DOCSLIB.ORG

The Linguistic Vitality of Chinese in the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Linguistic Vitality of Chinese in the United States 294 Heritage Language Journal, 10(3) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.3.2 Winter, 2013 The Linguistic Vitality of Chinese in the United States Na Liu Center for Applied Linguistics Abstract This article examines the current status of Chinese as a heritage language (CHL) in the United States, referring to the Capacity-Opportunity-Desire (COD) framework (Grin, 1990, 2003; LoBianco, 2008). After briefly describing the linguistic profile of Chinese immigrants in the United States, the current status and future prospects of CHL in the United States are discussed. The article concludes that a wide variety of programs are available to CHL speakers, compared to those available decades ago. However, heritage speakers’ capacity in Chinese will be developed only when they have opportunities to use the language and a desire to learn it. Introduction The number of Chinese immigrants in the United States has reached 3,179,648, comprising 1% of the U.S. population and constituting a significant language and cultural group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The languages/dialects spoken by Chinese immigrants are anything but monolithic. The historical legacy and current complexity of the population of Chinese immigrants are reflected in linguistic heterogeneity (Wong & Lopez, 2000). “Chinese,” as a member of the Sino Tibetan family of languages, encompasses a number of regional “dialects” (Norman, 1988), which are considered to be different languages in many countries, because they are not mutually intelligible (e.g., a Mandarin speaker may not understand Cantonese speakers at all). In China these variants are considered dialects. (In this article, I use “dialects” to refer to varieties of Chinese, consistent with the traditional use of the term in China, unless the authors I cite use “languages.”) Despite the large number of dialects spoken by Chinese immigrants, only a handful plays key roles in the Chinese American community: Cantonese, Mandarin, and Taiwanese (Wong & Lopez, 2000). Wiley, DeKlerk, Li, Liu, Teng, and Yang (2008) claim that the dialects spoken by Chinese immigrants, with the possible exception of Cantonese and Mandarin, are unlikely to be maintained over time due to the lack of opportunity for speakers to receive formal instruction. Even with Cantonese and Mandarin, “the overall picture of Chinese Americans that emerges is that the shift to English is taking place at a fast rate in the community” (Wong & Lopez, 2000, p. 284). In this article the linguistic vitality of Chinese is examined, primarily focusing on Mandarin, the official language of People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan, and one of the official languages of Singapore. Referring to and informed by the COD framework (Capacity Development, Opportunity Creation, and Desire) first developed by Grin (1990, 2003) and further elaborated by LoBianco (2008), the current status and future prospects of Chinese in the United States are discussed. It is important to note that COD requires all three components to produce language use in new generations, and most heritage language planning tends to focus only on one (either teaching or capacity development). (See the introduction to this issue for discussion.) Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 05:32:27AM via free access 295 Heritage Language Journal, 10(3) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.3.2 Winter, 2013 Capacity Development According to LoBianco (2008), capacity development refers to the development of personal language proficiency and language use, through both formal teaching and informal transmission of the language. In the United States, formal Chinese language teaching takes place primarily in community-based Chinese heritage language schools, K-12 public schools, and institutions of higher education. By “formal,” I refer to instructional settings where there is a curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and where teachers receive training and support. Informal transmission of Chinese occurs in Chinese immigrant homes and communities. Chinese Heritage Language Schools Chinese heritage language schools have a long history in the United States, with the first established in San Francisco in 1886 (Chao, 1996). It was estimated that in 2005 there were over 1,000 Chinese heritage language schools, with about 140,000 students enrolled (McGinnis, 2005). In 2009 these numbers increased to total over 1,205 Chinese heritage language schools and approximately 180,000 students (Wang, 2009). The majority of these schools were established as non-profit organizations, operated primarily by volunteers consisting of parents and international students from local universities. From the mid-nineteenth century through the early postwar decades, the Chinese American community was overwhelmingly Cantonese- speaking, and the majority of Chinese schools in the United States taught Cantonese. This began to change after World War II, when the Mandarin-speaking population increased rapidly, especially from the 1970s on. Mandarin gradually superseded Cantonese as the predominant language of instruction in Chinese schools (Lai, 2004). Lai points out that very few schools taught other dialects, such as Hakka, Fuzhounese, or Taiwanese, in spite of the large influx of these immigrants, probably because they are of limited use either for communication in business or for scholarly exchanges in society at large. Generally, Chinese heritage language schools operate on weekends or after regular school hours. In weekend programs, classes are held three hours a week on Saturday or Sunday. In general, two hours are devoted to language teaching and one hour to cultural activities. In after-school programs, classes