ABSTRACT:Language attitude studies have shown that the majority language and its speakers tend to be rated positively along status, intelligence, and power dimensions ('Educated', 'Successful', 'Intelligent'), while the minority variety and its speakers elicit positive responses in the solidarity semantic category ('Friendly', 'Honest', 'Responsible'). This study examines subjective reaction to Singapore Standard English (SSE) and Singapore Colloquial English (SCE), widely known as 'Singlish', using the matched guise technique. Though SCE has been widely reported to be a strong solidarity marker for Singaporeans, no systematic study has been carried out to attest this observation. In this study, 75 Singaporeans and 19 non-Singaporeans listened to a recorded speech sample in SCE and another in SSE and were asked to rate the 'speakers' on a series of semantic traits. The results conformed to widely reported trends of other matched guise studies showing clustering of responses along dimensions of status and solidarity. However, unlike previous studies in other contexts, which tend to show increased solidarity ratings with non-standard varieties, the data from this present study points to a different trend. Contrary to expectations, SCE was rated lower in solidarity traits compared to SSE. This raises questions about the widely perceived role of SCE as a high solidarity language. The discussion evaluates the attitudes of world Englishes in other contexts and seeks to explain the discrepancy in the findings by drawing on the unique and intense language awareness campaigns Singaporeans have been subjected to since independence.

No abstract

Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) or ‘Singlish’ is a variety very distinct from Singapore Standardised English (SSE), and its use is a polarising issue in Singaporean society. In stark contrast to the results of most language attitude studies in which non‐standardised varieties are rated positively along solidarity dimensions, participants of matched‐guise studies investigating Singaporean attitudes toward SCE have assigned lower solidarity ratings for SCE than for SSE. This is in stark contrast to anecdotal and public opinion that SCE is a language of solidarity and identity for most Singaporeans. By including participants from non‐tertiary sectors and a wider range of stimulus guises as well as supplementing matched‐guise results with interview data, this study seeks to reveal the covert prestige that SCE does, in fact, appear to enjoy in Singaporean society. While the matched‐guise results of this study largely conform to previous findings, the interview data suggest that many participants were basing their ratings on perceptions of SCE use in the public domain rather than the private domain. The study has implications for the extent to which we can extrapolate results from matched‐guise studies, a widely used instrument for the study of language attitudes in the last 50 years.

Numerous studies have shown that some speech accommodation in interactions with the elderly can aid communication. Overaccommodaters, however, employing such features as high pitch, exaggerated prosody, and child-like forms of address, often demean, infantilize, and patronize elderly interlocutors rather than facilitate comprehension. According to the Communicative Predicament of Aging model, communication practices are determined by stereotypes of aging that are triggered in the minds of those interacting with the elderly. These stereotypes vary from culture to culture, and in Singapore, negative stereotypes of aging are prevalent, existing alongside traditional Confucian-influenced positive stereotypes. To date, no studies have examined whether or how stereotypes of aging might be manifested in interactions between younger and older Singaporeans. This investigation involved participant observation in a Singapore eldercare facility. Overaccommodation was indeed found to be employed by carers and varied qualitatively depending on the physical and cognitive abilities of the elderly, with healthy elderly addressed as one one might address school-aged children and those with dementia addressed as infants. These results provide some initial insights into an issue that is of extremely relevant to Singaporean society, given the city state's rapidly aging population.

No abstract