SINGLISH AND BEYOND

THE ROLE OF SINGLISH AND SINGAPORE STANDARD ENGLISH IN SINGAPOREAN ACADEMIC LIFE

Diplomarbeit

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Magistra der Philosophie

an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von

Gerda WEINZERL

am Institut für Anglistik Begutachter: em. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Alwin Fill

Graz, 2011

1

FOR MY DAD, my first hero, who left me far too early

and

FOR MY BROTHERS

2 All photos taken by Gerda Weinzerl

Acknowledgements

With particular thanks to Professor Alwin Fill, Karl-Franzens-University Graz and Professor Francesco Cavallaro, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, for their kind support, advice and encouragement.

Thanks too to Marliana Binte Mohamed Aron, Lilly aka Maria Pauline, Peischi, Petz & Wolfi, Franz Krenn and the Weinzerl family for invaluable comments, inspiration and support, and especially, as ever, to my Mum.

4 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 8 1.1. General introduction ...... 8 1.2. Personal relevance ...... 8 1.3. Objective ...... 9 1.4. Research method and structure of the thesis ...... 9 1.5. Hypotheses ...... 10

2. The linguistic situation of Singapore ...... 11 2.1. (Language) History of Singapore ...... 11 2.2. Singapore´s linguistic ecology ...... 12 2.2.1. English: Important for Singapore ...... 14 2.2.2. Education and meritocracy ...... 15 2.3. World Englishes ...... 16 2.3.1. Singapore in the Outer Circle ...... 16 2.4. Singapore English ...... 18 2.4.1. Linguistic continuum ...... 18 2.4.2. Diglossia: Singapore Standard English and Singapore Colloquial English .... 20 2.4.3. Pakir´s model of ‘expanding triangles’ ...... 21 2.4.4. Schneider´s ‘dynamic model’ ...... 25 2.4.5. Singapore English at a glance ...... 27 2.4.5.1. Features ...... 27 2.4.5.2. Singapore English lexicon ...... 30 2.4.5.3. Pronunciation ...... 33 2.4.5.4. Syntax ...... 34 2.5. Singapore, languages and identity ...... 35 2.5.1. Management of English ...... 38 2.5.1.1. Speak Good English Movement ...... 38 2.5.1.2. The emergence of the Singlish debate ...... 40 2.5.1.3. Exploring the Singlish debate ...... 41

3. Language attitudes ...... 47 3.1. Indirect method ...... 47 3.2. Direct method ...... 49

4. Singapore and the Internet ...... 52 4.1. The rise of the Internet...... 52 4.2. Social Media ...... 54 4.2.1. Blogging ...... 54 4.2.2. Micro-blogging ...... 55 4.2.3. Social networking websites ...... 56

5 5. Empirical part: The Study ...... 60 5.1. Methodology ...... 60 5.1.1. Participants ...... 60 5.1.2. The Questionnaire...... 63 5.2. Analysis and Results Section A ...... 66 5.2.1. Social networking ...... 66 5.2.2. Blogs ...... 70 5.2.3. Micro-blogging ...... 72 5.2.4. Texting or writing short messages (SMS) ...... 74 5.3. Analysis and Results Section B ...... 74 5.4. Analysis and Results Section C ...... 75 5.5. Analysis and Results Section D ...... 77 5.6. Analysis and Results Section E ...... 83

6. Discussion ...... 85

7. Conclusion ...... 93

Bibliography ...... 97

Appendix: Questionnaire used...... 103

List of Figures: Fig. 1: The Three Circles of English ...... 17 Fig. 2: Expanding triangles of English expression ...... 22 Fig. 3: Banner promoting GOOD ENGLISH for personal interactions ...... 39 Fig. 4: Banner promoting GOOD ENGLISH for customer service interactions ...... 39 Fig. 5: Banner promoting GOOD ENGLISH for business relations ...... 40 Fig. 6: LTA ad in a local MRT station ...... 45 Fig. 7: Distribution of students in tertiary and higher education ...... 60 Fig. 8: Age pyramid according to gender ...... 61 Fig. 9: School languages chosen by students ...... 62 Fig. 10: Languages commonly spoken at home by students ...... 63 Fig. 11: Percentage of students using social networking websites ...... 66 Fig. 12: Percentage of students reading or writing blogs ...... 70 Fig. 13: Percentage of students using micro-blogging services ...... 72 Fig. 14: Correlation between attitudes towards English and Singlish ...... 82

6 List of Tables: Table 1: The vowel system of Singapore English ...... 33 Table 2: The vowels of Singapore English ...... 34 Table 3: Ethnic make-up of the participants ...... 61 Table 4: Means (M) of scores on items 4-7, 9, 12, 13 ...... 67 Table 5: Means (M) of scores on items 8, 10, 11 ...... 67 Table 6: Other languages items 4-13 ...... 68 Table 7: Means (M) of scores on item 14 ...... 70 Table 8: Means (M) of scores on item 15, 16 ...... 71 Table 9: Other languages items 14-16 ...... 71 Table 10: Means of scores (M) on items 17-19 ...... 73 Table 11: Other languages items 17-19 ...... 73 Table 12: Means of scores (M) on item 20 ...... 74 Table 13: Other languages item 20 ...... 74 Table 14: Ranking English varieties ...... 74 Table 15: Means of scores (M) on items 1-2, 6-7 ...... 75 Table 16: Means of scores (M) on item 3 ...... 76 Table 17: Means of scores (M) on item 4 ...... 76 Table 18: Means of scores (M) on item 5 ...... 76 Table 19: Means of scores (M) on items 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 18 ...... 77 Table 20: Means of scores (M) and t-test (t) on items 3, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20 ...... 77 Table 21: Means of scores (M) on item 4 ...... 79 Table 22: Means of scores (M) on items 16, 19, 22 ...... 79 Table 23: Means of scores (M) on item 21 ...... 80 Table 24: Means of scores (M) on item 23 ...... 81 Table 25: Means of scores (M) on items 1-2, 4-6, 8-18 ...... 83 Table 26: Means of scores (M) on items 3 and 7 ...... 84

7 1. Introduction

1.1. General introduction

Almost everyone in Singapore speaks more than one language, with many people speaking as many as three or four. Most children grow up bilingual from infancy, learning other languages as they become older. With the majority of the literate population bilingual, English and Mandarin are the most commonly used languages in daily life. While English is the main language taught in schools, children also learn their mother tongues to ensure that they stay in touch with their traditional roots. (Singapore Tourism Board 2009)

If we take this quotation as some sort of reliable description of Singapore´s language situation, then Singapore seems a highly interesting place for linguists and researchers. Especially the English language has been valuable for Singapore in its rather short history.

Currently English is seen as one of the top assets Singapore has to offer to the world. It is also seen as a fundamental key element for every young Singaporean striving for higher education. Although language diversity adds to Singapore´s self-image of an open multicultural city-state, it is English which in a wider sense attracts foreign capital, guarantees academic forthcoming and social mobility. But the English spoken in Singapore has without doubt its own peculiarity or "flavour", so to speak. In particular Singlish (Singapore Colloquial English) which is commonly linked to informality by most and to class by very few. The social status of Singlish is controversial but its impact on Singaporean daily life is undeniable. This thesis thus explores some aspects of Singlish which I found relevant. Additionally, the reader is presented with a - hopefully clarifying - section on the controversy about Singlish.

1.2. Personal relevance

The idea of the thesis stems from a personal interest in Singapore and its peculiar mix of languages and cultures. I am also very interested in language diversity, inter-cultural communication and particularly in World Englishes or New Englishes. In the past I have had the pleasure of living in Singapore over a longer period of time (7 months) and revisiting it on several occasions. It was my great wish to write my thesis in the field of sociolinguistics in relation to Singapore.

During my two-months-stay in Singapore (May - June 2009), where I lived with a Singaporean Chinese family and was a guest student at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), at the Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, my affection towards the

8 people grew stronger and I profoundly expanded my knowledge about Singapore´s linguistic situation. In the course of my fieldwork I met a vast mix of people from various backgrounds and ethnic groups. I particularly enjoyed the exchange of opinions and thoughts with students and staff on campus. It helped me greatly in my attempt to generate the full picture of Singapore English.

1.3. Objective

The main objective of this thesis is to investigate the role of English in general, Singapore Standard English and Singapore Colloquial English (Singlish) in particular, among students. Their views and attitudes may vary and they are probably influenced by a great number of aspects. I have covered those which seemed to be most relevant when dealing with this subject. My principal aim is to present the reader with a comprehensive picture of Singapore´s linguistic situation which is the very one in which the current young generation was brought up and lives in. Needlessly to say, it is also the environment which has shaped and formed Singapore´s students in a unique way.

1.4. Research method and structure of the thesis

In the line of research for this thesis, two fields were covered and grouped into a theoretical part and an empirical part. The first part uses materials and information from literature, the media and the Internet. This part of the investigation has partly been done in Austria, but mostly in Singapore. The latter part has exclusively been carried out during my stay as a guest student at Nanyang University.

Therefore this thesis is divided into two main sections. The first introduces the reader to Singapore and its (Language) History. It comments on its linguistic ecology and how Singapore English is commonly placed in the framework of 'World Englishes'. Further, the section shows Singapore English with its most common features and presents the most prominent attempts to label Singapore´s linguistic situation. It continues with a discussion of Singapore English and its important part for identity, especially for fostering a national identity. This leads to an observation of the city-state´s language management or planning and how the government actively puts language campaigns and movements forward to the public. The section ends with an overview of language attitudes, Social Media and the Internet in Singaporean context.

9 While the first section aims to provide the theoretical background on Singapore English, the second section is dedicated to the empirical part. It covers the discussion and results of my questionnaire which was completed by a total of 120 Singaporean students. This is followed by an overall discussion and a personal conclusion at the final stages of this thesis.

1.5. Hypotheses

English plays a dominant role in the global economic arena. This especially applies for a city- state like Singapore and its constant striving to be one of the top global economic players. Thus, English has become a vital element in Singapore´s business hub. But at the same time it has taken up a major role in education and people´s daily life. Within this development, Singapore Standard English and its colloquial variety Singlish define Singapore´s linguistic situation. Thus my hypotheses are:

Hypothesis 1: Singapore is highly receptive to new technology. The Internet and with it Social Media has been taken on by young Singaporeans. Both, Singapore Standard English and Singlish, are used alternately in relation with Social Media. Thus, Singlish – like in other aspects of Singaporean life - takes up a role in Social Media. It is also likely that Chinese, Tamil, Malay and even dialects are used.

Hypothesis 2: Young Singaporeans are confident about Singapore Standard English when contrasted with dominant and traditional types of English such as British English, American English and Australian English.

Hypothesis 3: Young Singaporeans appreciate English and its beneficial traits.

Hypothesis 4: Singlish is under constant debate in Singapore. However, young Singaporeans hold no negative attitudes towards the colloquial variety. The current atmosphere rather suggests a possibility of a shared apathy towards the whole issue by local students.

Hypothesis 5: Singaporeans show high self-confidence. The main factors that have led to mutual confidence are financial prosperity and high quality academic education. Therefore, young Singaporeans identify and relate themselves positively with Singapore.

These hypotheses and all accompanying details that show support or lack thereof are discussed towards the end of this thesis.

10 2. The linguistic situation of Singapore

2.1. (Language) History of Singapore

Singapore is a small island city-state (273 square miles) located south of the Malay Peninsula in Southeast Asia. Singapore´s population of 4.5 million is multiracial and multilingual. The population mix consists of 75% Chinese and 25% Malays, Indians and others (Simpson 2007: 374-375; The Guardian 2009).

The British East India Company acquired the city-state in 1819. At this point Singapore was an undeveloped island with a very small local population. However, its potential was seen in the strategic value of guarding the sea route between India and China. Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, often quoted as the founding father of Singapore, took over as governor. Later Singapore, Penang and Malacca were grouped together administratively and became known as Straits Settlements. The island soon grew into an international trading port and attracted an inflow of immigrants from China, India and Southeast Asia. Initially, settlers came only for economic reasons and wanted to return to their homelands as soon as their savings would allow them to do so. In these days little mixing and cohesion amongst the various ethnic groups was observed and Singapore was an ethnically segregated city. The city was divided into sections where Europeans, Malays and Chinese were living (Simpson 2007: 376; Gupta 1998: 369-372).

Other groups followed the growth prospect of Singapore and there was an influx of Eurasians, people of mixed European and Asian ancestry from Malacca, India and Ceylon. Usually those from India and Ceylon spoke English and other languages e.g. Dutch (those coming from Ceylon). People of mixed ancestry from Malacca usually spoke a Portuguese creole at home, and were unlikely to speak English in the early years. Straits Chinese (of Chinese and Malay ancestry) who also came down from Malacca saw themselves as ethnically and culturally Chinese and used a variety of Malay within their families. Other groups like Armenians and Jews came to Singapore and often took up key roles in education or administration. In this way they were often important for the transmission of English. Very few Singaporean residents spoke English at that time. The prominent lingua-franca was Bazaar Malay, a Malay-based pidgin (Gupta 1998: 372). Interestingly, Gupta believes that "there is no evidence that there was ever a pidgin English" spoken in Singapore or as she puts it "in the Straits Settlements" (1998: 372).