are held in public schools from around 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Classes usually include one or two hours of language teaching, one hour of Chinese culture, and one hour of tutorial lessons in English, mathematics, or other subjects (Chao, 1996; Liu, 2010b). Of the schools surveyed by Lin (1986), 55% held classes on Saturdays, 56% on Sundays, and only 5% on weekday afternoons. Unfortunately, there are no more up-to-date data with this information. The effectiveness of weekend Chinese heritage language schools, which offer one or two hours per week of language instruction, in reversing language shift to English among Chinese heritage language (CHL) learners has been questioned and studied by researchers (Chuang, 1997; Liu, 2010b). In a study of stakeholders’ perspectives (Liu, 2010b), it was found that the vast majority of parents (about 90%) believe that the primary role of Chinese schools is to teach Chinese language and culture and that two hours per week is not enough time for children to become fully proficient in Chinese. Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 05:32:27AM via free access 296 Heritage Language Journal, 10(3) https://doi.org/10.46538/hlj.10.3.2 Winter, 2013 In addition to teaching Chinese language and culture, Chinese heritage language schools serve vital, nonlinguistic functions, which include creating a sense of cultural and ethnic pride, providing an occasion for socializing and group involvement among parents, and providing opportunities for children to interact with other Chinese speakers (Wong & Lopez, 2000). Involvement in Chinese schools has created an opportunity to join an extended family for both parents and children. In addition, as McGinnis (2005) pointed out, “Chinese community schools are beginning to play a significant social service role that transcends more narrowly educational functions, as exemplified in their support work for the adoptive Families with Chinese Children (FCC)” (p. 593). Compared with weekend schools, weekday Chinese heritage language programs are expected by parents to do a better job in terms of capacity development, and classes meet three hours a day, five days a week (parents, personal communication, 2013). However, no research has been conducted to compare capacity development results between students who attend weekend schools and those who attend weekday after-school programs. Both weekend and weekday Chinese heritage language schools face a number of challenges, which include arousing students’ interests in learning Chinese and providing them with a valuable learning experience, adopting suitable textbooks, designing curriculum, using current technologies, cooperating with state and local school districts, improving teacher training and certification, and creating articulation and learning paths across programs (Wang, 1996). In addition to offering classes during the academic year, Chinese heritage language schools, together with Chinese cultural centers, organize Chinese language summer camps to give Chinese-American teenagers another opportunity to learn about their Chinese heritage, appreciate Chinese art, participate in Chinese cultural activities, and study Chinese (Chai, 1996). Funding for summer camps comes from tuition, donations from local companies and individuals, and grants from the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council in the PRC and the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission (OCAC) in Taiwan. Since their inception in 1976, Chinese language summer camps have grown nationwide. One summer program, operated by the United States East Coast Association of Chinese schools, has enrollments of 500 to 700 students annually (Chai, 1996). Another summer camp, “Root-seeking Summer Camp in China,” cosponsored by the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council and China Overseas Exchanges Association in the PRC, hosts approximately 5,000 teenagers from
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Multilingual English Users’ Linguistic Innovation
    DOI: 10.1111/weng.12457 PAPER Multilingual English users’ linguistic innovation Li Wei UCL Centre for Applied Linguistics, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, UK Abstract Can ‘non-native’ speakers of English innovate in English? This seemly Correspondence simple question bothers sociolinguists and sociolinguistic research Li Wei, UCL Institute of Education, University because we feel uncertain whether the ‘inventive’ productions by College London, London, UK. Email: [email protected] ‘non-native’ speakers should be treated as evidence of creativity or mistakes. This article aims to tackle this question from a translan- guaging perspective, using data from social media communication amongst multilingual English users in the Sinophone world. Exam- ples include a range of creative expressions that mix elements of English with those from other languages and semiotic means. A translanguaging perspective raises questions about the very notion of named languages and offers a radically different way of analysing these expressions as socio-politically meaningful linguistic innovations. The theoretical and methodological implications of the translanguaging approach for the study of linguistic innovation by multilingual language users and for the study of world Englishes are discussed. 1 INTRODUCTION The poster in Figure 1, ‘How to have a civil discourse’, was posted on 4th July 2017 by the Singaporean artist Andrea Lau on her Facebook page. Two questions: Is it in English? If yes, what kind of English? It certainly looks like English and an English reader could understand quite a bit, but crucially, not all of it. And since I have said that the creator of the poster is Singaporean, anyone who has heard of the notion of Singaporean English, or Singlish, might assume that this must be Singaporean English/Singlish.
