms for several exchanges, going back to using more
StdE forms when she introduced a new topic to the child. Thus we
see code-switching (refer to Chapter 4) between StdE and SCE as
well as between languages (English and Mandarin, for example). It
is difficult to categorically state that a Singaporean is an 'SCE
speaker' or an 'StdE speaker'. It is common for individiauls to
switch depending on the topic, who they are speaking with,
etc.
This brings us to the question of
who uses StdE or SCE, when and where. That will be discussed in the
next section. First, let's review some of the features that
distinguish StdE and SCE. Bear in mind as you look that these are
generalizations about StdE and SCE. The lines between the two are
not absolute; instead they are somewhat fluid.
[ Language Use ]
In the last section, we noted that individuals might shift from
StdE to SCE (or vice versa) depending on the topic, the person they
are speaking with, the situation, etc. In other words, there are
many variable that can influence the use of SCE if a person knows
both varieties. This section considers some of the research on who
uses SCE, and which variables might influence the use of StdE or
SCE. To discuss this point, we must also consider who uses English
in Singapore. Several factors come into play in identifying SE
speakers: ethnicity, education and social class, religion and
age.
Ethnicity
Overall, the number of people who use English at home is increasing
in Singapore. However, there is some variation by ethnic group.
Indians are the most likely to use English at home; almost 50% of
the Indian population claim to use English as a home language. This
is followed by the Chinese, about 16% say they use English at home.
Among the Malays, home use of English is much lower, less than 10%.
Although people report using more English at home, this doesn't
mean that they don't use other languages as well.
Chinese (1990 - 23.3%) (2000 - 35.8%)
Malay (1990 - 8.3%) (2000 - 9.4%)
Indian (1990 - 39.6%) (2000 - 43.6%)
[Increase in
Home Use of English by Ethnic Group]
Education and
Social Class
Education is a very important factor in who uses English. Not
surprisingly, since higher education (i.e. university instruction)
in Singapore is conducted in English, those who have higher
education are more likely to use English, even at home. Since
higher education usually translated into more professional jobs and
higher income, there is a close connection between more education
and higher social class. There is, in turn, a link between social
class and English use: higher social class tends to be an indicator
of English use at home (Gupta, 1994, p. 29).
Religion
Religion and ethnicity tend to overlap in Singapore, and there are
close connections with language choice. Muslims generally come from
Malay, Indian or Arab ethnicities and tend to speak Malay. Arabic
is known by very few. Among the Chinese, there is both linguistic
and religious diversity. The most common religious affiliations
among the Chinese are Buddhist, Confucian and Taoist with an
increasing number of 'free thinkers' who profess no religious
affiliation. However, Christians tend to speak English (Clammer,
1980). Religion also tends to overlap with education.
Age
Above and beyong all the factors mentioned above, the younger a
person is, the more likely he/she speaks English in Singapore. In
addition, those in the younger, educated segment of the population
are more likely to be literate in English. They might also be
biliterate in English plus one other official language.
However, Gupta (1994) asserts that
the English used at home is most likely SCE rather than StdE. She
suggests that even when parents speak StdE, the language they use
with children is SCE and thus SCE is the first language of these
Singaporean children. StdE is generally not the language of the
home in her view, but of the school.
StdE, SCE and
Diglossia
Gupta (1991) finds that users of SCE and StdE can be described
as diglossic. (See
Chapter 17). From the discussion above, you can see that there are
differences in language form but vocabulary and phonology are
largely shared. An important question is whether StdE and SCE are
distinct in their use. Turning again to Gupta, she states:
the H variety can be described as a Standard English, which is to
be used in writing, is the medium of formal education, and is used
in formal situations, ...the L variety ...is the normal language to
use with children (outside of an educational setting), is the
language of the home, and the language of informal interactions (p.
124)
The lines between formal and
informal are blurry, however. When a teacher speaks to a child at
school in the playground, is that a situation of formal or informal
use? Anecdotally, some primary teachers report that in this
situation, they would be more likely to use SCE, even though they
are teachers. On the opposite side of the coin, parents helping
children with homework are more likely to use StdE (Gupta, 1991,
1994). Thus, there does seem to be a separation is uses.
In addition, there may well be a
distinction depending on conversational participants. Speaking to a
non-Singaporean, would you be more likely to use SCE or StdE?
Issues of identity and community membership come into play as well
because SCE is also used to establish personal identity and group
rapport.
[ SCE and Singaporean Identity ]
From the discussions in Chapter 4 and 13, you know that language is
not simply a matter of language form, semantics, etc. Language is
also part of our identity and part of how we present ourselves to
the world. Over the past few years, the Singaporean government has
encouraged Singaporeans to speak more 'standard' English for the
sake of international intelligibility. The purpose of English
learning is considered to be communication across national and
ethnic lines, especially for economic development and international
trade (see Silver, 2002, for discussion). While many Singaporeans
seem to agree with this, there are some who feel that SCE is the
true language of Singapore.