11 Not before the end of World War II a realistic prospect of independence from the British was in sight for Singapore. At this point, cohesion amongst the various ethnic groups, efficient management and the shape of future Singapore were considered for the first time. In 1959 self-government was achieved and was followed by joining the Malaysian Federation in 1963. Only two years later Singapore separated from Malaysia which resulted into the toughest challenge in Singapore’s short history. There were concerns that Singapore might suffer commercially from negative attitudes towards its Chinese inhabitants from trading partners such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Also unemployment and the loss of revenue from support of the British military presence took its toll on Singapore. But in the following years, the government successfully managed to attract foreign investment and the economy has been moving in a positive direction ever since. Singapore has now one of the world’s busiest ports and engages mainly in manufacturing (electronics, engineering, biomedical sciences, chemicals), financial and business services, and commerce. Key export items are machinery and equipment, electronics, mineral fuels and petroleum products. Tourism has also an important impact on Singapore’s economic performance with up to 10.3 million foreign visitors per year (Simpson 2007: 376-377; Gupta 1998: 370-371; The Guardian 2009).

2.2. Singapore´s linguistic ecology

Mühlhäusler’s (1996) work on 'linguistic ecology' proposes that language, its speakers and its usage in social contact, interact. Language change is often brought about by cultural and historical forces. And language ecologies, which have traditionally fostered language diversity, can experience disruption. It seems that Gupta (2001) applies Mühlhäusler´s observations to the case of Singapore when she states:

If we turn to Singapore’s linguistic ecology we find something far from anything remotely natural. The physical landscape is a human creation, and the linguistic landscape is one whose diversity has resulted from immigration, and which is affected to an unusual degree by overt intervention. (Gupta 2001: 3)

Singapore is in that respect a unique example. With reaching independence from the former colonial power Britain, the nation followed a policy of official multilingualism and individual bilingualism. Further, official policies were put into force to nurture some new national identity and to strengthen the use of the four official languages Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English (Simpson 2007: 377-379). Prior independence, in the early years of Singapore, Malay served as lingua-franca and had a prestige role which gradually was taken over by English. Within the Chinese community Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Hakka or

12 Hainanese were used, with Hokkien briefly emerging as a major lingua-franca. But this role was lost by the late twentieth century with Mandarin and English taking over (Gupta 2001: 5- 6; Pakir 1991: 353). Therefore, the linguistic ecology of Singapore has lost some part of its diversity over the course of time. A fact which is still received rather differently by both, government officials and local linguists (see Goh Chin 2009).

Singapore’s ethnically mixed population was a concern from its earliest days onward. Being the member of a certain ethnic group had (and still has) legal consequences. Singapore follows a common practice to allocate its people at birth, on the basis of paternal ancestry, to one of the four race categories (Chinese, Malay, Indian, and Others). This race category is then closely linked to a 'dialect' or ethnic group. This practice stems from a repeated effort to effectively plan language use (Gupta 1998: 379-380; 2001: 5).

Singapore’s linguistic diversity has been an issue to government leaders ever since independence. They qualified it as an obstacle for reaching the goals of nation-building and have over time developed policies specifically aimed to overcome the problems that such an obstacle posed for the nation. Nation-building in general occurs through centralised planning and the government has chosen the 'national campaign' as its most common genre for its communication with Singapore’s population. Over the course of the twentieth century two official languages gained importance - English and Mandarin. With the launch of the Speak Mandarin Campaign in 1979 and the following annual campaigns an elimination of the use of dialects among the Chinese community had been initiated (Bokhorst-Heng 1999: 243).

In a sense 'deliberate choice' (Laycock 1981 in Mühlhäusler 1996: 14) in language diverse Singapore was seen as an asset. Chinese dialects should be substituted by Mandarin. It was assumed that Mandarin would sooner or later bridge communication gaps between local dialect groups and help to strengthen economical ties with China. It seems, what was put aside during the whole process of intervening in Singapore´s linguistic landscape was the question of identity. Laycock (1981) observed that deliberate language choice, when performed in a diverse linguistic situation, is related to the identification to a certain language or as he states:

[...] In other words, linguistic diversity is perpetuated as a badge of identification. Language is used to maintain social groupings at a small and meaningful level. (Laycock 1981: 34 in Mühlhäusler 1996: 14)

Perhaps, Chinese dialects were granted a role for identity but it seems plausible that they lost their standing due to weighing 'the value of a language or a dialect' (see Labov

13 1972). That means that out of pragmatic reasons Mandarin was chosen over the local dialects. It was thought that Mandarin together with English would prepare coming generations to meet economical and professional challenges.

Among the younger generation of Singaporeans, very few do actually speak a language of another race group. In the past Malay and also Hokkien bridged the gap between Malays, Chinese, Indians, and even Europeans. In those days education was available in four language streams (Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English). But with independence in 1965, the government introduced bilingualism as a way to unify and nationalise the education system. Students in schools belonging to the language streams would learn English as a second language. All those in English-medium schools would learn their associated ethnic language as a second language. This policy had the effect, that bilingualism rose and made the concept of 'English-knowing bilingualism' (Kachru 1982: 42) evident in Singapore. Today a near- universal English schooling (since early 1980s) with certain periods set aside for second- language learning in Mandarin, Malay or Tamil is common practice. What often leads to misunderstandings is the term 'mother tongue'. Especially in education 'mother tongue' is often used in relation with a second school language. Commonly Mandarin, Malay and Tamil are understood as second school languages which at the same time are ethnically defined mother tongues. This results in the equation of e.g. Mandarin as the mother tongue for Chinese and Tamil for Indians. But that does not seem to reflect a realistic picture as students still grow up in homes where a Chinese dialect is spoken or Tamil is not exclusively spoken by all Indian families. In contrast, for the Malay community, the term 'mother tongue' in relation with second school language seems to match perfectly. However, the multilingual and multicultural setting provides even more than one mother tongue for many children to acquire (Gupta 2001: 6-7; Bokhorst-Heng 1999: 237-239; Pakir 1991: 353-354). And as Le Page and Tabouret-Keller (1985) put it:

[...] the concept of 'native language' or 'mother tongue' is, like all concepts, culturally conditioned. In multilingual settings the term 'native language' or 'mother tongue' may have little meaning because children are exposed to many linguistic systems from birth (Le Page et al. 1985: 189).

2.2.1. English: Important for Singapore English is in various sources (Pakir 1991; Simpson 2007; Pennycook 1994) seen as a vital component of Singapore’s success as a trading and industrial nation. At the same time it helps to nurture social cohesion among the ethnic groups. This view has often been emphasised in speeches by members of the government over the years. An impression which is also shared

14 by Cavallaro and Chin who state that "English-mother tongue bilingualism is the desired outcome of their [the government´s] language policies" (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 155). The management of multilingualism and in particular the national education system with English as the primary medium of instruction and the involvement of the other three official languages is commonly seen as a success. However, also critical voices can be observed from both, students and academics. For instance, Chua thinks that through its language policies "Singapore has become an English-speaking nation, struggling to maintain a reasonable literacy standard in the three Asian languages" (Chua 2006: 111). This statement basically sums up what probably developed, after the government had made its pragmatic choices. It seems, that from early on English was given a more privileged role due to its importance for the economy and its potential to improve communication between the different ethnic groups. Whereas Mandarin, Malay and Tamil should mainly function as some sort of "glue" within the ethnic groups, sustain a sense of "Asian-ness" (Chua 2006: 111) and serve as vehicles for cultural heritage. In general, English is qualified as a "powerful and prestigious language" (Pakir 1991: 354) in relation to educational and career opportunities. A fact which has already been emphasised by Platt and Weber (1980) in their early work on English in Singapore:

[...] the dramatic increase in enrolment in predominantly English-medium education has, to a great extent, been because of the realization on the part of parents that English is the language which leads to better employment opportunities, the language which leads to a wider range of tertiary education, not only in Singapore but overseas, e.g. in Britain, Australia and the U.S.A. (Platt and Weber 1980: 129)

2.2.2. Education and meritocracy Education itself is seen as fundamental in Singapore and as Chua puts it "[...] cannot be overstated" (Chua 2006: 111). From primary through secondary school, students find themselves in a very competitive educational environment. Education is bound to the rhetoric and practice of "meritocracy" (see Chua 2006; Chua and Kuo 1991). Students face examination after six years of primary education and are assigned to schools that reflect their achievements. Secondary school education is therefore hierarchical structured with the brightest students attending the best schools and those who are unsuitable for secondary education enrolling in low-end trade schools. Another examination further separates students after four years into those suitable for university education and those for higher-end technical education. The first group will be examined again after two years of junior college, and only those who achieve the required grades will be admitted to university. That has the result that no more than twenty percent of the cohort that started together will be permitted to study at

15 local universities. Grades are the only criterion for entering the next level. That puts a lot of pressure on students and also on parents. The competition at each level is accompanied by long study hours for students and high investment of money for individual tutoring by parents (Chua 2006: 112). Added to this, sociologists Chua and Kuo observed in their work, that "[...] education of the children has become one of the highest anxiety-causing phenomena of parents" (Chua and Kuo 1991:7). Performing well at school and entering university is seen indeed as an investment for individual upward mobility (Chua and Kuo 1991: 18). Singapore has two major universities: National University and Nanyang University. The latter was the first and only Chinese- speaking University in Southeast Asia, and was converted into an English-speaking university in 1980. A university degree is perceived as the ticket to a stable middle-class occupation and lifestyle. With Singapore following a pro-family ideology and translating it into social policies, families build the foundation of its society (Chua and Kuo 1991: 22). The savings of the family are commonly used to support the education for one of the children, in the hope that the child will improve the condition for the whole family in the future. Young graduates then in return feel a particular obligation to contribute directly to the welfare of the family. This stands in contrast to more liberal conceptions which are mainly found in Western countries. In that sense, education is perceived not only as a possibility for primarily advancing one’s own individual position but often the family's situation as a whole (Chua 2006: 110).

2.3. World Englishes

2.3.1. Singapore in the Outer Circle The spread and growth of English across the globe has been captured and discussed widely by academics (e.g. Trudgill 2008; Pennycook 1994; Crystal 1997; McArthur 2001; Görlach 1998; 2002). With such a growth new varieties of English emerged and initiated writings in the field of 'World Englishes'. According to Mesthrie and Bhatt the customary use of the plural form 'Englishes' in 'World Englishes' should stress that "English no longer has one single base of authority, prestige and normativity" (Mesthrie and Bhatt 2008: 3). Bearing this in mind writings (e.g Kachru 1985; Schneider 2007) have tried to capture and explain World Englishes and it further led into a new academic field of study.

16

Figure 1. The Three Circles of English (from Crystal 1995: 107 in Foley 1998: 6)

The starting point for placing Singapore in terms of World Englishes is Braj Kachru´s Circles Model (1985). The model suggest 'three concentric circles', the Inner Circle (presenting the traditional, cultural and linguistic bases of English e.g. USA, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ), the Outer Circle (presenting the institutionalised non-native varieties, passed through extended periods of colonisation e.g. Singapore, India, Nigeria etc.) and the Expanding Circle (which holds varieties that lack official status or are restricted in use or performance varieties e.g. China, Indonesia, Japan etc.). This model corresponds largely with the ENL (English as a Native Language) - ESL (English as a Second Language) - EFL (English as a Foreign Language) distinction (Tan 2008a: 3-4). The model is less concerned with the Inner Circle and places its emphasis on the Outer and Expanding Circles. Kachru´s model suggests that expansions and developments are most rapid in these two circles. In this context he has attempted to shake off such "sacred linguistic cows" (Kachru 1988: 489) of English as the 'native speaker' versus 'non-native' speaker dichotomy. Further he argues for a "pluricentric approach to the acquisition and use of 'new' varieties of English" which refers to "[...] 'world Englishes' in such outer-circle areas as Bangladesh, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Singapore, etc." (Kachru 1988 in Bolton 2000: 419).

Kachru´s views on English in the Outer and Expanding Circles can then broadly be summed up by four main arguments. First, the Outer and Expanding Circles are characteristic

17 for culture-bound localised uses of English which are more effective and culturally significant. Therefore, English is not learned mainly to serve interaction with 'native' speakers. Second, Kachru suggests that English is not used to communicate British or American values. It is used more in a sense as to impart local traditions and cultural values. Third, he claims that the Inner Circle provides a model only in a limited sense. Instead of 'native' varieties, often educated varieties of the localised models are used in classrooms. This also applies to the usage e.g. in lecture halls at Universities. Fourth, deviations from the norm should not be qualified as errors. Instead, deviations should be seen as functionally appropriate in sociolinguistic contexts which are simply different (Tan 2008a: 3-13).

When discussing his model for New Englishes, Kachru (discussed in Tan 2008a: 19- 22) points out that a traditional view suggests that only the native speaker has a full command of the language. In addition, only the native speaker has proper intuitions on its structural properties. In contrast, Kachru proposes that it is more realistic to accept that non-native speakers of English are observed to be rising significantly in numbers and to distinct the norm into 'standard native' and 'standard non-native' varieties. He further suggests that English as a non-native language in a global spectrum needs to be divided into two broad categories, the performance varieties and the institutionalised varieties. The latter term seems to fit the example of Singapore. As institutionalised varieties usually have an extended range of use in the sociolinguistic context of a nation and have an extended style range. Further, a process of nativisation has taken place and for instance English literature in the local context emerges frequently. All in all, the functions of such varieties are clearly instrumental i.e. for education or also regulative i.e. to regulate conduct (e.g. legal system, administration) and interpersonal contact. Which of the latter links and/or provides a code which often symbolises modernisation and elitism. Additionally, such varieties have imaginative or innovative (e.g. use in literary genres) functions (Tan 2008a: 19-32).