    [Show full text]
  • The Languages of the Jews: a Sociolinguistic History Bernard Spolsky Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-05544-5 - The Languages of the Jews: A Sociolinguistic History Bernard Spolsky Index More information Index Abu El-Haj, Nadia, 178 Alliance Israélite Universelle, 128, 195, 197, Afrikaans, 15, 243 238, 239, 242, 256 learned by Jews, 229 Almohads, 115 Afrikaaners forced conversions, 115 attitude to Jews, 229 Granada, 139 Afro-Asiatic persecution, 115, 135, 138 language family, 23 alphabet Agudath Israel, 252 Hebrew, 30 Yiddish, 209 Alsace, 144 Ahaz, 26, 27 became French, 196 Akkadian, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 36, 37, expulsion, 125 39, 52 Alsace and Lorraine borrowings, 60 Jews from East, 196 Aksum, 91 al-Yahūdiyya, 85 al-Andalus, 105, 132, 133 Amarna, 19 emigration, 135 American English Jews a minority, 133 Yiddish influence, 225 Jews’ languages, 133 Amharic, 5, 8, 9, 90, 92 languages, 136 Amoraim, 60 Aleppo, 102 Amsterdam emigration, 225 Jewish publishing, 169 Jewish Diasporas, 243 Jewish settlement, 198 Jewish settlement, 243 multilingualism, 31 Alexander the Great, 46 Anglo-Israelite beliefs, 93 Alexandria, 47, 59, 103 anti-language, 44 Hebrew continuity, 48 Antiochus, 47, 56 Jews, 103 Antipas, 119 Alfonso X, 137 Antwerp Algeria, 115 Anusim, 199 consistories, 236 multilingualism, 199 emigration, 197, 236, 237 Yiddish maintained, 199 French rule, 234 Antwerpian Brabantic, 18 French schools, 236 Anusim, 132, 139, 232 Jews acquire French, 236 Algeria, 115 Vichy policy, 236 Belgium, 199 342 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-05544-5 -
    [Show full text]
  • Final Year Project Charting Multilingualism in Singapore: From
    Final Year Project Charting multilingualism in Singapore: From the nineteenth century to the present By TAN LiJia Gloria Supervised by Professor Kingsley Bolton 2014 Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies ii Declaration of Authorship I declare that this assignment is my own original work, unless otherwise referenced, as defined by the NTU policy on plagiarism. I have read the NTU Honour Code and Pledge. No part of this Final Year Project has been or is being concurrently submitted for any other qualification at any other university. I certify that the data collected for this project is authentic. I fully understand that falsification of data will result in the failure of the project and/or failure of the course. Name: Tan LiJia Gloria Signature: Date: 17th November 2014 iii Additional information 1. My FYP is an extension of my URECA project. Yes / No If yes, give details and state how is this project different from your URECA project: 2. My FYP is a part of or an extension of my supervisor’s project. Yes/No if yes, answer question 5. 3. My FYP is partially supported by my supervisor’s grant. Yes / No 4. Provide details of funding expenditure, (e.g. payment of participants: $10/hour; funded by supervisor’s grant…) 5. You are reminded that an FYP is an independent project on an area of your own interests. Any kind of outsourcing (including, but not limited to, transcription, statistical analysis, etc.) would have a huge negative impact on your grade. If your project is a part of or an extension of your supervisor’s project, please state clearly i) what are your own intellectual contributions, and ii) what components of your supervisor’s project have been borrowed for your FYP (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of English and the National Language on the Radio in Asean Countries
    manusya 22 (2019) 261-288 brill.com/mnya The Use of English and the National Language on the Radio in asean Countries Amara Prasithrathsint (อมรา ประสิทธิรัฐสินธุ์์ ) Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand [email protected] Kusuma Thongniam (กุสุมา ทองเนียม) Independent researcher, Bangkok, Thailand [email protected] Pimpat Chumkaew (พิมพ์ภัทร ชุมแก้ว) M.A. student, Department of Thai, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand [email protected] Abstract The purpose of the present study is to examine language choice on the radio in asean countries. The focus is on English and national languages, the two most important languages in those countries. A review of related past studies did not provide an an- swer to the question that we were interested in; i.e., which language is chosen for radio broadcasts in asean countries between the national language, which is the language most people understand and signifies national identity, and English, which is the lin- gua franca of the region and an