The semiotics of language ideologies in Singapore1 (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Australian Journal of Anthropology, Special Issue on “Interlanguage Articulations in the Asia-Pacific: Figuring Sociocultural Otherness through Otherness of Linguistic Codes” (edited by Rupert Stasch and Alan Rumsey), 2012
In Singapore, government language policy promotes Mandarin as the official Chinese variety, while discouraging the use of other Chinese ‘dialects.’ This article examines Singaporean citizens’ comments in blogs and discussion forums about the value and relevance of these stigmatized languages. While these online discourses overtly contrast with state discourses in their positive evaluations of the non-Mandarin languages, both bodies of discourse presuppose a common ground of language ideology: namely that a language is an alienable commodity that can be actively manipulated and that possesses a specific value. The discourses also follow shared patterns of constructing sociolinguistic difference through semiotic processes of iconization, recursivity and erasure. My analysis distinguishes between the discourses’ implicit language-ideological presuppositions and their explicitly articulated linguistic-evaluative content, and traces their interrelation. The shared presuppositions are important for actors’ bids to enlist (different) normative sociolinguistic hierarchies in the service of projects of hegemonic nation-building, as well as for the purposes of politically subversive identity work.
AILA Review 22: 52-71, 2009
is paper considers the real mother tongues of Singapore, namely the Chinese 'dialects' and Singlish, the linguistic varieties which, respectively, arrived with the original immigrants to the rapidly developing British colony, and evolved in the dynamic multilingual ecology over the decades. Curiously these mother tongues have been regarded with fear and treated with loathing in the o cial language policies and accompanying prestige planning that have been developed and executed in Singapore since independence, being actively denigrated and discouraged in o cial discourse, viewed as not having a place in the globalization goals of the nation. Looking beyond the o cial line and census gures, actual linguistic practices of the community of speakers testify to the vitality of these varieties, in spite of the o cial sanctions; moreover, in spite of itself, the government does in fact allow itself the use of these mother tongues when certain contexts call for it. is paper suggests that an enlightened consideration of native 'dialects' and nativized Singlish and the plurilingual practices in which they are used, as well as of the question of intelligibility, must point policy makers in directions where fears are assuaged and spaces made for the natural existence and evolution of such varieties in multilingual ecologies.
CONSUMING IDENTITIES: LANGUAGE PLANNING AND POLICY IN SINGAPOREAN LATE MODERNITY
Language Policy , 2007
Much language planning and policy is formulated around notions such as ethnicity and nation and thus does not fit easily with the multilingual dynamics typical of late modern societies that are increasingly characterized by a culture of consumerism and class. Taking its point of departure in a critical analysis of contemporary language politics in Singapore, this paper suggests an alternative approach that takes the notion of sociolinguistic consumption as central, and explores how this may account for everyday language choice among multilingual Singaporean adolescents. The paper concludes by elaborating on the implications of such a framework for the teaching and learning of languages.
Multilingual Singapore: Language Policies and Linguistic Realities
Multilingual Singapore Language Policies and Linguistic Realities, 2021
This volume brings together researchers whose rich insights make for a comprehensive and upto-date account of Singapore's rich linguistic diversity. Applying a combination of empirical, theoretical, and descriptive approaches, the authors investigate not only official languages such as English, Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil, but also minority languages such as the Chinese vernaculars and South Asian and Austronesian languages. The chapters in this volume trace the historical development, contemporary status, and functions of these languages, as well as potential scenarios for the future. Exploring the tension between language policies and linguistic realities in Singapore, these contributions capture the shifting educational, political, and societal priorities over time. Ritu Jain is a lecturer at the Language and Communication Centre at Nanyang Technological University. Her research interests lie in the areas of language policy and planning, and language and identity. In her work, she has examined the role of language education policy in the maintenance and promotion of minority and heritage languages, and the implications this has for language maintenance and shift. She is currently exploring the interplay of language and identity among the Indian language communities of Singapore.