2.4. Singapore English

2.4.1. Linguistic continuum Various studies (Platt 1977; Platt and Weber 1980; Gupta 1998; 1994a; 2001) on Singapore English were published in the past. This section aims to give a brief overview of the main studies. English in general has taken on new forms like it was indicated before. The variety of English which can be found in Singapore has been analysed broadly in two ways. Platt (1975)

18 was the first to view Singapore English as a 'speech or lectal continuum'. He worked hereby within the tradition of DeCamp´s (1971) model for post-creole speech continuum.

According to Mühlhäusler (1997: 12) the term post-creole continuum was coined "to cater for differential developments in the subsequent history of Creoles". DeCamp (1971) investigated such a post-creole continuum in Jamaican English. He observed an "[...] extreme degree of variability of Jamaican English" and that there is "[...] no cleavage between creole and standard" (1971: 350). He suggested:

Rather there is a linguistic continuum, a continuous spectrum of speech varieties ranging from 'bush talk' or 'broken language' of Quashie to the educated standard of Philip Sherlock and Norman Manley. Many Jamaicans persist in the myth that there are only two varieties: the patois and the standard. But one speaker´s attempt at the broad patois may be closer to the standard end of the spectrum than is another speaker´s attempt at the standard. The 'standard' is not standard British, as many Jamaican claim; rather it is an evolving standard Jamaican (or perhaps standard West Indian) English which is mutually intelligible with, but undeniably different from, standard British. Each Jamaican speaker commands a span of this continuum, the breadth of the span depending on the breadth of his social contacts; a labor leader, for example, commands a greater span of varieties than does a suburban middle-class housewife. (DeCamp 1971: 350)

According to Mühlhäusler (1997: 211) DeCamp´s notion of a post-creole continuum was later extended to serve post-pidgin situations. He explained a post-pidgin or post-creole variety as:

[...] a Pidgin or Creole which, after a period of relative linguistic independence, has come under renewed vigorous influence from its original lexifier language, involving the restructuring and/or replacement of earlier lexicon and grammar in favour of patterns from the superimposed "target" language. (Mühlhäusler 1997: 211)

Foley recalled in his work Platt´s (1977) description of Singapore English and summarised it as a continuum "made up of a gradation from the acrolect, through a mesolect to the basilect" (Foley 1988: 12). Richards (1982) views these lects and their status as follows:

The acrolect represents the idealised rhetorical norm for the community; the mesolect is the idealised communicative norm. The basilect may represent an actual communicative style, but it is scarcely recognised as a norm. (Richards 1982:161 quoted in Foley 1988:12)

In relation to this Mühlhäusler (1997: 211) stated that the mesolectal speaker "can be proficient in more lects than basilectal speakers". This might be particularly common "if movement along the social and linguistic continuum involves social or financial benefits" (Mühlhäusler 1997: 211). Platt later continued to use these terms in his following accounts of Singapore English despite the fact that its developmental history was different from other post-creole language varieties. In the past he had already suggested to label English in

19 Singapore as a "creoloid" (Platt 1975). Mühlhäusler later pointed out that this term is most useful "in those cases where new linguistic systems can be shown to have emerged within a very short timespan, as is the case with Singlish, Taglish and similar New Englishes" (1997: 11).

2.4.2. Diglossia: Singapore Standard English and Singapore Colloquial English An approach which caught on with and was expanded upon by many researchers (Gupta 1989; Richards 1983; Pakir 1991) in the 1990s was that of labelling the situation in Singapore as diglossic (based on Ferguson 1959). In general the characteristic of a diglossic situation is when a single language or variety appears to have two subvarieties, a High and a Low, each serving different functions and domains in society (Ferguson 1959 discussed in Lim and Foley 2004: 10). Therefore, Singapore Standard English (henceforth SSE) would take up its position as High variety and Singapore Colloquial English (henceforth SCE) would take up its position as Low variety. Gupta also emphasised in an account on commenting the situation of English in Singapore:

[...] that many Singaporean speakers of English move at will between Standard English and CSE [Singapore Colloquial English]. Skill in Standard English, as is the case in other English-using societies, is highly valued, and is often socially used to judge a person´s social and linguistic status. In Singapore English, as in all or most languages, the way people speak gives information to other members of the community about their social position: their gender, age, social class and so on, and speakers often manipulate this information-giving either consciously or semi-consciously. (Gupta 1998: 384)

At this point it has to be stressed that for Chinese-educated or the working class the use of SCE/Singlish stems out of necessity because they commonly struggle with English. In contrast, for the English-educated it is more a question of choice or preference. They exhibit diglossia by switching between SCE and SSE depending on social situations (Gupta 1992 in Chong 2007: 66). Therefore, switching back and forth between these two varieties of English in Singapore is frequently applied even on a daily basis. Chong (2007: 66) summarises Crystal´s (1987) understanding of code-switching who suggests that it takes place when a bilingual individual changes into a particular language in order to ease understanding with another person or wishes to emphasise solidarity with a particular group. This can easily be observed in everyday encounters throughout Singapore. Chong views diglossia in Singapore as to help

[...] to convey or emphasise a particular attitude that one language inadequately expresses. In switching briefly to another language when making a point, the speaker opens new pathways for understanding

20 and empathy. These pathways are almost invariably through class divisions in common social settings like national service, shopping malls and local universities where the working, middle and upper middle class come into contact. In these settings, the ability to code switch speaks of the ability to cross, however briefly or superficially, identity and class borders; an ability not available to those who use Singlish out of necessity. In using Singlish to cross the borders of class and identity to fulfil specific interests, the English-educated display their cultural capital, that is, an embodied form of knowledge and experience to negotiate the social world. (Chong 2007: 67-68)

In order to support his view, Chong quotes a scene from Stella Kon´s canonical play Emily of Emerald Hill (1985). In which the main character Emily, an English-educated Peranakan matriach displays a variety of code switches during her morning trip to the market. This character, like other Singaporeans makes an "effortless transition from one cultural world to another in pursuit of specific interest" (Chong 2007: 69). In general, Kon´s character portrays what occurs everyday in Singapore when middle class English-educated consumers encounter Chinese or Indian market hawkers. Chong thinks that the character Emily switches to Singlish in order to "elicit prompt service or discourage over-charging as Singlish marks her as a local" (Chong 2007: 69). The given example by Chong seems to stress Gupta´s (1998) view that speakers of the High variety (SSE) have the ability to switch to the Low variety (SCE) but members of the lower-middle or working class find it difficult to use the High variety (SSE). However, given the fact that Singapore has a multilingual setting one might argue that speakers could always switch to another language e.g. Chinese. A view which is also shared by Gupta and summarised in the following statement:

In Singapore, English can be used in all aspects of daily life. There are a few Singaporeans who seldom, if ever, need to use any other language; who perform all their work life, all their emotional life, and all their commercial transactions in English. However, most Singaporeans habitually use two or three or even four or more languages on a daily basis, and for most of them, one of those languages is English. (Gupta 1998: 384)

Foley pointed out that when describing the use of SSE and SCE in a diglossic situation, SCE is perceived as "a contact variety which, in some ways, resemble creoles and some of the SCE syntax is influenced by contact with Chinese" (Foley 1998: 7). SCE is further perceived as a "language acquisition process" rather than seen as "a set of interlanguage errors" (Foley 1998: 8). Within this framework SSE is qualified as a competence supplemented to the language repertoire of children in later years (Foley 1998: 8).

2.4.3. Pakir´s model of ‘expanding triangles’ Pakir followed the groundwork of Gupta but proposed her own model of the expanding triangles of English expression in Singapore in 1991. According to Foley (1998: 8) Pakir´s

21 model builds a sharp contrast to the early rather static model founded by Platt (1977). In Pakir´s (1991: 361) view the Singapore English speech continua are basically formed along two dimensions: With the first dimension being along the cline of formality and the second dimension being along the cline of proficiency in English. SSE is set on the upper end and SCE is set on the lower end. This concept follows what Gupta (1989: 34) has labelled as a diglossic situation. The high variety is therefore used in formal contexts like in parliament, courts, in administration and high finance, for public speeches, and in classrooms. The low variety is linked to informal settings like being with friends, interacting with semi-strangers, in service encounters, at workplaces, or at play, as suggested by Pakir (1991: 361).

Further, Pakir splits up the proficiency levels in English into five graded series which the highest is labelled 'advanced' (meaning educated or standard variety) followed by 'adept', 'intermediate' and further down 'basic' and 'rudimentary' (i.e. pidgin-like) which represents the lowest level. The levels presented in the model (Figure 2) should correlate with the numbers of years of contact with English e.g. in an institutional setting like school. For the formality cline, Pakir also chose to arbitrarily grade it into five series with 'formal' being at the highest end, followed by 'careful', 'consultative', 'casual' and 'intimate', at the lowest end (Pakir 1991: 361).

Figure 2. Expanding Triangles of English Expression (from Pakir 1991: 362)

It seems that Pakir´s model takes successfully into account the various degrees of competence in English which one can easily observe while living among Singaporeans. Such

22 observations, although non-academical, are often presented in blogs, commonly written by Westerners who work for multinational companies in Singapore (e.g. Angry Ang mo 2009). Pakir sums this situation up by stating that "the near-universal use of English in Singapore today, in addition to other languages, has produced a population that knows English but with varying proficiency levels" (Pakir 1991: 361). Her model suggests that:

Speakers of English low on the cline of proficiency continuum remain pretty much at the lower end, and basically are unable to perform within the formality dimension. In other words, they form small triangulations, starting from the rudimentary end; whether the occasion is most formal or most intimate, the kind of English subvariety remains essentially substandard. As proficiency increases, slightly bigger triangles are possible, with shifts made for corresponding formality levels, and including a greater varietal range. (Pakir 1991: 361)

Highly educated users of English e.g. students, graduates, young professionals can be placed at the top ends of both (formality cline and proficiency cline) continua. Their movement along the continua Pakir describes as "fluid and far-ranging compared to others who are less proficient" (Pakir 1991: 361). She explains further that:

They [highly educated users] are capable of moving along the whole diglossic continuum, from top to bottom, and yet cross over to the proficiency continuum, often remaining at the top end and occasionally stretching down to the intermediate level or even lower (Pakir 1991: 361).

For the group of highly educated users of English, this smooth movement along the continua and the ability to move freely along the diglossic continuum represents a major advantage. Members of this group make use of this ability, whenever it seems to suit them. This is obviously emphasised by Cavallaro and Chin (2009) in their article on attitudes on SSE and SCE. They state that "there is nothing that undergraduate Singaporeans like more than lecturers who can crack the occasional Singlish joke or break out in fluent Singlish" (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 154). According to Pakir (1991: 362) the English which is used at its most formal context is SSE and in her view, almost not different from varieties used by "knowledgeable speakers of English elsewhere". Her data which she obtained from primary and secondary school students and teachers indicates that SSE is "close to that of English spoken in the Inner Circle" (Pakir 1991: 363). She compares highly educated English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore with those in e.g. Africa and South Asia and states that they control a certain range of varieties and clines. They make use of such varieties when the context seems to allow it.

In her concluding remarks, Pakir suggests that the model of expanding triangles of English can be used to understand "the range and diversity of the subvarieties of English

23 spoken by English-knowing bilinguals" which are commonly used in domains such as school and home. It further helps to "understand how in classrooms, supposedly formal settings, a range of varieties of English can be expected" (1991: 362-363). In her study she observed a certain "receptivity of students to this fluidity of movement along the range" and their "larger triangulations" (Pakir 1991: 363). In that sense Pakir´s model and observations stand in stark contrast to Platt and Weber´s model (1980) which Pakir (1991: 362) comments on and describes as rather static. From her point of view, the description of acrolect, mesolect and basilect speakers of Singapore English does not involve the notion of switching back and forth. Pakir (1991: 362) agrees that basilectal speakers might not be able to speak upwards but the group of highly educated speakers share the ability to switch back and forth and therefore, show a certain range and depth of Singapore English. In her view, the observed group of students can be seen as representatives of

[...] a generation that Singapore will have produced by the turn of the twenty-first century, confident in the knowledge that they can hold their own in Standard English and yet use Singapore Colloquial English, which is non-standard, rather than substandard, for their own purposes and communication. (Pakir 1991: 363)

Pakir´s quote underlines the coexistence of SSE and SCE in modern Singapore. But compared to earlier accounts (Platt 1977; Platt and Weber 1980) of these two main varieties of English, they are now seen as "more continuous than discrete" (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 146). Like Gupta (1989; 1994a), Pakir (1991) shares the assumption that SSE and SCE coexist in Singapore and agrees on their diglossic nature. According to Cavallaro and Chin (2009: 146) SSE is perceived as a "stable variety", with researchers trying to present common features of SSE in their work. In the past, SSE was often compared and discussed by linking it to prestigious varieties such as British English. In Cavallaro´s and Chin´s (2009: 146) view recent studies e.g. by Schneider (2007) have given ground for the support of SSE as a variety with "its own developing standard" and which is "distinct from other external standards" (e.g. British English). But they also note:

Though SSE is not significantly different from other international standard varieties of English in terms of intelligibility, SCE has undergone substantial influence at the substrate level, which has led to considerable restructuring at all levels. [...] It is this very variety which attracts the most opprobrium from official quarters and is considered to be a stumbling block to Singapore´s ability to blend seamlessly into the first world. (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 146)

Cavallaro and Chin´s quote emphasises the fact, that SSE enjoys mutual acceptance within the Singaporean community. SSE is in fact the "desired and officially norm" (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 146) for the community but SCE is more likely used and that stands in clear

24 opposition to what the government is eager to prevent. But this issue, among others, which surrounds SCE gets discussed later in this thesis.