international language? Data was taken from a sample of programs broadcast by radio stations in the ten asean countries. The results show that Singapore ranks the highest in using English in broadcasting (50% of all the pro- grams), while Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam rank the lowest in using English (0%) but highest in using their national languages (100%). Code-switching between the countries’ national languages and English is found in five countries listed from highest to lowest as: the Philippines, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and Thailand. Code- switching is absent in Malaysia, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages of Singapore
    Ethnologue report for Singapore Page 1 of 4 Languages of Singapore Republic of Singapore. 4,353,893. National or official languages: Mandarin Chinese, Malay, Tamil, English. Literacy rate: 93% (2000 census). Also includes Hindi (5,000), Indonesian, Japanese (20,000), Korean (5,200), Sindhi (5,000), Sylheti, Telugu (603), Thai (30,000), Tukang Besi North, people from the Philippines (50,000). Blind population: 1,442. Deaf institutions: 3. The number of languages listed for Singapore is 21. Of those, all are living languages. Living languages Bengali [ben] 600 in Singapore (1985). Ethnic population: 14,000 in Singapore (2001 Johnstone and Mandryk). Classification: Indo- European, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, Eastern zone, Bengali-Assamese More information. Chinese, [hak] 69,000 in Singapore (1980). Ethnic Hakka population: 151,000 in Singapore (1993). Alternate names: Khek, Kek, Kehia, Kechia, Ke, Hokka. Classification: Sino-Tibetan, Chinese More information. Chinese, [cmn] 201,000 in Singapore (1985). Alternate Mandarin names: Huayu, Guoyu. Classification: Sino- Tibetan, Chinese More information. Chinese, Min [mnp] 4,000 in Singapore (1985). Ethnic Bei population: 11,000 in Singapore. Alternate names: Min Pei. Dialects: Hokchia (Hockchew). Classification: Sino-Tibetan, Chinese More information. Chinese, Min [cdo] 34,154 in Singapore (2000 WCD). Ethnic Dong population: 31,391. Mainly in China. Dialects: Fuzhou (Fuchow, Foochow, Guxhou). Classification: Sino-Tibetan, Chinese More information. Chinese, Min [nan] 1,170,000 in Singapore (1985). Nan Population includes 736,000 speakers of Hokkien, 28.8% of the population (1993), 360,000 speakers of Teochew (1985), 14.2% of the population (1993); 74,000 speakers of Hainanese (1985), 2.9% of the population (1993).
    [Show full text]
  • Kodrah Kristang: the Initiative to Revitalize the Kristang Language in Singapore
    Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 19 Documentation and Maintenance of Contact Languages from South Asia to East Asia ed. by Mário Pinharanda-Nunes & Hugo C. Cardoso, pp.35–121 http:/nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/sp19 2 http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24906 Kodrah Kristang: The initiative to revitalize the Kristang language in Singapore Kevin Martens Wong National University of Singapore Abstract Kristang is the critically endangered heritage language of the Portuguese-Eurasian community in Singapore and the wider Malayan region, and is spoken by an estimated less than 100 fluent speakers in Singapore. In Singapore, especially, up to 2015, there was almost no known documentation of Kristang, and a declining awareness of its existence, even among the Portuguese-Eurasian community. However, efforts to revitalize Kristang in Singapore under the auspices of the community-based non-profit, multiracial and intergenerational Kodrah Kristang (‘Awaken, Kristang’) initiative since March 2016 appear to have successfully reinvigorated community and public interest in the language; more than 400 individuals, including heritage speakers, children and many people outside the Portuguese-Eurasian community, have joined ongoing free Kodrah Kristang classes, while another 1,400 participated in the inaugural Kristang Language Festival in May 2017, including Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and the Portuguese Ambassador to Singapore. Unique features of the initiative include the initiative and its associated Portuguese-Eurasian community being situated in the highly urbanized setting of Singapore, a relatively low reliance on financial support, visible, if cautious positive interest from the Singapore state, a multiracial orientation and set of aims that embrace and move beyond the language’s original community of mainly Portuguese-Eurasian speakers, and, by design, a multiracial youth-led core team.