For example, in letters written to
the editor of the Straits Times, readers said:
Seriously, what is wrong with Singlish? We must understand that
every language is unique in its own way....In fact, I see quite a
number of good reasons for using Singlish. One reason is that it
forges a national identity. Freddie Sng Lai Yong, Nov 16,
1998
Part of the cultural evolution here in Singapore is the pervasive
use of Singlish among Singaporeans. This has been a feature of life
since I was a student here before we gained independence. With the
development of local theatre and television productions, Singlish
has been brought to life more obviously than before....Somehow,
"don't pray, pray" and "blur" seems to say it all. People feel
understood. They are not alienated. Bonding is enhanced. Anthony
Yeo, September 7, 1999
Two points are noteworthy about
these comments. The first is that the writers refer to the power of
Singlish (SCE) as a marker of Singaporean identity and of community
bonding. The other is that all of the writers are readers of the
newspaper and clearly able to use StdE for writing. Thus, we can
speculate that they are proficient in both StdE and SCE. Being able
to use both H and L varieties is obviously advantageous. However,
as one government official has said:
Will we then write our own school and university textbooks in
Singlish? Will Singlish help you to write a business proposal? Will
mNCs [multi-national corporations], banks or even local companies
prefer to hire you if you speak Singlish instead of Standard
English? (Lee H. L., April 5, 2001)
This raises a question about those
who are not proficient in both varieties.
[ Standard English, SCE and Proficiency ]
While Gupta has discussed StdE and SCE in terms of diglossia,
others have taken different approaches. One approach explicitly
considers the implications of different contexts for use of
StdE/SCE and for different levels of proficiency. Pakir (1991) has
described these variables or use of StdE/SCE in terms of embedded
triangles. In her analysis, StdE (what she labels as 'SSE') forms
the apex of the triangles. Speakers at this point are 'advanced' in
proficiency (the right side of that triangle) and adept at using
StdE in the 'formal' style. Beyond that, the model assumes that
those who are adept at using the formal style are also able to use
the styles below it (careful, casual, etc.).
The model implies that those who
speak StdE (SSE) have access to the greatest variety of styles
(from the most formal to the most intimate) while those who speak
only SCE have the least access to the different styles, as well as
lower overall proficiency. If so, this would be disadvantageous to
those who speak only SCE. Other models have been proposed to take
into account SCE speakers with limited SCE (e.g. Poedjosoedarmo,
1995) and ethnic differences (Deterding & Poedjosoedarmo,
2000). However, our purpose here is not to critique all sides of
this mode, but to highlight that proficiency is not based solely on
language knowledge (the right side of the triangles); it is also
based on ability to use that knowledge appropriately in different
situations (the left side of the triangles).
This might remind you of
Bialystock's model for bilingualism (Chapter 4) because in that
model Bialystock also tries to account for different dimensions of
knowledge. However, her dimensions are largely psycholinguistics.
Pakir's model (1991) includes sociolinguistic considerations of
language use.
It is also worth noting that this
model has some similarities with an international assessment
standard for English oral proficiency, the American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) Oral Proficiency Test. Models
of proficiency used for setting standards in that test refer to a
cone-like proficiency - an inversion of the triangle. Speech styles
(called 'language functions' in their terminology), contexts (e.g.,
topics related to abstract ideas, professional interests, immediate
personal matters, etc.) and accuracy of language form are taken
into account (Omaggio, 1986). These different models of proficiency
share three principles:
- proficiency includes language use as well as knowledge about
language
- proficiency varies according to different contexts and
situations
- gains in proficiency are not strictly linear (growing
vertically); they also expand (gaining dimension).
[ SCE and Learning 'Standard English' ]
How is it that some Singaporeans become proficient in StdE while
others do not? Consider the environments for use of StdE and SCE in
Singapore.
child/home (with peer - SCE) (with adult - SCE) (with teacher - not
applicable)
child/lower primary (with peer - SCE) (with adult - SCE) (with
teacher - SCE/StdE)
adolescent/secondary (with peer - SCE) (with adult - StdE?) (with
teacher - StdE)
young adult/university (with peer - SCE) (with adult - StdE) (with
teacher - StdE)
[ Environments for Use:
StdE and SCE ]
If SCE is the language of home and
childhood and StdE is the language of higher education and
professions, schools (especially primary and secondary schools)
must provide the facilitating environment for the development of
StdE. This is the stance taken by government policies and by
teachers in the local schools.
While government policy and school
curricula are aligned in terms of teaching 'standard' English as a
goal, the problem of defining a 'standard' remains. Insisting on
instruction of BE could be construed as a sort of continuing
colonialism. It would also ignore current influences of American
English through international business and the proliferation of
American media. Above, we have referred to StdE and provided a very
brief overview of some features that distinguish StdE from SCE from
a linguistic point of view. However, decisions about the standard
to teach in schools are based on policy decisions and public
opinion rather than linguistic analysis.
The Singapore Ministry of
Education in creating a new English syllabus for primary and
secondary teaching has referred to "internationally acceptable
English" as the goal. The new syllabus states, " 'Internationally
acceptable English that is grammatical, fluent and appropriate for
purpose, audience, context and culture' refers to the formal
register of English used in different parts of the world, that is,
standard English" (2001, p. 3). Although the definition is somewhat
circular, the intention is clear:
- children should learn both language form and language use
- children must learn a formal variety of English.
It would seem that the form of
StdE described by Gupta (1994) and modelled by Pakir (1991) would
meet the goals for the most part, especially in terms of language
form. Semantics, phonology, and pragmatics would also have to be
addressed.
[ Conclusion ]
As we saw in the chapters on language development in primary and
secondary school, children and adolescents continue their
linguistic development throughout those years. The new environments
of school provide new environments for using language. Many of
these new environments require formal English, thus providing an
excellent context for learning a formal variety. Instruction can
facilitate acquisition of that variety.
The learning of a formal variety
is not necessarily speedy. As with other language learning, it is
developmental and requires time. In addition, it is subject to all
of the conditions and constraints that have been discussed in this
book so far: normal developmental; individual differences; home
environment for language and literacy; other languages that the
child knows; other languages in the environment; cognitive
processing; language socialization.