2.4.4. Schneider´s ‘dynamic model’ As mentioned before, Singapore English enjoys stability and therefore, has been discussed from a sociohistorical perspective in Schneider´s (2003) dynamic model. The model allows capturing evolutionary stages of different new English varieties. Tan (2008b) suggests following key ideas of the dynamic model which she often lists especially for students approaching it for the first time:

 Notion of social identity  Construction of identity by linguistic means  Identity constructions are at the heart of the process of the emergence and evolution of World Englishes  The cultural, linguistic contact in the context of colonialism  Social roles, historical roots, cultural traditions need to be negotiated around changes in territorial ownership, political and military power.  The changes in the linguistic structures are therefore not idiosyncratic  There is a common underlying schema of uniformity of the sociopsychological as well as linguistic processes  What this model really means is to say that there are certain universal features across these World Englishes, and variability will exist depending on the different contexts provided by the different socio- historical conditions. (Tan 2008b: 4)

What becomes evident from these loosely listed key ideas of the dynamic model is that it works within four different parameters: (1) Extralinguistic factors, like historical events and political situation, result in (2) characteristic identity for both parties (2 major agents: settlers/coloniser vs. residents/colonised). These are observed to manifest themselves in (3) sociolinguistic determinants of contact setting (language contact, language use and language attitudes) which then initiate (4) structural effects in the form(s) of the language variety/-ies (Schneider 2007: 31; Tan 2008b: 8). These four parameters can be observed at each of the five stages/phases which Schneider (2007) coined: (1) foundation, (2) exonormative stabilisation, (3) nativisation, (4) endonormative stabilisation and (5) differentiation. With such five progressive stages at hand a description of "identity rewritings and associated linguistic changes" is made possible (Schneider 2007: 30; Tan 2008b: 9). Schneider sums it up by stating that "the process leads from the transplanting of English to a new land through a period of vibrant changes, both social and linguistic, to a renewed stabilization of a newly emerged variety" (Schneider 2007: 30). What Schneider also takes into account is the perspective and communicative relationship of the parties involved; the colonisers and that of

25 the colonised. For this purpose he labels "strands" of development and calls the settlers' perspective (coloniser) "STL strand" and residents' (colonised) perspective "IDG strand". Schneider (2007: 30-31) suggests that all two perspectives can be observed in each of the five developmental stages/phases and are more of an interwoven than of a separate kind.

In the specific case of Singapore it was suggested (by Schneider 2007) that it has reached stage/phase 4: endonormative stabilisation. Within the four different parameters Tan (2008b) sums up following characteristics:

 Sociopolitical background: Stage of cultural self-reliance  Identity constructions: Members of the STL community see themselves as members of the new nation; For the IDG strand, ethnic boundaries redefines, and become less important; Time of nation building  Sociolinguistic conditions: Existence of new language form recognised; Lost former stigma and reevaluated; New local norm; It is no longer 'English in X', but 'X English'; Literary creativity  Linguistic effects: Linguistic homogeneity; Should there be difference (e.g. ethnic), the differences are downplayed; Internal group coherence; Codification of the new norm (Tan 2008b: 30-33)

Ansaldo (2004) agrees with the applicability of the model for different varieties but seems to notice some controversial points in the application to Singapore. He notes that Singapore English is indeed relative stable and the perception of linguistic homogeneity (as listed by Tan 2008b) is also valid for the Singapore community. These two observations are, in his view, accompanied by a certain level of identification (as listed by Tan 2008b) and as he puts it "identification between being Singaporean and speaking the new localised variety" (Ansaldo 2004: 144). But he points out that the endonormative predictions are not met because there seems to be no official support (on the political level) for the new variety. In fact, he senses more a form of opposition and sums up the reason for not achieving stage/phase 4:

This is mainly due to the fact that, within the complex web of policies that makes up language planning in Singapore, the government has yet to understand that (a) bilectalism i.e. competence in basilectal English and Standard English is viable, and (b) basilectal English does indeed represent 'national' and Asian values so dear and sought after by the leadership in other, more costly and successful programmes, such as the various campaigns implemented in the past three decades. (Ansaldo 2004: 144)

Lim and Foley (2004: 7) agree on the existence of controversial points in the labelling of Singapore with stage/phase 4. They think that the problem stems from 'error analysis', initiated by the government and channelled through the education system and worked on by researchers which, in their view, have probably not contributed at all to the description of Singapore English. And as they later declare:

26

Perhaps the failure lay in the fact that it was an unconscious attempt at getting rid of anything that was 'Singaporean', meaning non-standard, in the language. It was and possibly still is part of the uncertainty about status and solidarity that Lim (1986) describes, in spite of the assumption of Singapore having moved into the phase of endonormative stabilisation by the 1960s and 1970s (Schneider 2003: 264). (Lim and Foley 2004: 7)

2.4.5. Singapore English at a glance

2.4.5.1. Features Gupta (1994a: 15) argues that race does not have any impact on deciding how to speak English in Singapore. English is widely used among all ethnic groups and it is agreed on that SSE and SCE are the two main varieties of English within Singapore´s speech community (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 146). In the discussion of new varieties of English, SCE is often linked to speakers who are not very proficient in English and also brought into relation with informal situations. But as earlier mentioned, even proficient students choose individually to speak SCE or SSE in different situations. In Gupta´s view speakers do so in order to "express their relationship to the situation and to their interlocuters" (Gupta 1994a: 15). Gupta underlines her view by recalling an example:

[...] a mother reading, or telling a story to her child may say "The bird has flown away", while the same mother playing a game may say, in SCE, "Fly away already." To a Singaporean, speaking in Standard English to a small child seems stiff, artificial, and unfriendly (Gupta 1994a: 15)

She further adds that thus children who are exposed to English and acquire it as a native language "usually learn SCE first, just as children in Jamaica may learn a creolized variety of English at home" (Gupta 1994a: 16). Gupta´s example very much reflects what can be observed easily when overhearing conversations between parents and their children while commuting on local buses, MRT or by visiting crowded places like shopping malls.

That SCE can be "selected creatively too" is another point Gupta wants to stress which is drawn from her own observations of campus life at NUS (Gupta 1994a: 16). She therefore comments on messages from students who announced or discussed different issues on the computer bulletin board in both, SSE and SCE (e.g. personal messages). Gupta concludes that within this context "writers and speakers are making deliberate choices" (Gupta 1994a: 16). This impression is also shared by the author of this thesis. Posts from Singaporean students on the social networking website 'Facebook' have suggested that alternation between SCE and SSE are very common. In that sense, side by side there are posts in SSE and posts in SCE like the following:

27

go eat dinner la how to take and eat? i can´t even hold up on my finger tip lei

The examples given before where consciously chosen because they exhibit a distinctive feature of Singapore English: 'discourse particles' (Trudgill 2008) or 'pragmatic particles' (Lim 2007). The use of particles such as lah [la], ah, hah, what, lor, hor, nah, leh, ma, meh is widespread and an actual number of these in SE (Singapore English) is not clear (Lim 2007: 446). Richards and Tay (1977) provide an early treatment of the lah particle as a feature of L English. They view the L and H varieties of Singapore English not as discrete but rather as a continuum. Much later Trudgill (2008) also commends on particles such as lah, ah and lor which he thinks cannot be found in other varieties of English. His description is dedicated to "the most educated segment of the population" (Trudgill 2008: 139). One might argue from this, that the use of particles is common for both groups, speakers of SSE and speakers of SCE.

Like Trudgill (2008), Lim (2007) and Gupta (1992) have agreed on the fact that the particles derived from Chinese, particularly Southern varieties of Chinese like e.g. Hokkien (Richards and Tay 1977) or Cantonese. They are commonly used similar to their functions in native varieties and are signalled by "intonation and/or syntactic devices" (Trudgill 2008: 141). Trudgill (2008) views the particle lah to signify mainly informality, solidarity and emphasis (1). Lim (2007) also suggests that lah can draw attention to mood or attitude and that it appeals for accommodation. In her view it can also have a persuasive function (3) or can give the impression of matter-of-factness (2). The following examples show some of the options (adapted from Trudgill 2008: 141; Lim 2007: 449):

(1) Please lah come to the party. 'Please do come to the party.' (2) A: What do you want to talk about? B: Anything under the sun lah. (3) Tired lah. 'It´s because I´m tired (which is why I don´t want to go out)' [explaining persuasively]

The most frequent use though, which can easily be observed even by tourists is in the locution 'OK lah'.

The particle ah [a] is often used at the end of declaratives or functions as a topic marker (Lim 2007: 449; Trudgill 2008: 141). But intonational variations in general seem to play a part when it comes to the function of particles. With this particle in particular Lim (2007: 449) suggests that a mid fall or low pitch can mark a sentence construction with the

28 particle ah as question (4) and once the particle has a rise, the question becomes rather rhetorical (5). Both possibilities are exhibited in the following examples (adapted from Lim 2007: 449):

(4) Then you got to do those papers again ah? 'So do you have to do those papers again?' (5) Then you got to do those papers again ah? 'So you have to do those papers again (I know).'

Gupta adds another option as to how to use ah in a conversation. In her view, when ah is given a rise it can possibly check if the interlocutor is following the ongoing conversation, narrative or explanation (Gupta 1992 in Lim 2007: 449). It could also signal the continuation of an utterance. Both options (6) are given in the following conversation (adapted from Lim 2007: 449):

(6) A: Okay when you go BBDC ah, you have to attend six class. 'Okay, when you got to BBDC [a driving school; also a basic test], you have to attend six classes.' B: Still have to attend the theory class? 'Do I still have to attend the theory class?' [B has already passed a theory test] A: Okay. This theory class ah, this theory class ... usually for those people who haven´t take BBDC basic and final theory right? 'The theory class is usually for those who haven´t done the basic test.' B: So I not need lah! 'So I don´t need to do it then!' A: Okay you no need to take the basic theory. You just attend the class. So you just listen ah. 'Okay, so you don´t need to do the basic theory (test); you just have to attend the class, and just listen!' B: I don´t want to attend the class! A: You have to listen. You have to attend. The book ah, you have to chop. 'You have to attend the class, because you have to get your book stamped (for attendance).'

The particle what [wat] usually occurs with information that is considered to be obvious (7) and therefore contradicts something which has previously been declared (Wee 2004 in Lim 2007: 449). The following example is seen as representative of such a usage (adapted from Lim 2007: 450):

(7) A: But this is only for those matriculated students. B: I´m matriculated what. 'I´m matriculated, as you well know (so I should be eligible for this).'

29 With the particle lor [l ] a sense of obviousness gets expressed and when used in a negative context it could signal inevitability or resignation (Wee 2002 in Lim 2007: 450). It could be used in both, declaratives (8) or imperatives (9), as the examples suggest (adapted from Lim 2007: 450):

(8) The most I have fewer kids lor. 'At the very worst, I´ll have fewer children.' (9) You buy lor. [if you think the flat is so good.] '(Why don´t you) buy it then, if you think the flat is such a good buy.'

The particle hor [h ] is a question particle which when attached to a proposition usually calls for support (Wee 2004 in Lim 2007: 450). The particle never occurs with wh- questions or polar interrogatives but with questions with declarative form (Lim 2007: 450). Another particle usually used in questions is leh [le] and indicates the act of comparison (Lim 2005 in Lim 2007: 450). The final question particle is meh [mε] which according to Gupta questions a presupposition or like Wee proposes, can convey scepticism (Gupta 1992; Wee 2004; in Lim 2007: 451). To round off this section on particles, the last particle which should be mentioned and was discussed by Lim is ma [ma]. It generally serves to promote a piece of information or advice in an obvious way to an addressee (Kwan-Terry 1991; Wee 2004 in Lim 2007: 451).