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Place-Making: Public Signage in the Linguistic Landscape of Windhoek's Central Business District
    LANGUAGE AND PLACE-MAKING: PUBLIC SIGNAGE IN THE LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE OF WINDHOEK’S CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT by Danielle Zimny Thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of General Linguistics in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Dr Marcelyn Oostendorp Co-supervisor: Ms Robyn Berghoff December 2017 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis/dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. Danielle Zimny Date: December 2017 Copyright © 2017 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Marcelyn Oostendorp, and co-supervisor, Ms Robyn Berghoff, for providing me with valuable guidance throughout the phases of this study. I would additionally like to thank Stellenbosch University for granting me a merit bursary for the duration of my Master’s course. Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract Investigating linguistic landscapes (LLs) has primarily been a matter of assessing language use in public signage. In its early days research in the field focused largely on quantitative analysis and typically drew direct relations between the prevalence (or absence) of languages in the public signs of an LL and the ethnolinguistic vitality of such languages.
    [Show full text]
  • SINGAPORE RELATIONS Introduction
    INDIA – SINGAPORE RELATIONS Introduction India’s connection with Singapore dates back to the Cholas who are credited with naming the island and establishing a permanent settlement. The more modern relationship is attributed to Sir Stamford Raffles who, in 1819, established a trading station on the Straits of Malacca to protect, particularly from the Dutch, the East India Company ships carrying cargo between India and the region, especially China. Singapore’s location was increasingly recognised as strategic to the security of the British Empire in India, and it became a colony under British India governed from Calcutta during the period 1830 to 1867. The colonial connection is reflected in a similarity of institutions and practices, usage of English and the presence of a large Indian community. 2. India was among the first countries to set up diplomatic relations after the independence of Singapore on 24 August 1965. The close relationship shared by India and Singapore is based on convergence of economic and political interests. The process of economic reforms in India since the early 1990s created a strong basis for cooperation with Singapore, opening up possibilities for significant presence in each other’s economies. Singapore has played an important role in reconnecting us to the countries of South East Asia since the inception of our Look East Policy in the early 1990s. Political Relations 3. Singapore, led by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, took a major interest in India’s economic reforms in the 1990s. He visited India in 1994 as the Chief Guest at our Republic Day celebrations. A reciprocal visit by PM Narasimha Rao took place in September 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • The Management of Multilingualism in a City-State: Language Policy in Singapore∗
    Published in Multilingualism and Language Contact in Urban Areas: Acquisition, development, teaching, communication, edited by P. Siemund, I. Gogolin, M. Schulz, & J. Davydova. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229–258. This is a post-review, pre-publication version that has not been copyedited. Please quote from the published version (https://benjamins.com/#catalog/books/hsld.1.12lei/details). The management of multilingualism in a city-state: Language policy in Singapore∗ Jakob R. E. Leimgruber Abstract Language policy in Singapore exists against a background of large diversity, a diversity that has been present in the city-state ever since its founding, and which is manifest both in ethnic and in linguistic terms. The government deals with this diversity in several ways: firstly in giving recognition to the three major ethnic groups (Chinese, Malays, and Indians) by assigning them an official language (Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil, respectively), and by endorsing English as the main working (and educational, administrative, governmental, etc.) language of the country. Further policies include the demotion of varieties without official status: specifically non-Mandarin varieties of Chinese and Singlish, the local English vernacular. This paper explores these policies and the reasons that motivated them. 1 Background Singapore is an island-nation located at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, in Southeast Asia, around 1◦200 North of the equator, sandwiched between Malaysia to the North and Indonesia to the South. The size of the island is currently
    [Show full text]
  • Tesl Studies
