Here is a sample essay
– one which is considered an excellent and fluent response to the issue at
hand. The student was able to pick up
the key issues for this essay: intelligibility and identity and relate
these issues to the Singapore situation. The student included a good range of
readings (including some from web sources) as well as individual insight. The
essay is a little longer than expected and some of the ideas could have been
expressed in a more concise manner.
‘The need for intelligibility and the need
for identity often pull people – and countries – in opposing directions. The
former motivates the learning of an international language, with English as the
first choice in most cases; the latter motivates the promotion of ethnic
language and culture’ (David Crystal, 1997).
Discuss the relevance of
this statement with reference to the current move in Singapore to promote the
standard variety vis-à-vis Colloquial Singapore English.
Language
planning policies in Singapore have often been characterised by the ‘desire to
achieve a balance between the national pride of linguistic ownership and the
need for international intelligibility’ (Khoo 1993: 67). This is evident, for
instance, in the state’s current move to promote the use of Standard English
(particularly the variety known as Standard Singaporean English, or SSE) and to
discourage that variety known as Colloquial Singapore English (CSE, or Singlish
as it is popularly known), although in this case, the state’s ‘desire to
achieve a balance’ between intelligibility and identity appears to be one
involving conflict rather than compromise – one in which these two principles
(embodied by SSE and CSE respectively) appear to be opposing linguistic forces,
and in which the former appears to be espoused and the latter (at least in the
case of CSE, though not that of the ethnic ‘mother tongues’) denigrated. This
essay will study whether (and if so, why) these two principles are truly
opposed to each other, as seemingly implied by both the David Crystal quotation
and the English language policy in Singapore, and in what way the application
of these principles may result (as stated in the Crystal quotation) in the
‘pulling apart’ of people and countries, especially in the sense of
socio-economic inequality and marginalisation on both international and
intra-national levels; and all these will in turn be related to the present-day
situation in Singapore.
At first sight, the need for
identity and intelligibility appear to be irreconcilable on a linguistic level,
the former requiring the adherence to a dominant language variety (such as
Standard English) as well as its set of linguistic norms in order for speakers
to maintain mutual comprehension, and thus implicitly demanding the non-usage
or even abandonment of alternate varieties (Leith and Graddol, 1996: 139); the
latter demanding, by contrast, the use of languages or varieties apart
from this dominant variety as a way of identifying with one’s culture and
distinguishing it from the rest (Crystal 1997: 133–134) – languages and
varieties that are, however, incomprehensible to a large proportion of the
world population and will therefore (as some perceive: e.g. Goh 1999, 22
August; 199, 29 August; 2000, 29 April) cut one’s society off from mainstream
culture. A ‘new’ language variety such as CSE is especially vulnerable to the
latter view, with one observer likening its creation and development to the
hypothetical process whereby ‘Each family can create its own coded language;
[there is] nothing wrong with that except that no one outside the family can
understand you’ (Lee Kuan Yew, quoted in ‘Singlish “a handicap we do not wish
on Singaporeans” ’, 1999, 15 August).
In reality, however, there is
nothing inherently antagonistic about the needs for intelligibility and
identity. Referring to both principles as ‘two sides of the one coin’ of
language (1997: viii) rather than opposing entities, Crystal himself states
that it is ‘perfectly possible to develop a situation in which intelligibility
and identity happily co-exist’, providing access to both the ‘world community’
and the ‘local community’ (1997: 19); and indeed this state of affairs is
already prevalent in modern-day Singapore to some extent. One notes, for instance,
the current co-existence of two English language varieties, SSE and CSE, in
Singapore with each variety attending to different needs with different
domains, as well as diglossic knowledge and mastery of these two varieties
among the educated section of the population (Bokhorst-Heng 1998: 302). Within
this context, SSE helps to fulfil the functions of intelligibility as a
language variety approximating that used in the international arena, enabling
Singapore to ‘break out of [its] small geographical confines and reach out to
the rest of the world’ (Goh 1999, 29 August), and allowing it to access the
scientific and technological knowledge of the other developed countries as well
as the various ‘political, business and academic circles’ throughout the world
(ibid.). By contrast, CSE helps to fulfil the complementary function of
identity within a local context; firstly, by providing a special set of
linguistic tools (not available in the standard variety) such as ‘local
borrowings, calques, translations, and … the “mixing” of elements of English
with local languages or vice versa’ (Kachru 1986: 28) with which one can
negotiate the ‘demands of communication, expression, action, interaction’ in a
uniquely Singaporean milieu (Kandiah 1998: 2–3); and secondly, by ‘binding
people emotionally and giving [them] a sense of rootedness’ (Tan 1999) through
this role as a ‘vehicle of … social norms and ecological needs’ (Kachru 1986:
28) – a role made even more important by the need, among the culturally diverse
population of Singapore, for a ‘link’ language that can provide the basis for a
‘supra-ethnic national identity’ (Bokhorst-Heng 1998: 300; Ho & Alsagoff
1998: 209). In such a situation, Crystal’s formulation of people being pulled
in opposing linguistic directions is still applicable, with the usage of SSE as
an example of convergence with the globally dominant language variety (ie
Standard English) in order to achieve mutual comprehension, for instance, and
the usage of CSE as an example of divergence from this variety in order to
achieve cultural identity, but one has to make the qualification that this ‘pulling
in opposite directions’ may take place in a complementary and harmonious manner
(as opposed to that in the ‘antagonist’ model currently espoused by the state)
– that people (in Crystal’s words) may ‘have their cake and eat it’ with regard
to both intelligibility and identity (1997: 116).
