Balancing Macro- and Micro-Sociolinguistic Perspectives in Language Management

Abstract

The article shows how both macro-and micro-sociolinguistic perspectives are necessary to explain national language management. Macro-level language planning is motivated by tasks of national consolidation by the state, notably in Singapore's case tasks of socio-ethnic integration and economic development. Micro-level language management pertains to individuals' adjustments of language in discourse, including individual language acquisition and use in response to institutional and other changes brought about by the macro-level planning.Following a policy of pragmatic multilingualism, the state in Singapore intervenes proactively in language communication to support non-linguistic goals. This is illustrated by the language policy in education and mass communication. Further, this macro-level language management is made within a constraint of reliance on external norms, thus removing the government from the complications of evaluating particular features of discourse. This distance allows the government to keep people's attention on the longer-term goals of implementing internationally adequate English and Chinese (Mandarin) norms. Meanwhile, exoglossic norms are promoted as the gate-keeping devices for individual social mobility, while massive individual variation is tolerated among speakers.The two approaches to language management are complementary to each other. Since in Singapore relatively more has been done at the macro-level in language management, there is a need for linguists and sociolinguists, as well as language planners, to explore more microlevel issues, with a discoursal and interactional emphasis. A balanced application of the two approaches will contribute to the creation and management of Singapore's language resources and, in the long run, serve both individual growth and the objectives of nation-building. The Sociolinguistic SituationSingapore's population of approximately three million is ethnically heterogeneous, with about 77% Chinese, 15% Malay, 6% of Indian origins, and 2% of other ethnic definitions. Its language situation is richly diversified. The 1980 census lists 20 specific "dialect groups" under the above four major ethnic category labels. It is however important to note that the reference to dialect of

“Singlish”: Used and Abused

“…At the same time, such naïve policies and attitudes can serve to entrench linguistic prejudices. For example, policies that fail to acknowledge language change or that attribute privileged knowledge to a "native speaker" are inconsistent with the fact that local varieties of English (CSE and SSE) have taken root in Singapore (see Kuo & Jernudd 1994, and also the editorial overview in Gopinathan et al 1998). The local varieties are necessarily different from other varieties of English, and the local speakers are the native speakers.…”

Language Shift in the Teochew Community in Singapore: A Family Domain Analysis

“…As well as successfully transforming people's attitudes towards Mandarin and English as the language of wider communication, the Singaporean Government has made continued efforts to eradicate the use of 'dialects' in both public and domestic domains. Apart from associating them with under-development and under-achievement, the government has presented 'dialects' as a key fragmenting factor which would damage the Chinese population as a whole and lead to social and ethnic conflicts (see also Kuo & Jernudd, 1994). It is now widely accepted that Mandarin should be the language of the Singaporean Chinese.…”

Language Planning as a Discourse on Language and Society

“…It is at the level of everyday language practice that historical forces become visible, and that the real-life relevance of language and communication can be assessed (cf. also Kuo and Jernudd 1993). Some very insightful contributions in the structure of the politics of multilingualism and the sensitivities people display with regard to language and identity have been made by scholars working on apparently peripherally relevant topics such as codeswitching (see Woolard 1989;Heller 1994).…”