2.4.5.2. Singapore English lexicon What is evident for the particles can also be observed in the lexicon of Singapore English. Similar to the particles which are traced back to Chinese and its varieties, the lexical items are commonly borrowed from languages such as Chinese and Malay. Some of the English words have been semantically or grammatically extended (Trudgill 2008: 141). The lexicon, broadly speaking, comprises strong elements of Singaporean life. Words from different categories such as fauna and flora, culture and domains of everyday life adds to its peculiarity but also to its nativisation (Schneider 2003: 162). The following summary should give an idea of the lexis characteristic for Singapore English (adapted from Trudgill 2008: 141-142; Schneider 2003: 162):

airflown freshly imported (food) baju kurong Malay dress for women cheem profound, deep or intellectual chin chai lazy and careless chope to reserve

30 cock rubbish or junk durian local fruit hawker stall food stall kampung village kiasu, kiasuism strongly competitive koon sleep makan to eat, food take to (like to) eat or drink taugeh beansprout tolong help

The most common acronyms one might hear are 'HDB' (Housing Development Board, a government body) and 'MRT' (Mass Rapid Transport). An average Singaporean lives in a so-called 'HDB block' and takes a 'MRT train' to work and for getting around the city. Besides its characteristic lexis and acronyms Wong (2006: 451) stresses that Singapore English offers various labels for 'social categories' (Wierzbicka 2003 in Wong 2006). He prefers the term 'cultural categories' and suggests that "Singapore English seems to host quite a diverse range" of them (Wong 2006: 451). In that sense it resembles Inner Circle Englishes (e.g. British English) where labels charged with either positive or negative cultural attitudes or biases frequently occur (Wong 2006: 451). Among a diverse range of cultural categories Wong recalls the most typical ones like 'Ah Beng', 'Ang moh' and 'Sarong Party Girl' (also referred to as SPG). These terms are widely known within Singapore´s community. They also found their entry into the Coxford Singlish Dictionary (accessible via www.talkingcock.com) which gives following meanings for them:

Ah Beng: An unsophisticated boy, usually Hokkien. Stereotypically, he speaks gutter hokkien and likes neon-coloured clothes, spiky, moussed hair and accessories such as handphones or pagers, all of which are conspicuously displayed. He likes to squat, even when a seat is available. (Coxford Singlish Dictionary 2009)

Ang moh or Ang Mor: Hokkien word for 'red hair'. A pejorative term used to describe Caucasians. (Coxford Singlish Dictionary 2009)

Sarong Party Girl/SPG: A pejorative term describing local girls who will only go out with Caucasians. The typical "SPG", as she is usually abbreviated, is extremely tan, and skimpily-dressed. (Coxford Singlish Dictionary 2009)

In addition the frequently used term 'Ang moh' is summarised by Wierzbicka in following words:

31

The folk concept of 'ang moh' seems to symbollically unite the Chinese, Malay and Indians (and possibly Eurasians) as people who either are, or (in some respects) 'look like', the indigenous population (the 'locals'), and to contrast with them all, 'another kind of people', who 'do not look like', the indigenous population and who are perceived as outsiders and 'foreigners'. (Wierzbicka 2003: 354 quoted in Wong 2006: 452)

Apart from the terms mentioned which mainly refer to young people there are two more Singaporean terms: 'aunty' and 'uncle'. Wong (2006: 451) considers them as "indicators of aspects of Singapore culture". Researchers (e.g. Wong 2006; Wierzbicka 2003) like to think of them as keyterms conveying attitudes and values of Singapore culture. Although the words aunty and uncle come from Inner Circle Englishes the categories which they are attributed to are exclusively available in Singapore English (Wong 2006: 452). Broadly speaking, the words can be used to indicate seniority in age. Its usage can e.g. emphasise a respectful encounter with members of the older generation. This practice is drawn from Chinese culture in which e.g an aunt has the same status as one´s father and mother. In Singaporean culture people are generally encouraged to "show deference for seniority in age" (Wong 2006: 457). The following example tries to exhibit this (author´s own observation):

A: Please uncle, drop us off in front of the entrance. B: Okay lah!

This observation was made during a taxi trip. The taxi driver was a senior citizen and the other person who made the request was in her twenties. Besides seniority in age other characteristics are attributed to these terms. For instance aunties are often thought to be old- fashioned. The term old-fashioned applies not only to their ways of thinking but also to their appearance. The latter often initiates an extended use of aunty as a "predicative adjective" (Wong 2006: 455), as the following example (author´s own observation) shows:

A: Look at this dress! The colour and all. So aunty. B: Yah [giggles]. Very aunty.

The example which was observed in a shopping mall, gives a brief impression of a conversation among two speakers. Speaker A considers a dress as 'aunty'. She draws her conclusion mainly from the colour of the dress. Speaker B confirms this impression. Women who fall into the category of aunties are usually not considered to be 'hip' or 'stylish' (Wong 2006: 458). Like the given examples in some way show, Singapore´s aunties and uncles are often confronted with the younger generation. Senior citizens often come from a humble

32 background, are Chinese-educated and considered being backward in their way of thinking. They then are contrasted with a modern younger generation, English-educated, multiethnic (Chinese, Malay, or Indians) who are exposed to international mass media and enjoy Western films and music. It results into what Wong (2006) managed to summarise neatly in the following:

[...] while aunties and uncles command some kind of respect in Singapore culture by virtue of their relative seniority in age, they may also be frowned upon because of what is perceived by the younger generations to be their outdated ways of living and thinking. Although Singapore is racially an Asian society, whose population comprises mainly Chinese, Malay, and Indian people, many of the younger generations have attended English-medium formal education, studied in Inner Circle English-speaking countries (e.g. US, UK, Australia), travelled widely, and have accepted certain Inner Circle values and ways of living. (Wong 2006: 462)

2.4.5.3. Pronunciation Scholars have commented on features of Singapore English pronunciation over the past years (e.g. Brown 1999). The following brief summary of the most common features is based on the work of Gupta (1994b) and Trudgill (2008). The vowel system in Singapore English is shown in Table 1 and 2. According to Trudgill (2008: 139) the educated variety of Singapore English is considered to be non-rhotic and shares most vowel contrasts with RP (Received Pronunciation).

Table 1. The vowel system of SE (from Gupta 1994b: 16)

33

Table 2. The vowels of SE (from Trudgill 2008: 140)

As previously mentioned, SE is non-rhotic but in Trudgill´s view "generally lacks linking and intrusive /r/" (Trudgill 2008: 140). Gupta (1994b) and Trudgill (2008) concur that Singapore English is syllable-timed and that many word-final consonant clusters are often simplified or reduced. Trudgill gives examples like "next/neks/" or "punched/pant" (2008: 140). Gupta underlines in her writing that "Singpaore English has a pattern of pronunciation which enables someone who is familiar with it to identify a Singaporean" (Gupta 1994b: 38).

2.4.5.4. Syntax Schneider (2003: 162) and Trudgill (2008: 141) find that SE is marked by some distinctive rules and patterns. Both scholars comment on the usage of 'noncount nouns' (Schneider 2003) or 'mass nouns' (Trudgill 2008). In SE it is common to treat such nouns as count nouns, like for instance "luggages, furnitures" (Trudgill 2008: 141) or "staffs" (Schneider 2003: 162). Another peculiarity which is listed by Trudgill is the treatment of use and would. Here are two

34 example sentences representative for the typical usage of each word (adapted from Trudgill 2008: 141-142):

(1) I use to go shopping on Mondays. 'I usually go shopping on Mondays.'

(2) We hope you would come tomorrow.

Example (1) shows that use in combination with present tense can indicate habitual activity or behaviour. It seems that would is more often used than will as example (2) suggests.

Further, the rather extensive usage of can is characteristic for SE. For one, can is primarily used as a complete utterance. There is usually no subject or complement attached. Therefore, speakers of SE prefer to answer questions by simply stating "Can!" or "Cannot!". A reduplication of can is very common in order to put greater emphasise on the verb or to increase the force of the verb. In that sense an utterance similar to the following is very likely to be heard within Singapore´s speech community (author´s own example):

A (Caucasian speaker): Do you mind if I come round tomorrow and take a look at the room? B (Singaporean speaker): Can can!

The example shows that agreement or confirmation can be simply stated by reduplication of can. No further attachment to the comment is made. Trudgill (2008: 141) suggest that can is also commonly used as an interrogative tag. He gives the following example:

She wants to go, can or not? 'Can she go (or not)?'

Trudgill further finds that the indefinite article "is used less frequently than in native varieties of English" (Trudgill 2008: 141).

2.5. Singapore, languages and identity

From its independence in 1965 onwards, Singapore as a very new state has been eager to foster a mutual national identity. The starting position was that of a multi-ethnic society which later should be transformed into a 'rugged society'. A term which can often be found in old

35 sources (e.g. Llamzon 1977: 40) dedicated to the language situation in Singapore. The significant decision the post-independence government then made was to "maintain cultural and linguistic pluralism within Singapore" next to "[...] building up an overarching Singaporean identity" which mainly was provided by "[...] Asian values, and supported by increased prosperity" (Simpson 2007: 374). In the line to achieve this, one main component was that of language management and planning which included a policy of multilingualism in society and advanced bilingualism in individuals (Simpson 2007: 374). Therefore Singapore was challenged with what Crystal (1995) labelled as the two main perspectives, national identity and internationalism, which both contribute essentially to a nation´s decisions around language (Bokhorst-Heng 2005: 185).

With the nation´s 'mother tongue policy' (as mentioned in section 2.2.) authorities gave official status to Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, along with English. This process was guided by the need for a common identity. All three mother tongues were considered to provide cultural values for the individual ethnic group and especially for its youths. From an early stage English was regarded favourably "as the language of technological sophistication, progress and economic development" (Llamzon 1977: 41). It seems that English, apart from the other three official languages has been given a more privileged status. This is clearest in the area of education where English is now studied by all students and is the sole medium of instruction in tertiary education (Simpson 2007: 388). Thus, students commonly learn English because it is perceived as the 'neutral' language for all different racial groups as it is perceived as not ethnically bound. It is further considered to be the 'international' language par excellence.

In Singaporean context English can also be seen as a sort of commodity. It surely plays an important key role in attracting investments from overseas. Many multinational companies are attracted to Singapore not only because of investment-friendly measures but also by its bilingual workforce. Economic prosperity and progress are along with language considered to be fundamental elements to unite and bind the nation. Simpson underlines that by stating that "the spectacular achievements made in the economy over the last few decades have come to function as an important part of Singaporean national identity" (2007: 390). Correspondingly, economic achievement itself contributes to the emergence of a new social order which is marked by instrumental rationality and which opts for a population with strong achievement motivation (Chua and Kuo 1991: 7). Thus, "discipline at the workplace" and "social discipline" in general are seen as the essentials for prosperity. In addition, "a constant

36 upgrading of educational qualification" and "a constant sense of comparison with others in terms of relative advantages or deprivations in consumption" are cultural features of Singapore´s modern society (Chua and Kuo 1991: 7). They are the predominant qualities and anxieties that mark the life of Singaporeans.

Although English is so vital for Singapore´s economy the government has stressed over years that its society must guard its traditional Asian values. The government is of the opinion, that with the knowledge of English and people´s exposure to Western ideas, a potential move towards Western values and attitudes could be possible but is certainly not desired. And in the long run, would not be beneficial for the society. The government lists excessive individualism, unwillingness to make personal sacrifice for the good of the economy and further, potential decadence as key elements of Western attitudes (Hill 1999: 16- 17). To avoid a potential shift in values, the government recommended guarding common Asian values. In the national ideology these values are described as "including the idea of nation before community, society above self, and family as the basic unit of society" (Simpson 2007: 386).

One early Asian oriented measure taken by the government was the Speak Mandarin Campaign to promote Mandarin. As a language it was associated with Chinese culture and should therefore convey some moral education and forward it to the youth. Apart from that, Mandarin was considered to gain increasing importance as a trade language giving access to China´s expanding market. The Speak Mandarin Campaign became a long-term ongoing campaign reaching far into the 1990s. Although, its side-effect was a marginalisation of local Chinese dialects like e.g. Hokkien, it seems to have promoted a common sense of belonging among the Chinese ethnic group. Further to this, with a general belief that Confucianism had been a basic or even primary element for the progress of capitalism in post-war Asia, its promotion of a way of life was debated (Chua and Kuo 1991: 29). It was agreed, that Singaporeans share their core values of hard work, thrift, and sacrifice with other citizens of 'Tiger economies' such as Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. Therefore, what would serve the city-state best, would be the configuration of core national values of an overtly Confucian design into a refurbished global system model (Hill 1999: 21). This was put into practice and publicised in the White Paper on Shared Values in 1991 which mainly contained five core values. Two of them are mentioned before in Simpson´s quote. The others are "regard and community support for the individual; consensus instead of contention; racial and religious harmony" (Hill 1999: 24).

