1. Chapter 3, English in Singapore

Pakir begins with complexity of English and its situation in S.

• English is vital: possesses a living community of speakers, and is working lg. of the community.
• English is variable: It can not be stable or uniform, since it varies between 1st and 2nd lg. for many people, who are multilingual.
• English is volatile: its status and the status of English-educated can be devisive, esp. for non-English educated, or those whose E. is weak. Is a perennial subject of scrutiny

This paper focuses only on one aspect: question of norms and codification.

Trends of English Use in Singapore

English can only be spreading in Singapore, acquiring more speakers/users. Statistics show rising use, literacy, use as home language. Following trend of World Englishes: emergence of E. as the lg. of the New World Order. But trend also continues for Singporeans to be bilingual, with English as the cornerstone of the biling. policy, as its common and official language. People are urged to maintain their mother tongues, (ethnic mother tongues: Chinese, Malay, Tamil).

All these languages have linguistic centers of native speakers outside Singapore: Singaporeans accept established exonormative standards for these official lgs. without question, and without practicing these norms themselves. In other words, S'poreans accept the norms, but don't use them.

There are also endonormative patterns, esp. for English, but these norms are not well-defined. (I.e. there is a norm for S. English, for S. Chinese, for S. Malay, for S. Tamil, which the various communities accept and recognize as being theirs, but without being able to define them.) Pakir (1991) has shown this using the model of the expanding triangles.



Expanding triangles of English expression by English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore: (Source: Pakir 1991:144)

Norms and Standards of English in Singapore

Possibility of codifying a Singapore variety, with competing norms to Old varieties. Who should set standards? Who should decide on perameters to use? These are theoretical, attitudinal, and pedagogical questions.

New Varieties Vs. Old Varieties

Quirk-Kachru controversy regarding issues of and attitudes to English serves as benchmark.

Kachru's

1. Englishes of the Inner Circle (ENL/English as a Native Language) vs.
2. Englishes of the Outer Circle (ESL/English as a Second Language) vs.
3. Englishes of the Expanding Circles (EFL/English as a Foreign Language)

Quirk does occasionally refer to the expanding circles, but doesn't make a distinction between ESL and EFL. Kachru is pro liberation linguistics but Quirk is more concerned with standards in international English which he feels the Inner Circle must define.

Kachru places Singapore in the Outer Circle along with India and various other ex-colonial places. In this outer circle, English is

• continually expanding,
• serving wider and deeper functions;
• writers use it as comfortably as their mother tongue;
• used increasingly for intranational communication
• offers additional code in the multlingual's verbal repertoire
• English has become rooted and indigenized.
• The traditional English canon can no longer prevail.

Quirk has three demographic models; Model B is assigned to Singapore (along with India,Switzerland, Nigeria, US). Model A countries (Japan etc.) achieve nationhood through a single language, so Singapore doesn't fit. Model C countries are political separate by share a language (Arabic in Morocco etc., Putonghua/Mandarin in China etc.).. Model B countries must accept the established canons of Model A countries, says Quirk, because they are using the languages of Model A countries. Model C countries have to accept the home norm, too.

But others disagree: some Model B countries (Belgium and Singapore) have up til now accepted Model A canon, but are beginning to rethink this. Older, larger Model B (e.g. US) has rejected Model A canon and established its own, which is recognized as a competing standard. Does this mean that it is just a matter of time before this happens for Australia, Singapore, etc.?

Theoretical Problems

What legitimates a new variety?

1. Labels and Definitions

Commitment to English in S. has led to evolution of linguistic and literary norms which have not been carefully examined. But growing acceptance of new variety: Singapore English/Singlish, or Singaporean English/SingE, or English of educated Singaporeans; or ESgE, or CSE.

Much has been said about these without defining them well; is the colloquial E. of educated Singaporeans the same as the CSE of uneducated? Who defines these terms?

2. Establishment of existence of new variety

When does a new variety of English come into existence? Who decides? Is it only a performance variety (Kachru 1986) or is it also institutionalized variety? Kachru says it is the latter if granted legal/official status somewhere. This is the case in S.

Quirk says: non-native varieties cannot/should not be institutionalized; all learners of English should be given a standard lg., not a non-standard. Quirk says these can't be institutionalized because they are just performance varieties (Quirk 1981). People can recognize the ethnicity of the users by their English. Acc. to him, only British and American English are institutionalized (all others: NZ, Australian, S. African, Yorkshire, Canadian, etc. are not).

Kachru: English is pluricentric: so there are differing norms all around, different centers of linguistic gravity. Polymodel of proficiency means that various models are sanctioned in the area: English, American, Australian, Singaporean are all allowed in S, even tho the exonormic model (British) is officially (or implicitly) sanctioned. D'Souza says (1990) that "there is one English, but many varieties."

1. Framework of analysis for new variety

   If one believes a NVE exists, what framework of anlysis to use? ..Gupta says we can view this in three ways:

   1. SE is imperfectly learned SE, its features are errors
   2. SE is not deficient, but different;
   3. SE is a dialect of English, best understood in its own terms.