    C'^ ll^- CENTRAL CIRCULATION BOOKSTACKS The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its renewal or its return to the library from which it was borrowed on or before the Latest Date stamped below. The Minimum Fee for each Lost Book is $50.00. ore reasons TheH, mufllatloiv ond underlining of booW dismissal from for disciplinary action and may result In the University. TO RENEW CAIL TEIEPHONE CENTER, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILIINOIS tIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN NOV 3 ia94, , OCT 6 1997 OCT 7 2005 When renewing by phone, write new due date below ^162 previous due date. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://www.archive.org/details/teslstudies56univ STUDIES 1982 PUBLICA TIONOF THE DIVISION OF ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAQ^ UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS t^^ imBANA, ILLINOIS TESL STUDIES EDITORS: YAMUNA KACHRU, J RONAYNE COWAN EDITORIAL BOARD: Katherine O. Aston, Lyle F. Bachman, Dickerson, Lawrence F. Boulon, H. Douglas Brown, Lonna J. Wayne B. Dickerson and Rebecca G. Dixon TESL STUDIES is intended as a forum for the presentation, in pre-publication form, of the research done by the faculty and students of the Division of English as a Second Language, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. TESL STUDIES will also publish research of other University of Illinois faculty and interested in students if it is of relevance to our field. All TESL STUDIES should write to the obtaining copies of PUBLICATION OF THE following enclosing payment (Checks should be made DIVISION OF ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE payable to the University of Illinois): Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Speak Good English Movement in Singapore Reactions in Social and Traditional Media
    !! Högskolan Dalarna BA Thesis EN2015 Supervisor: Soraya Tharani Speak Good English Movement in Singapore Reactions in Social and Traditional Media Autumn 2011 Lari-Valtteri Suhonen 850927-4737 [email protected] !!! Abstract The first Speak Good English Movement, SGEM, took place in 2000, and has been organized annu- ally ever since. Speaking a “standard” form of English is considered to bring increased personal power. However, the SGEM wants the Singaporeans to use “standard” English in their private life as well. A decade after the beginning of the campaign, a Speak Good Singlish Movement was started. Based on studies of language and identity, it is understandable why some Singaporeans might feel the SGEM threatens their identity. However, the reactions towards the campaign are mainly positive. For the purposes of this analysis, Twitter messages, Facebook pages, and newspa- per articles from The Straits Times were collected. The SGEM has hailed both direct and indirect praise and criticism in both social and traditional media: Five newspaper articles praise the cam- paign while five criticize it; the results are nine and seven respectively for social media. This thesis looks at reactions towards the SGEM in both social and traditional media, analyzes how these reac- tions might relate to the ideas of the power of language, its variety and the relation of language and identity. !!! Table of contents Abstract 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Title Changes in Tamil Language Acquisition and Usage in Singapore: a Case of Subtractive Bilingualism Author(S) A
    Title Changes in Tamil language acquisition and usage in Singapore: A case of subtractive bilingualism Author(s) A. Mani and S. Gopinathan Source Asian Journal of Social Science, 11(1), 104-117 Published by Brill Academic Publishers Copyright © 1983 Brill Academic Publishers This is the author’s accepted manuscript (post-print) of a work that was accepted for publication in the following source: Mani, A., & Gopinathan, S. (1983). Changes in Tamil language acquisition and usage in Singapore: A case of subtractive bilingualism. Asian Journal of Social Science, 11(1), 104- 117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/080382483X00059 Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source. The final publication is also available at http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com This document was archived with permission from the copyright holder. LANGUAGE AND VALUES EDUCATION Changes In Tamil Language Acquisition And Usage In Singapore: A Case Of Subtractive Bilingualism With A. Mani While there had been some Indian traders in Singapore at the time of Raffles’ arrival—since 753 were listed in the population enumeration in 1823—the total number of Indians in the population continued to be less than 10,000 until the second half of the nineteenth century. It was not until after 1880 that any large number of Indians came to Singapore. The massive increase in the Indian population of Singapore occurred early in the twentieth century, growing from 17,000 or 7.8 per cent of the total in 1901 to nearly twice that figure (32,342) in 1921, and rising to 128,250 in 1966.
    [Show full text]