37

2.5.1. Management of English With the bilingual policy, instituted by the government at the time of independence, English was chosen out of pragmatic reasons. English seemed to "keep the nation abreast with its economic and development objectives" (Rubdy 2001: 342). And Chew observed in 1999 that

it was a conscious decision on the part of the Singapore government not to indulge in the linguistic nationalism of many post-colonial countries but rather to concentrate on economic survival [...] To ensure its survival, it was deemed imperative that it should have a dominant language which would enable it to survive politically, socially, and culturally. English was seen as a language which would attract foreign investment and give the society the leading edge in education, academic achievement, international trade and business. The policy of economic nationalism, which had characterized many post-colonial states, was therefore eschewed for one of pragmatic viability in a rapidly changing world. (Chew 1999: 40 quoted in Rubdy 2001: 344)

The use of English, therefore, has been bound to three levels: the national level, the community level and the individual level, as suggested by Bokhorst-Heng (1998: 290). In her view the usage of English fulfils different roles. On the national level, it serves mainly to meet the economic objectives. But on the community level it serves the population at large for the communication between the different ethnic groups. Whereas on the individual level, an equal access to the knowledge of English could be of benefit for every member of society (Bokhorst-Heng 1998: 290). As mentioned before (section 2.2.2.) education in Singapore is dominated by the practice of meritocracy and also viewed as human capital development. Furthermore, education is directly associated with social mobility and socio-economic status. An essential key role in this process is covered by English. The fact is that educational streaming starts early and the competence of English plays a huge part in this process. Students with a good command of English and who come from homes where they are frequently exposed to English seem to have a strong advantage over other candidates (Kwan- Terry 1991 in Rubdy 2001: 344). Students who come from homes, where financial resources do not allow to pay for further tutoring in English, seem to lose out (Rubdy 2001: 345).

2.5.1.1. Speak Good English Movement The Speak Good English Movement (henceforth SGEM) was launched on April 29, 2000, and has been ongoing ever since. The main aim of the SGEM is to promote the use of Standard English and to decrease the usage of Singlish (Rubdy 2001: 348). Various events were held in the past years. A guide was issued, giving practical advice on how to successfully switch from Singlish to Standard English for good. The campaign has been accompanied by a website where people are encouraged to register in order to get regular updates on events and

38 activities. The annual programme includes various events and activities which are held in places such as schools, libraries and similar public places (SGEM 2009). There are huge banners on public buildings such as at the entrance platform of the National Library which display messages such as "Speak Well, Be Understood" or the ones given in Figure 3, 4 and 5.

Figure 3. Banner promoting GOOD ENGLISH for personal interactions (photo by the author)

Figure 4. Banner promoting GOOD ENGLISH for customer service interactions (photo by the author)

39

Figure 5. Banner promoting GOOD ENGLISH for business relations (photo by the author)

Apart from these ongoing efforts, the Education Ministry set an immediate policy into action. This meant that in the first year of the campaign the English syllabus was revised in order to make the English teaching more rigid. Around 8,000 teachers were required to take up a course on the latest methods of teaching grammar in an attempt to improve the standard of English at schools. Furthermore, potential applicants for the National Institute of Education are now asked to pass an English proficiency test (Bokhorst-Heng 2005: 189).

2.5.1.2. The emergence of the Singlish debate Why was it that Singapore´s leaders felt a need to initiate a movement which discourages the use of Singlish? Basically Singlish has always been an issue of a great number of discussions, but it is commonly believed (Bokhorst-Heng 2005; Rubdy 2001) that the huge success of a local sitcom had an impact on the government´s review of Singlish. The sitcom in question is called Phua Chu Kang Pte Ltd. It centres on Phua Chu Kang, the main character, who embodies a typical Singaporean next door. He is seen as a representative of 'Ah Beng' (detailed description is given in 2.4.5.2.) and is presented as a grounded and good humoured Singlish-speaking contractor (Srilal 1999). The sitcom ran for eight seasons from 1997 till 2007 on local TV. Like its pre successor Under One Roof back in 1994 it was very well received by a massive audience, especially by the younger generation of Singaporeans. The major appeals for both sitcoms were mainly seen in the audience´s ability to identify with the

40 characters and their language. Like Tan Ah Teck, beloved main character in Under One Roof, Phua Chu Kang converses in Singlish. At that time, a sitcom using the local colloquial variety of English stood in total contrast to a TV programme, otherwise full of and crammed with American sitcoms.

The appearance of local TV comedies featuring Singlish-speaking characters and a follow-up report by the Ministry of Education in 1999 certainly nourished the debate on Singlish. The report had assessed the status of English in the city-state. According to Rubdy (2001: 347) it revealed, that "although most students were able to function in Standard English", Singlish was popular in schools and "was more widespread than it was five years ago". And on the side of the government there were concerns, that Singlish "could erode students' competence in English" (Rubdy 2001: 347).

On numerous occasions high-rank politicians gave statements, in which they discouraged the usage of Singlish (see various quotes in Bokhorst-Heng 2005; Rubdy 2001). They made clear references to local sitcoms like Phua Chu Kang Pte Ltd which in their view were responsible for the increasing usage and popularity of Singlish, especially among the younger generation. They also emphasised that the use of Singlish harmed the standard of spoken English within Singapore. And they further predicted that in the long run, Singlish would damage Singapore´s reputation and its ambition to be a top player in the world economy. It was suggested that television and radio could help to promote and enhance peoples' language abilities. Evidence for this was seen in the successful promotion of Mandarin over the local varieties, which certainly had been achieved with the support of the media. Therefore, popularising Singlish on television would lead to a continuing broad acceptance of Singlish. At one point it was even suggested, to enrol Phua Chu Kang in an English course. This idea was actually put into action by the Television Corporation of Singapore (TCS). In the preceding episodes of season three, the audience could follow Phua Chu Kang presenting his course certificate and later being challenged to speak better English by his university-educated brother. TCS also announced to tone down the character´s usage of Singlish in the upcoming seasons (Srilal 1999).

2.5.1.3. Exploring the Singlish debate With bringing Phua Chu Kang into the spotlight and initiatives like the SGEM the debates on Singlish flourishing over the years. Statements and articles about Singlish appeared frequently in The Straits Times and a number of blogs have appeared ever since. Voices in defence of Singlish or against it are numerous. The Internet is especially considered as a suitable

41 platform for discussions on Singlish by locals but also by 'Ang mohs' (commonly Caucasians). What becomes evident after reading various blog entries or forum sections confirms what Rubdy (2001) points out in his work on the SGEM. Namely the impression, that the views of government officials who act as language planners actually stand in contrast to the perceptions and preferences of the local people (Rubdy 2001: 347). The following quote, taken from a blog seems to summarise perfectly what so often is stated about Singlish:

The presence of Singlish in everyday life is undeniable. From HDB coffee shops to corporate boardrooms, it is deeply entrenched in the psyche of Singaporeans from all walks of life. It is thus no surprise that everyone has an opinion on Singlish. The Singlish debate so far has, however, been confined between those who wish to celebrate it as an icon of Singaporean-ness and those who believe it will only hinder our global connectivity. (Chong 2006)

What is suggested here is that Singlish may not necessarily be attributed to one specific class. It is more that Singlish transcends the boundaries between the working class or lower income group and the affluent middle class with their better degrees of education. The blog author chose two iconic places to illustrate this. First, HDB coffee shops which are typical gathering points for members of the working class. Second, the boardroom typically frequented by highly educated and well-off members of the English-proficient middle class. In that sense, Singlish represents an issue close to both class groups. But although the views on Singlish may vary, proponents and opponents cannot deny its presence in every-day life.

What seems to underlie the debate is often described as a disparity between the government's concern over a colloquial variety of English, and its potential to put Singapore at a disadvantage, and the every-day life in Singapore and its Singlish speakers (Chng 2003: 45). As top politicians suggested in their speeches, Singlish lacks international intelligibility. Thus, "it is not a trait to be celebrated because we [Singapore] cannot be a first-world economy or go global with Singlish" as blog author Chong (2006) interprets government statements. In his view representatives of the government further argue that a Singlish- speaking population "[...] would be an obstacle to the wooing of global capital and the transnational elite" (Chong 2006). It appears that Singlish itself is seen more as a burden than as a home-grown variety which adds to Singapore´s uniqueness. Therefore, it is not very surprising to come across online-statements like the following which identify Singlish as a problem:

Here on our little island, Singlish is sometimes a bit like the ugly child we wish we had never had. But you can´t quite give it up for adoption. So is Singlish indispensable, or just talking cock and singing song? (Lim 2008)

But here is the thing: I dislike it so much, I´m convinced I took it up because if not some people would

42 not understand or would think I´m faking it. I was conforming so that I gain social acceptance. But I didn´t like it, it sounded crude or rough. I like my no accent English. It´s to the extent that I´m even embarrassed for people who speak Singlish to those "Ang Mohs", (Singlish for Caucasians – What in the world am I doing??), that I will renew the promise that I will not fall into the trap of speaking Singlish again. (Michelle 2009)

In contrast, proponents of Singlish or locals who share a rather relaxed attitude towards Singlish often diminish the potential of Singlish to actually harm the country in any form:

Most Singaporeans are rather proud of Singlish. Most certainly can or do speak Singlish, and certainly all understand it. It has become our daily life and it is likely to grow in popularity. Obviously, Singapore´s language education system is working fine. In a tiny red dot that is speaking so many languages, it´s ridiculous to think that Singlish is a threat to our competitiveness status in the world. What say you? (Hello Singapore Blog 2009)

In other statements Singlish is often linked to identity. In that sense English is seen as a colonial heritage and Singlish is its localised form. And people have grown accustomed to it. Singlish therefore serves as part of people´s identity and, as it is propagated, helps to understand what makes a typical Singaporean:

Singlish becomes a potent symbol of who we are, how we think, and how we speak. This is especially so for many overseas Singaporeans who are able to instantly recognise fellow citizens with Singlish. It is thus no surprise that many want to celebrate it as an icon of local culture. (Chong 2006)

But at this stage it is worth mentioning that Singlish is also often portrayed as a matter of class (as critical voices become not tired of repeating). In a previous section (2.4.2.) in this thesis a reference is made to Stella Kon´s canonical play Emily of Emerald Hill (1985). What the novel perfectly exhibits is the switching back and forth between SSE and Singlish by its main character Emily. Similar to this character, members of the English-proficient middle class code-switch effortlessly when appropriate. And therefore Chong (2007) suggests:

Given the easy slippage back and forth, it is little wonder that the English-educated have been the most vocal in championing Singlish as an authentic piece of national culture. The celebration of Singlish as an indigenous piece of national heritage is limited to the celebration of Singlish as an indigenous piece of its quaintness and idiosyncrasies whereby the 'localness' of Singlish is paraded to evoke a sense of communal culture and legacy in myth-scarce Singapore while its working class aspect, its links to economic depravation, its signification of cultural boorishness are muted and relegated into the background of national consciousness because they go against the ideological grain of meritocracy and social mobility. Instead, the spectre of the working class and cultural boorishness are subsumed and masked by the nation´s professed love for the 'Ah Beng' and his female counterpart, 'Ah Lian'. (Chong 2007: 69-70)

Ah Beng and Ah Lian, both mentioned by Chong, are typically caricatures of young members of the local working class. Like the sitcom character Phua Chu Kang, which is a poorly educated Ah Beng representative, they personify "failure in Singapore´s highly elitist

43 education system and capitalist society" (Chua 2003: 11). Thus, they stand in stark contrast to middle-class Singaporeans. However, local sociologists (e.g. Chua 2003) have observed that at one point (late 90s) it became cool among the young English-speaking middle class to draw certain elements from Ah Beng and Ah Lian. That concerned not only appearance and fashion but language as well. On the latter Chua commends:

Media personalties began to claim a 'little bit' of Beng or Lian themselves. For these figures, it became 'cool' to speak Beng and Lian talk and Singlish became a self-appropriated identity marker, standing for being Singaporean. (Chua 2003: 11)

While such middle-class speakers are able to pick and choose what seems to serve them and their identity construction, those speakers with a poor command of English rely purely on Singlish. The older generation has Mandarin and the marginalised local Chinese dialects. While the Chinese-educated and those youths with poor education rely on Singlish on a daily basis. This gives partly the impression that a certain part of the community relies on Singlish out of necessity. Whereas the English-educated middle class on the other hand, "has essentialised both the Ah Beng and Singlish for its own interests" and "is able to slip between 'local' (read 'authentic') and 'cosmopolitan' identities" (Chong 2007: 70).

It seems that the monitoring of the usage of Singlish proves to be a tricky task. The government´s intention to improve Singaporeans´ command of English in general via the SGEM seems to be a good idea. But there are limits to what can actually be achieved with it. It would be ideal if all students and citizens who struggle with their command of English would engage in activities which the annual SGEM offers. That would help to achieve some improvement. Still it depends on the people´s ambitions and their wishes to do so. And what might simply lie beyond the control of the government is when, where and how often people tend to speak Singlish. Opponents of Singlish are often quick to judge in which domains the usage of Singlish is inappropriate. And officials keep reminding them that with Singapore´s economic outward orientation and hosting widely acknowledged events such as the Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix race or the Youth Olympic Games, the use of Singlish is no sensible option because it makes people incomprehensible to others. Therefore, the main goal for all should be to reach international intelligibility with SSE.

But to some Singaporeans, if not all, Singlish is indeed closely tied to Singaporean identity. Thus, it is of personal value and will be kept in their pool of languages from which they can freely choose from. In that respect, the economical argument brought forward by

44 government officials might get sidestepped. And Chng (2003) suggests in her concluding remarks on the Singlish debate:

In the pursuit of that magic element that will unite all Singaporeans in the creation of a Singaporean identity, Singlish is very much a part of that formulation, and should therefore be allowed to thrive in Singapore. (Chng 2003: 58)

Perhaps the Land Transport Authority (henceforth LTA) of Singapore shares Chng´s view on Singlish. How else could they justify choosing Phua Chu Kang, an Ah Beng comedy character, out off all available TV characters for their new campaign. In the campaign Phua Chu Kang should act as a role model for promoting graciousness and courtesy on MRT trains and on local buses (Figure 6).