   This means we must analyze it as its own system (Mohanan 1992). But we will also find that its shares many similarities with British and American standards, and it will vary in the direction of those more prestigeful varieties. We must also see it as a multi-layered system, i.e. as a diglossia (Gupta). No variety is monolithic.

2. Norms, Standards, Codification

If/when we begin to look at it as a dialect of English, then we must face questions of which norms to look at, which standards to demand, how to codify.

Codification: the act, process, or result of arranging in a systematic form or code the system of linguistic rules shared by people in their acts of communication.

Codification is not easy for any grammarian or dictionary-maker, cf. Samuel Johnson 1878.

Standards: "confirming in pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary to the usage of most educated native speakers and widely considered acceptable or correct." (Random House Webster's College Dictionary 1991).

For many people, Standard English is

"The English language in its most widely accepted form, as written and spoken by educated people in both formal and informal contexts having universal currency while incorporating regional differences."

How do we arrive at this: Bartsch talks about

• acceptance and adoption of norms of language
• the agents and authorities involved
• the beneficiaries and victims of norms
• conflict between diff. norms
• classification and codification of norms.

And he points out that people adjust their practice to a certain extent and to the extent of their ability, to the situation.

How can competing standards develop? Bartsch discusses the ways competing standards may attempt to unseat the previous standards, but also the difficulties of this. Competing standards have to have a tradition in order to compete with an existing standard, esp. if the existing standard is not too difficult for the majority of the population, or if they can coexist with it passively (can understand it enough to do their job etc.) and are not required to control it perfectly.

Questions for the Language Planner, the Literary Critic, and the Teacher:

Language planners have to confront certain issues: In Singapore, they tend to want to have only one variety, and have that be the so-called existing standard. The problems confronting them of expanding functions, which should bring along democratization of usage, bothers the planner. If the language expands into the

• imaginative/innovative,
• the interpersonal,
• the informative,
• the representative,

there will also develop sub-varieties, just as in Britain and US. This cannot be prevented in Singapore, but S. being an authoritarian state, attempts will and are made. Language planners frown on the dialect/sub-standard, colloquial. Quirk et al. think that by keeping up standards, we increase freedom. Long live British/American standards!

Questions for the Literary Critic.

Discussion here about literary standards; Singapore writers increasingly using Singlish/CSE in the colloquial parts of their writing, as do American/British/Tamil etc. writers. Why should this be a problem? Should they gloss the things that are Singaporean? Will they cut out some of their audience if they do? Writing is not authentic if language is not, especially in conveying emotional contexts. Code-switching, code-shifting is natural in S; should be natural in writing.

Questions for the Teacher

Teachers are notoriously conservative in their attitude toward teaching language. They feel they must uphold standards, and the one(s) they know is/are the one they were taught. If they allow deviations, which deviations should they allow?

Classroom use:

• Allow students to speak CSE, but not write it?
• Allow it in early grades, gradually discontinue?
• Error correction: immediately correct, or correct subtly?
• Teachers often speak CSE themselves; can this be modified and kept compartmentalized?
• Difference between performance errors (student knows the answer but makes an error of performance) and competence error (student really doesn't know how to do it): teach teachers to recognize this?
• Are all standards rigidly fixed? Are teachers consistent? Do they sometimes allow flexibility?
• Is rigid correction stifling of creativity and innovation?
• What is the pedagogical model in use?

Attitudinal Issues

What attitudes exist among teachers, students, parents, others in Singapore? How shall we know what these attitudes are, how to evaluate them. There may be ambivalence about varieties, about use, about standards.

People use language for different purposes:

• Solidarity is important; use of CSE may imply solidarity; non-use implies lack of solidarity, power-mongering, arrogance
• Status may be important; may depend on the setting, the interlocutors, their educational level; their ethnicity.
• Use of one or another variety may imply social attractiveness;

This may be true of accent; what about non-standard grammatical features, or syntax? Lexical items borrowed from other languages. What is the meaning of the sentence

Aiyoh! Lecture very cheem, what?

Something may be lost to Singaporeans if they cannot use sentences like this; it has special meaning for them that other varieties or dialects would not convey.

Possible Approaches to Codification.

How about a 3-point model:

1. Singapore Standard English: for international purposes; outward orientation, instrumental; both spoken and written; formal, esp. formal lexis.
2. Singapore Dialect English: for intranational purposes; inward orientation, integrative; spoken only, but written in dialogues of novels etc., and for humor (Ra-Ra Show)
3. Singapore X-ized English: indianized, sinicizied, malayanized; for stigmatization. spoken only, slangy, stereotyped, unwritten but may appear in media.

Pakir says start codifying 1 and 2, leave 3 alone. (I say, why codify 2? Leave it alone).

Conclusion.

Need for more attitude study; need to recognize that Singapore is a Small Young Country (SYC); needs English but uses it often internationally (part of the whole plan!). Users of English in Singapore should be surveyed about attitudes, desires, wants. Polymodel approach rather than monomodel; need for a pedagogical model that also treats teachers gently. As users grow, control of exonormic arbiter will diminish.

---

last modified 4/11/05