Ironically, it is not so much the
supposed opposition between these two principles as the intentional or
unwitting elevation of one of these principles over the other (often to the
extent of encroaching on the latter’s domain and impeding its fulfilment) (ibid.)
that leads to the pulling apart of people and countries in the sense of
socio-economic division mentioned at the beginning of the essay, and this is
especially true when the elevated principle is that of identity and the impeded
one that of intelligibility. In this respect, one may view the current English
language policy in Singapore as an attempt to prevent this from occurring – an
attempt, that is, not to eliminate CSE (as some of its supporters and
detractors have seen it) but to define the domains in which SSE and CSE may (or
may not) be used and to keep the latter out of the former’s territory
(Bokhorst-Heng 1998: 304-305). The underlying fear is that an inordinate
emphasis of CSE over SSE (of ‘identity’ over ‘intelligibility’, as one may put
it) may be perpetuated by inadequate teaching methods (George & Chgua 1999:
37; Khoo 1993: 70) and inappropriate usage and dissemination by the mass media
(Bokhorst-Heng 1998: 305; Tan 1999), and this may result in the former variety
‘circulat[ing] throughout the system and … becom[ing] the only “standard” in
Singapore’ (Koh Tai Ann, quoted in George & Chua 1999: 37). On an
international level, this widespread usage of a relatively incomprehensible and
non-prestigious variety within the country will
reflect
… badly on us and make … us seem less intelligent or competent. Investors will
hesitate to come over if their managers or supervisors can only guess what our
workers are saying. We will find it difficult to be an education and financial
centre … All this will affect our aim to be a world-class economy. (Goh 2000,
29 April)
In
other words, the result will ultimately be the reduced ability of Singapore to
participate within the global economic, political and academic fields, and its
subsequent marginalisation within and even exclusion from these arenas – a
‘pulling’ away, so to speak, of Singapore from the mainstream developments in
the international sphere. There is also an intra-national dimension to this
problem, in that the spread of CSE among the population may result in the
polarisation of society into two unequal classes: one competent in both SSE and
CSE and having access to both higher institutions of learning and relatively
prestigious jobs as a result of being able to master the former variety; the
other competent only in CSE and therefore unable to access such educational and
work opportunities (Bokhorst-Heng 1998: 302). There are fears that the latter
group may form a new underclass analogous to that of the ‘silent majority’
currently existing in Singapore, a group consisting of ‘low-income
“uncomplaining Chinese-speaking Singaporeans” ’ suffering from ‘economic disadvantage,
socio-political alienation and cultural dislocation’ (Ho & Alsagoff 1998:
206) because of their lack of proficiency in Standard English – fears, in
short, or a new underprivileged group ‘pulling’ away from the mainstream
culture of Singapore.
It is against these two detrimental
forms of division, external and internal, that the current move for Standard
English is directed, and this necessarily involves a certain amount of
regulation for both SSE and CSE, especially the latter – an extremely delicate
task that involves a careful ‘balance’ of both the principles of
intelligibility and identity, so that their opposing forces blend together in a
co-operative rather than discordant fashion.
Bokhorst-Heng,
W (1998), ‘Language planning and management in Singapore’, in J A Foley, et
al. (eds.), English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore
(Singapore: Oxford University Press), pp. 287–309
Crystal,
D (1997), English as a Global Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
George,
C and M H Chua (1999, 25 July), ‘Teacher, English is too cheem, speak
Singlish’, The Straits Times, p. 37.
Goh,
C T (1999, 22 August), ‘National day rally speech 1999’, excerpt available from
http://www.sgem.org.sg/pm22.htm
(accessed: 29 July 2000)
-----
(1999, 29 August), ‘Speech at the Marine Parade national day dinner 1999’,
available from http://www.sgem.org.sg/pm29.htm
(accessed: 29 July 2000)
-----
(2000, 29 April), ‘Speech at the launch of the Speak Good English Movement’,
available from http://www.sgem.org.sg/sppm29.htm
(accessed: 29 July 2000)
Ho,
C L and L Alsagoff (1998), ‘English as the common language in multicultural
Singapore’, in J A Foley, et al. (eds.), English in New Cultural
Contexts: Reflections from Singapore (Singapore: Oxford University Press),
pp. 201–217
Kachru,
B B (1986), The Alchemy of English (Oxford: Pergamon)
Kandiah,
T (1998), ‘Why New Englishes?’ in J A Foley, et al. (eds.), English
in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore (Singapore: Oxford
University Press), pp. 1–40
Khoo,
R (1993), ‘Controlling Pandora’x Box: Standards for the vocabulary of Singapore
English’, in A Pakir (ed.), The English Language in Singapore: Standards and
Norms (Singapore: UniPress), pp. 67–78.
Leith,
D and D Graddol (1996), ‘Modernity and English as a national language’, in D
Graddol et al. (eds.), English: History, Diversity and Change
(London: Routledge), pp. 136–179
‘Singlish
“a handicap we do not wish on Singaporeans” ’ (1999, 15 August), The Straits
Times, p. 26
Tan,
D W (1999, Nov/Dec), ‘No Singlish please, we are Singaporean’, Singapore
International Foundation: A Place called Home, available from http://www.
sif.org.sg/home/singapore/nov_dec99/nov_dec99_nosinglish.htm (accessed: 30
July 2000).