Figure 6. LTA ad in a local MRT station (photo by S M Ong 2009)

The campaign (which started off in June 2009) aims at all users of MRT trains and buses to be more attentive to fellow passengers during their journeys. This includes giving up seats to pregnant women, mothers or fathers with kids and elderly passengers. Furthermore, people are asked to stop cutting queues and to let passengers alight first instead of rushing to the doors. It is interesting to observe that LTA has not only chosen a character which is so iconic for the Ah Beng subculture but LTA also uses his well-known catchphrase "Don´t play, play" (see Figure 6). This Singlish phrase which became some sort of catchphrase/trademark of the character can be translated as "Don´t play around or tease me" (according to Rubdy 2001: 346). At the height of the Singlish debate in 1999 Phua Chu Kang and his Singlish

45 phrases "were blamed for the less than perfect English of young Singaporeans" (Rubdy 2001: 346). Therefore, it is surprising to find this particular character back in the public sphere. Even more surprising is the fact that the campaign uses the very phrase which along with other phrases caused such a stir years ago.

46 3. Language attitudes The concept of attitude is manifold and definitions vary. In fact, some researchers (e.g. Poedjosoedarmo 2002) find that some definitions have made the issue of attitudes rather complicated. Edwards (1982: 20) suggests the definition by Sarnoff (1970) to be most helpful on a general level. In Sarnoff´s view an attitude shows "a disposition to react favourably or unfavourably to a class of objects" (Sarnoff 1970: 279 quoted in Edwards 1982: 20). In sociolinguistics, attitudes have always played an important role. As Edwards suggests, the main reason lies in the assumption that "people´s reaction to language varieties reveal much of their perceptions of the speakers of these varieties" (1982: 20). Researchers like Holmes (1992) tend to avoid defining the term itself and instead treat language attitudes as opinions about language (Poedjosoedarmo 2002: 147). A view that is certainly adequate for some purposes. For instance, Poedjosoedarmo took up this view for her study (on attitudes to accents of English) and notes in her introductory paragraph:

Language attitudes then are opinions about language. Examples of such attitudes or opinions would be that a particular pronunciation is "good", "bad", "right" or "wrong". Linguists tend to avoid making such pronouncements, preferring to simply describe forms that occur. However, as a linguist, one must also be aware that such attitudes or opinions influence not only the way people holding the attitudes speak, but also the ways in which and the degree to which they are willing to try to change their speech habits. For this reason, language teachers and language planners must be aware of prevailing attitudes and take them into account in formulating both long-term plans and strategies, and short-term plans, such as lesson plans. (Poedjosoedarmo 2002: 147)

3.1. Indirect method

To find out about any "prevailing attitudes" (Poedjosoedarmo 2002) or as Edwards (1982: 20) puts it, "to elicit and assess language attitudes" direct or indirect methods are used. Of the latter method the matched guise (henceforth MG) test is the most common one. First introduced by Lambert, Hodgson, Gardner and Fillenbaum in 1960, this method has widely been used for assessing language attitudes by various researchers (Edwards 1982: 22). Lambert et al. (1960) and later Labov (1966) were among the first to apply this method where a group of listeners rate and evaluate a recording of a person reading a passage or short abstract in different accents or language varieties (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 144). What the listeners do not know is that the person or speaker for all passages or 'guises' is the same. This bit of information is withheld from the participants and which usually goes unnoticed. The listeners are usually asked to rate the speaker based on a scale which provides semantic terms to choose from. For instance 'intelligent', 'friendly' or 'trustworthy' which help to reflect on what Lambert (1967) divided into a speaker´s competence, personal integrity and social

47 attractiveness. In the study of Lambert et. al. (1960) the MG method was applied in order to reveal attitudes towards French and English in Montreal, Quebec. Lambert and fellow researchers found out that English guises were rated more positively than French guises by both English and French participants. Prestige accents were rated highest by members of the high-status group and also by members of the low-status group (Edwards 1982: 21-24). Therefore, Edwards (1982) concludes:

This 'minority group reaction' is a revealing comment on the power of social stereotypes in general, and on the way in which these may be assumed by those who are themselves the objects of unfavourable stereotypes. (Edwards 1982: 22)

In the line of studies conducted by Giles (1970; 1971; 1973) in the UK, participants gave RP the highest ratings, followed by regional accents (e.g. South Welsh and Somerset) and urban accents (e.g. Cockney, Birmingham) which were given the lowest ratings. RP rated top in terms of competence, however, it lost its superior position to regional accents in terms of integrity and attractiveness (Edwards 1982: 24). A similar result to that achieved by Edwards (1977) in an Irish context. Regional guises represented Galway, Cork, Cavan, Dublin and Donegal. The latter, according to Edwards, operating as the received variety, gained highest ratings in terms of competence but lost against the non-standard regional variants in terms of integrity and attractiveness (Edwards 1982: 24). Based on these findings Edwards (1982: 25) suggests that standard accents receive high status in competence and regional accents find greater approval in terms of integrity and attractiveness from survey participants. But as non-standard varieties loose in terms of prestige and competence it may diminish those gains in integrity and attractiveness.

At this point it is noteworthy to recall a recent language attitude study which employed the MG technique in order to indirectly evaluate the attitudes towards Singapore Standard English (SSE) and Singapore Colloquial English (SCE). The study was conducted by Cavallaro and Chin (2009) and was the first attempt to give evidence for SCE being a marker of solidarity, an argument so often put forward by proponents of SCE in Singapore´s ongoing language debate. The researchers asked 75 Singaporeans and 19 non-Singaporean, all students at NTU, to listen to a recorded speech sample. The speaker spontaneously provided her thoughts about how she usually spends her Saturday mornings. The content for both speech samples was the same but the SCE speech sample differed in accent, lexis (e.g. chiong meaning 'a wild night out') and syntax (particles). The participants were asked to rate the speech samples individually according to a 7-point Likert scale with verbal traits (e.g. 1 - Not intelligent, 7 - Intelligent). In contrast to previous studies (e.g. Giles 1971; Edwards 1977),

48 where the standard accent reached only top rates in competence, SSE managed to do well in all traits. That rejected the expectation that SCE would receive far better ratings than SSE. In addition, Cavallaro and Chin (2009: 151) note that taking the findings of Edwards (1977) and the likes, would give ground for the assumption that non-standard accents are generally received most positively on dimensions underlying personal integrity and social attractiveness. This could in a further step be qualified as in-group solidarity (Edwards 1982: 25 in Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 151). However, the study suggests that SSE and SCE do not follow the established trend as SCE was evaluated lower in solidarity traits than SSE (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 150). In terms of gender differences in the rates, Cavallaro and Chin came to the assumption that female participants rated SCE guise lower than male participants. In their view the result relates to a previous study conducted by Lung (1997) in Hong Kong. It revealed a tendency among female participants to rate Mandarin higher in terms of solidarity as opposed to their male counterparts who rated Cantonese higher in solidarity. Lung further concluded that women favoured the standard language more and sees them responsible for the adoption of Mandarin in post-British Hong Kong (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 151). Thus, what both Singapore and Hong Kong seem to have in common is that women "tend to ascribe to the standard and rate the colloquial variety lower" (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 151). However, Cavallaro and Chin (2009: 156) suggest, that a follow-up study with a larger sample would help to enhance this observation. A further comparison of the results obtained from the Singaporean group of students and the non-Singaporean group revealed some further interesting points. First, both varieties were rated higher by non- Singaporean students except only for three traits. Second, in the case of SCE the status traits reached the same levels of both student groups but non-Singaporean students perceived it more positively in all the solidarity traits. Thus, Cavallaro and Chin note, that despite the often suggested belief that foreign students have a tendency to disapprove of the Singaporean accent, their data seems to point out "that the foreign students do not stigmatize SCE more in comparison to the Singaporean students themselves" (2009: 154).

3.2. Direct method

A more direct methodological approach investigating language attitudes is "characterized by elicitation: the asking of direct questions about language evaluation, preference etc." which is commonly done "through questionnaires and/or interviews" (Garrett, Coupland and Williams 2003: 16). That means that researchers gather attitudinal data by "directly asking participants

49 their opinions on different languages" (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 144). In relation to this Labov´s (1966) work on "The Social Stratification of English in New York" is often cited and emphasised. Labov managed to gain a leading role in sociolinguistics with his assessment of the attitudes of New Yorkers, which were carefully chosen in terms of class, age and gender, towards their speech and accent. And further through the introduction of the sociolinguistic interview. Gathering data via interviews has been applied by various researchers and in different contexts. For the purpose of this thesis, a closer look on questionnaires for obtaining attitudinal data is taken. Garrett, Williams and Evans (2005) in their recent attitudinal research approached a total of 517 students from the USA, the UK, New Zealand and Australia in a simple and open-ended questionnaire. Participants had to name no more than "eight countries around the world, apart from their own, where they knew that English was spoken as a native language" and further "'to tell us how the English spoken there strikes you when you hear it spoken'" (Garrett et al. 2005: 217). The social evaluations were gathered and organised in main and subordinate categories (e.g. Affective comments or Cultural associations). In Singaporean context researchers found similar ways for gathering their data on attitudes. Poedjosoedarmo (1995) asked students in the Diploma in Education programme to submit a written assignment which consisted of a newspaper article on the topic "Should Singlish be used in the Classroom?". Added to this Poedjosoedarmo recorded spoken sequences from local TV shows and a questionnaire should further elicit reactions to the varieties heard by the respondents. A major and important study which was conducted by Xu, Chew, and Chen (1998) exclusively targeted the Chinese community in Singapore. Xu et al. (1998) based their analysis on 2,778 questionnaires which were returned from selected schools, industrial and residential estates, and different Chinese clan organisations. The questionnaires assessed language use in various settings and for various functions. It further initiated a comparison of English and Mandarin to reveal instrumental or affective values of these languages by the respondents. Questions ranged from language and its habitual usage and/or for specific events, code-mixing and dialects. Attitudinal tendencies were hoped to be gained from questions like "'Which of the following two languages is more pleasant to hear'" (Xu et al. 1998: 136). Xu et al. (1998) found out that Mandarin was considered a solidarity language. Also, that the community´s majority was bilingual in English and Chinese. Furthermore, that English dominated the formal domains and was seen as more prestigious and authoritative. Thus, Mandarin lacked in prestige and power but was regarded high in solidarity. Whereas English held prestige and power but lacked in solidarity.

50 Some recent studies in the Singaporean context fall under the societal treatment approach. According to Garrett, Coupland and Walliams this approach, although being not so popular, is "[...] undoubtedly an important source for gaining insights into the relative status and stereotypical associations of language varieties" (Garrett et al. 2003: 15). The approach is mainly described as

[...] a content analysis of the 'treatment' given to languages and language varieties, and to their speakers within society. Studies falling under this heading typically involve observational, participants observation and ethnographic studies, or the analysis of a host of sources in the public domain. (Garrett et al. 2003: 15)

In Singapore, examples for such studies include the discussion and evaluation of government policies and their effects (e.g. Bokhorst-Heng 2005) and the related media output, especially about the ongoing language debate received by newspapers and its readers (e.g. Rubdy 2001; Bockhorst-Heng 2005). The studies of Bokhorst-Heng and Rubdy have been very helpful in giving a very broad picture of the language policies in Singapore. Added to this, these researchers managed to capture prevailing views and attitudes from politicians, educators and citizens, all put forward through speeches or media responses. Given the profound nature and depth of these studies they are quoted and linked frequently throughout this thesis.

51 4. Singapore and the Internet

4.1. The rise of the Internet

The Internet has a huge impact on Singapore. The city-state holds the highest Internet- penetration compared to other ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian nations) countries like Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia or Vietnam. In addition, Singapore seen in global terms, ranks among the world-leading countries, with a penetration of 51.9%, compared to the USA, the Internet pioneer, with the highest penetration of 58.9% (Ang 2003: 21-22). What certainly contributed to the importance of the Internet in Singapore is the economical aspect of Internet use and penetration. Kluver (2003) suggests that

Singapore´s use of the English language and its proactive policies towards technology in general and information technologies specifically have served the nation well in its attempt to generate a viable Internet industry and an online population. (Kluver 2003: 36)

The beginning of the rise of the Internet in Singapore can broadly be linked to the late 90s. From early on it was clear that the nation would do everything possible to benefit from the Internet in general and from a focus on information technology as a new economical model in particular. In order to achieve these goals the government introduced a policy (in 1991), as an initial step, which was called "IT 2000 Vision". It was seen as a measure to enhance information technology in all areas of economy and society by following five steps (as given in Kluver 2003: 37):

1. Developing a global hub for business, services and transportations, 2. Improving the quality of life by using technology to reduce or simplify mundane tasks, 3. Boost the economic engine through pursuit of information and knowledge economies, 4. Link communities through an IT platform to support civic and social networking, and 5. Enhancing the potential of individuals through the use of web-based learning.

