Attitudes towards non‐standard English in Singapore¹

Abstract

This paper examines the problem of a curriculum which promotes a standard linguistic variety in a context where non-standardisms are common in the learners' milieu. There have been curricula which try to incorporate the non-standard and have its function discussed; some have considered the nonstandard a stepping-stone towards the standard; and yet others have tried to keep the non-standard out of the school context. We examine the Singaporean context with reference to English in the classroom, where the last option seems to be the implicit one. We focus in particular on the views of 260 upper secondary pupils in five non-elite schools, elicited through survey questionnaires. The results show that there is clear appreciation of the value of Standard English; it is, however, also clear that that the non-standard, Singlish, plays an important social role in the community; and we suggest that it might be possible to harness the non-standard in a curriculum that promotes the standard. STANDARD ENGLISH AND THE EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTCommenting on the National Curriculum (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland), 2 the well-known British linguist David Crystal expresses much optimism:In the 1990s I thought we were entering an era where a more flexible attitude to language was becoming routine. I could sense it in the way the new National Curriculum was reintroducing formal language study into schools, but with an emphasis on explanation rather than prescription. Grammar was back, but now kids were being asked to explain grammatical variations, not to blindly condemn them. For the first time in English linguistic history, there was hope of a rapprochement between the study of the standard language, which is so important for promoting universal intelligibility, and the study of non-standard language, which is so important for promoting local identity. (Crystal 2006: 142-3) He sees this in contrast to the school system (and the associated exams) of his own time, which would not countenance any variation to the prescribed standard. Clearly, the school curriculum has moved on in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Whilst the curriculum clearly stresses the importance of Standard English, it also calls for an appreciation of variation. The programme of study calls for students to be taught about how language varies, including . . . the vocabulary and grammar of standard English and dialectal variation; the development of English, including changes over time, borrowings from other languages, origins of words, and the impact of electronic communication on written language. (National Curriculum Online: English, key stage 4; emphasis original) This represents a solution to the problem of how schools can provide training in Standard English in a context where pupils encounter non-standard varieties around them. The

Colloquial features in Word Englishes

“…In the Philippines, while English is somewhat less pluristylistic (the local vernacular, Filipino, being more common in intimate contexts), a large percentage of the population nevertheless claims speaking or writing ability in English. Despite complaints about poor English standards (Thompson 2003), many Filipinosespecially of the younger generation -express positive attitudes towards PhilE and regard it as contributing to their sense of Filipino identity (Borlongan 2009). …”

Singapore Colloquial English: Issues of prestige and identity

“…Being able to identify the guise as a friend or family member would, of course, eliminate any contextual ambiguity, locating the guise interaction squarely in the private domain. In their MG study with Singaporean junior high school participants, Tan and Tan (: 475), in contrast, led their participants to envision guise interactions taking place in the public domain through questionnaire items asking questions like: ‘Do you feel it is appropriate for a Maths teacher to speak like this person?’ For future MG studies investigating SCE/SSE attitudes among Singaporeans, researchers should take into account the ideal of rigid private/public domain boundaries being maintained, and design their studies accordingly.…”

“…Use of SCE with mathematics teachers, for example, was deemed far more acceptable than with English teachers. Observing that the participants ‘seem to want to carve out a space for Singlish in some finely calibrated contexts’, Tan and Tan (: 477) concluded that their responses ‘clearly indicate that there are occasions when some Singlish is appropriate, as well as occasions when it is not’.…”

Hong Kong English and the professional world

“…A case in point is Singapore, which Schneider (2007: 155−61) claims has entered phase four (endonormative stabilisation) of his Dynamic Model of the evolution of postcolonial Englishes, indicating (in Schneider's view), the broad acceptance and approval of the local form of English. Notwithstanding such progress, the emergence of a distinctive nativised variety has been deprecated by the island's establishment (Bokhorst‐Heng 2005; Wee 2005; Rubdy 2007; Tan and Tan 2008; Cavallaro and Ng 2009), who, in an effort to countervail the apparently deleterious influence of Colloquial Singapore English (or Singlish), initiated the Speak Good English Movement in 2000 to encourage Singaporeans to speak a more standard, internationally intelligible form of the language (Rubdy 2001).…”