In Singapore, the constitution identifies four official languages: English, Malay, Mandarin Chinese and Tamil. These four languages also become the basis of the state’s bilingual policy, often christened the ‘English-knowing bilingual policy’ (Pakir 1994). Singapore has to struggle to be even-handed with its treatment of the official languages, although it also stresses the need to take on a pragmatic (as opposed to ideological) approach to problem-solving. In this paper, I examine the way names are represented in the linguistic landscape by considering signs put up by several agencies: in particular, street names, names of schools and public buildings, names of MRT (metro) stations and names of tourist attractions. The extent and kind of cross-linguistic representation in these signs are different. Some of this is the result of the difficulty surrounding the issue of the translatability of names and of whether names ‘belong’ to languages (Edelman 2009). Another issue is whether the language employs a writing system that is closely identified with the language itself. The fact that two of the official languages, English and Malay, share the same Latin script makes it difficult to distinguish between them. I see the resulting mixed treatment of names in the linguistic landscape as a result of the tension between ideology and pragmatism; it is also a result of when, during the swing between the two, the guidelines for signs in particular agencies were drawn up.
Language policies, language ideologies and local language practices
The Politics of English: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific, 2013
Discussing a number of examples of language practices in different Asian contexts from a job advertisement for English teachers in Vietnam, to injunctions to speak good English in Singapore, from mission statements on a Philippine convent wall, to an article about temple elephants in India this paper argues that it is not so much language as language ideology that is the object of language policy. While ostensibly dealing with the distribution and regulation of languages, language policies are generally about something else entirely, be it educational, ideological or cultural regulation. Local language practices, meanwhile, may appear to be subject to language policies, but since language policies are always about a different understanding of language, it is this understanding rather than the practices themselves, that are at stake. By insisting on the plannability of language, state authorities insist that a sterile and state-serving view of language is the language ideology we should adhere to. State language policies, therefore, have more to do with the regulation of language ideologies than with the regulation of local language practices, which, despite attempts to contain them, always exceed confinement.
Language Policy and Social Transf ormation in Contemporary Singapore
Asian Journal of Social Science, 1983
This essay will attempt to describe some salient interrelationships between ideology, language policy, and social transformation in present-day Singapore. It will focus on the role that language policy plays in transforming the communicative structure of society in ways which are consistent with and simultaneously instrumental in creating the conditions under which the dominant ideology, and the political goals and economic interests which underlie it, can be disseminated and legitimated within the social system. To provide a basis for understanding the nature and content of ideology and language policy in Singapore today, some of the implications of the People's Action .
English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation
World Englishes, 2010
Singapore is placed in the Outer Circle of the Kachru's Three Circles Model, and has over the years developed an English which is uniquely Singaporean. This paper argues that in order to understand the ways in which Singapore English is developing its own standards and ways of speaking, a new model needs to be developed that takes culture, capital and identity into consideration. This sociocultural perspective is one grounded in an understanding of the dualistic role of English in Singapore both as a global language and a local language. It is argued that this duality is consistent with the cultural identity of Singaporeans who negotiate fluidly between two divergent orientations -that of the global citizen and the local Singaporean. The paper explains how a culturally focused model which examines the identities of Singaporean speakers is able to provide a finer-grained and thus more explanatorily adequate account of Singapore English than previously proposed models, in particular, the diglossic analysis.
Singlish: an illegitimate conception in Singapore's language policies
Singapore, like many post-colonial states, longs for a common language to unite its linguistically heterogeneous population. Singlish, which comprises primarily elements of English, Malay, Hokkien, Mandarin-Chinese and Cantonese, is a language spoken by almost every Singaporean, and can be considered to be Singapore's common language. Unfortunately, this common language, Singlish, is also a language that the authorities are eager to get rid of. The Singaporean state holds the belief that Singlish is a corrupted and incorrect form of English, and is detrimental to the image and development of the nation. Singlish, has therefore, since 2000, been the subject of a large scale, state-run language campaign, the purpose of which is to delegitimise and eliminate this language. This paper traces the development of Singlish and argues that the birth of Singlish would not have been possible without the socio-political and historical factors that have created it. Applying, for the first time, Mufwene's (2001) theory of language ecology and evolution to the field of language planning and policy, I will show that Singlish is in fact an inevitable but unwelcomed conception of state language policies.