In a second step the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) was founded in 1999 and released (in 2000) a subsequent policy titled "Infocomm 21 Strategy" planning following six steps (as given in Kluver 2003: 38):

1. Developing Singapore into a premier infocomm hub (meaning one of the top five globally, and top five globally, and top two within Asia), 2. Bringing Singapore businesses online, or "dot-coming' the private sector," (with the goal of having 50% of Singapore businesses able to support at least some e-commerce functions), 3. Bringing the Singapore government online, or "'dot-coming' the public sector",

52 4. Bringing Singaporeans online, or "'dot-coming' the people sector," which would include overcoming the digital divide, and convincing the broad sectors of Singapore society to adopt an "e-lifestyle", 5. Establishing Singapore as an Infocomm talent capital, drawing in talented IT workers from around the region and world, and 6. Establishing a conducive pro-business and pro-consumer environment.

The transition from "IT 2000" to "Infocomm 21" and the implemented steps marked what according to Kluver (2003) policy-makers and government envisioned:

Information technology was first and foremost a means to modernizing and upgrading Singapore´s economy, integrating the nation into the global business sector, with the added goals of creating an "information-savvy" population, able to cope with the demands of the new information-based economy, and to enhance governmental effectiveness by the effective deployment of information technology. (Kluver 2003: 39)

The presence of the Internet is still growing and brings about dynamic changes. The broadband capacity covers 99% of the island. And Singapores' society is adapting quickly to changes not only at workplaces but also e.g. to Infocomm usage in the school curriculum. In that sense the efforts of the government have paid off. An impression which is shared by Kluver (2003) who suggests that

[...] the internet has been empowering. It has enabled individuals to gain access to vast amount of information, from consumer goods, to potential schools, to new jobs, to new sources of political information. The social capital of individuals has also been enhanced as the technology overcomes barriers of both time and space. It has empowered organizations and companies to have a broader reach, reaching beyond Singapore´s own borders. And finally, it has empowered citizens and residents with the ability to gain far more governmental information. (Kluver 2003: 49)

It seems that younger Singaporeans in particular have been appreciative of the Internet (see e.g. Kluver 2003; Lim 2009). Their lifestyle is closely bound to the opportunities the Internet has to offer. And as observations suggest, there is even a trend for kids getting internet-savvy or IT-savvy at a very young age. An article in The Straits Times reflects this tendency by portraying children of the age of four, five, seven and ten who use the Internet daily in various ways. Their parents stated that the kids use Wikipedia (an Online Encyclopaedia) and Google (an Internet search engine) for their schoolwork. In addition, they are avid users of online games, chatrooms, social networking websites (e.g. Facebook) and like watching clips on YouTube (an online video platform). All parents agree on the benefits of the Internet and as one interviewed parent points out "'it is good that the boys are computer-savvy at a young age, as it is a good exposure'". However, parents think that kids need to be supervised when they go online (Wen Wei and Wan Gek 2009: 6).

53 4.2. Social Media

In recent years, tools that are expanding the utility of the Internet have been developed. The most prominent and frequently used tools are grouped under the umbrella term 'Social Media'.

What underlies all these different tools is the common idea to use the Internet as a platform for interacting with other people. There are various ways to do so. At present people tend to focus on online activities such as expressing, sharing, networking and gaming. Expressing commonly refers to writing or reading blogs and using micro-blogging services. Sharing concerns the uploading of videos and photos. Especially young people find it handy to upload short clips and photos on major online platforms such as You Tube, Vimeo or Flickr. Equally appealing seem to be networking websites and online games. For the purpose of this thesis only chosen tools falling under activities such as expressing and networking are discussed in more detail.

4.2.1. Blogging A blog is a Web application which allows people to create their own personalised web page. Posts or messages can be left on the blog. It is up to the person or group who hosts the page how these posts or messages appear. It has become common practice to post brief notes, diary entries or even essays on various topics. Since its rise in popularity which is often dated back to the early 2000s, blogs have appeared to all kind of topics and concerns. Some blogs have one author and often resemble monologues, some have multiple authors and some are rather interactive. The latter appeals to an audience that is willing to contribute and actively take part in a fruitful exchange of knowledge or information in different fields such as science or art. Furthermore, blogs often link to a chat group or provide e-mail links for contact with authors or readers. What makes blogs so popular is the fact that everyone who wants to write or read a blog can do so. Thus, Crystal (2006: 15) suggests that an editorial process which otherwise is obligatory for published material such as books, newspaper articles and even for the content of official websites, is not needed. He further points out that the language in a blog "displays the process of writing in its naked, unedited form" and while the contents of blogs vary, one thing all blogs seem to share equally is the fact that "the written language is unmediated" (Crystal 2006: 15).

54 4.2.2. Micro-blogging Micro-blogging services have recently flourished of which Twitter seems currently the most popular one with 75 million users (Neal 2010). How micro-blogging is set apart from conventional blogging is the fact that the messages/posts sent out are limited to a certain number of characters. For instance Twitter (founded in 2006) allows 140-character messages which are coined 'tweets'. They can be sent via Internet or from mobile phones. Once registered for free, people can search for names and groups they want to 'follow'. No approval of the other person is needed and 'followers' (as compared to 'friends' or 'buddies' in social- networking) can directly access other accounts and receive tweets. Only personal interest seems to matter in the process of becoming a follower and selecting who to follow. Therefore, Twitter allows reaching a very broad and mixed audience. An appealing characteristic which was mainly responsible for a representative like current US President Barack Obama to initially take up Twitter (see twitter.com/barackobama) as a tool for reaching potential voters during his election campaign in 2008 (Lim 2009: 149). Companies have followed his example and use Twitter as a new marketing tool to promote products and services. Some people use Twitter similar to conventional blogs as a pool for gaining and exchanging information or for problem-solving. The latter typically applies to people working in commercial areas. But what makes it so unique is the fact that Twitter manages to reach a very broad range of people. A great number of people use Twitter as a tool for socialising and they write on everything they may think of but most of the time about themselves. Thus, tweets are often seen as "stream- of-consciousness shout-outs to nobody and everybody" (Lim 2009: 149). However, there are not only appreciative voices heard in connection with micro-blogging. There are also voices of concern for instance from Singaporean psychologist Koh (2009) who states:

When friends reply to your tweets, it boosts your ego and gives you satisfaction, which in turn encourages you to tweet more. That´s why sites like Twitter, with its power to easily broadcast one´s thoughts to millions and get immediate responses, allow a person with narcissistic traits to thrive. (Koh 2009 quoted in Lim 2009: 149)

From a linguistic point of view, micro-blogging similar to conventional blogging allows written language in all kinds of style. Therefore Crystal (2006: 246) points out that the entire genre offers a platform for all kinds of people to blog in all kinds of style "from informal to formal, from non-standard to standard". Especially when it comes to personal blogs, Crystal suggests:

[...] personal blogs do illustrate something that is not found elsewhere today: a variety of writing intended for public consumption which appears exactly as the author wrote it, which is not constrained

55 by other genre conventions, and which privileges linguistic idiosyncrasy. I call it, on analogy with free verse, free prose. (Crystal 2006: 246)

Crystal`s suggestion seems also valid for micro-blogging via services such as Twitter. As mentioned previously, micro-blogging and conventional blogging offer two basic traits. First, both allow writing and reading in regard to personal interest or taste. Second, and that has been a fairly recent trend, it is done out of commercial or political interest. Whereas the latter might receive some sort of "editorial control" (Crystal 2006), personal blogs and tweets indeed allow linguistic idiosyncrasy (as suggested by Crystal 2006). This view is obviously assisted by Lim´s (previously given) observation on the use of "stream of consciousness" in relation to personal tweets.

4.2.3. Social networking websites Like blogs, social networking websites have risen in popularity over the past couple of years. The offer ranges from sites like MySpace, Xing to Facebook, to name here only the most prominent ones. It seems that MySpace has especially helped young contemporary artists (photographers, musicians, designers) to receive a broad audience and raise attention to their work. Basically people use it as a platform to present their work or interests in various ways. For instance in written form, with pictures or with sound files. In a way it is a one-stop shop for people interested in the (artistic) work of others. Xing on the other hand, appeals more to young professionals and graduates in order to link up with companies or to attract sponsorship. Also job hunters use the networking site to look out for potential candidates for recruitment. It also offers a platform for business people to acquire new clients and exchange business-related information. Then there is Facebook, which definitely pioneered social networking. It counts around 500 million active users worldwide. Alone 70% of the users come from outside the United States (where it originated in 2004). All in all, 70 translations are available on the site (Facebook 2011). This guarantees a smooth handling of the site by members of the different language groups. Recent reports in the media have revealed that especially young people are very fond of using Facebook. It has become essential to them to check the site several times a day. As Tsjeng (2010) puts it:

If you are a young adult or teenager, you can´t live without Facebook. It´s the first site I go to when I turn on my computer. I have checked it on my mobile on planes and in toilets. Which should go some way toward explaining why Facebook topped Google [Internet search engine] as America´s most visited site a fortnight ago. (Tsjeng 2010)

56 Further, a recent report on British university students found that

[...] the proportion of students spending 11-20 hours a week communicating with friends via sites like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace has grown from 9% in 2008 to 14%, and of those spending even longer than this from 6% to 11%. (Smithers, 2010)

Facebook, initially set up for the purpose of socialising, has also become a prominent tool to form online campaigns. Similar to Twitter, it is commonly used by companies, NGOs, political parties etc. to spread their word and ideas to a very broad audience. Like tweets on Twitter, Facebook allows its users to post 'statuses' and messages to keep in touch with friends. Whereas followers can easily follow anyone´s stream of tweets via Twitter, being an approved 'friend' is necessary to access someone´s profile on Facebook and the likes. Social networking websites basically build broader platforms for people and provide features for expressing, sharing and networking.

Expressing takes place in form of personal statuses at the user´s own or that of friends' message boards. It is also possible to send a mail to a friend or a group of friends. There is an option to use a chat section which enables communication with friends via instant messaging. Commonly the sharing of photos and videos (via YouTube application) takes place along with the option to leave comments about them. Friends and potential friends can be searched via a search engine and added easily to one´s friend list. In the same way someone can become a fan of campaigns of any kind (be it commercial, political or humorous). Games like 'Farmville' or 'Mafia Wars' (both accessible via Facebook) can be interactively played with friends. What all social networking websites have in common is the process of creating a profile page. Once registered as a user, the person may provide as much information as she/he likes. This also applies to companies or other groups willing to create a profile and using social networking in order to bring forward a product, service or campaign. Thus, the profile page assists in promoting individual or group characteristics in the most effective and flattering way. The profile page often plays a crucial role in founding virtual friendships. Language is crucial for avid users of social networking websites. But it is mainly due to personal preference of the user in which language she/he posts.

What Crystal (2006) stated in relation to language and conventional blogging seems also valid for social networking. He describes the web in general as

[...] an eclectic medium, and this is seen also in its multilinguistic inclusiveness. Not only does it offer a home to all linguistic styles within a language; it offers a home to all languages - once their communities have a functioning computer technology. This has been the most notable change since the Web began. It was originally a totally English medium - as was the Internet as a whole, given its US origins. But with the Internet´s globalization, the presence of other languages has steadily risen. (Crystal 2006: 229)

57

In addition Crystal further predicts that the Web "is going to be increasingly multilingual" (2006: 236). In his view a good deal of code-mixing can be observed in interactive Internet situations. This observation can be made in Singaporean context as well. Blogs, entries on forums and messages on social networking websites suggest that Singaporeans make use of their diverse linguistic range. The following examples (author´s own; names have been changed; punctuation, spelling and capitalisation are as in the original) are taken from Facebook entries in an attempt to illustrate this tendency:

Friend X: No worries .... sweet!! Rezki ditabur merata2 oleh Allahswt, it´s all up to us to work hard for it & save more & spend wisely. Sure, all be well on you both ... Amin! Friend Y: I love support too ... but i think i prefer money ... any extra cash to spare ... raya nak dekat ... thanx in advance ... hehe Friend Z: wtf u coming now ah, start at 8:30 leh

The examples show that e.g. Friend X and Friend Y both Singaporeans and ethnic Malays switch from English to Malay. Whereas Friend X does it to strengthen the recipient´s belief in Allah (Muslim reference to God), Friend Y does it for humorous reason. Using acronyms for words and phrases is very common in relation to written language on the Web and is also common for texting (SMS) on mobile phones. Similar to this is the use of particles for Singaporean natives. In the given example, Friend Z starts his message with the acronym 'wtf' which is the abbreviated form of 'what for'. In addition, there are two prominent particles of Singapore English used. At this point it is worth mentioning that these examples show what Crystal (2006) suggested for instant messaging and its participants and contacts:

The intimacy of the relationships, along with the participants´ shared knowledge, promotes a level of informality and inexplicitness in the messaging content which is unique to this medium. (Crystal 2006: 14-15)

Facebook, like instant messaging services, allows communicating with friends in real time. That means that users get a list of friends who are online as soon as they log onto Facebook. If they like they can start typing and sending messages to a particular friend into a chat window. This friend in return sees each unit of text as soon as it is typed and sent. Alert icons notify about each contributions. Entries on message boards, comments on photos or videos and status-updates are treated like conventional e-mail messaging (asynchronous) but again alerts to e-mail accounts or on mobile phones inform users of new posts as soon as they are posted/written.

58 Added to the level of informality, intimacy and inexplicitness (as suggested by Crystal 2006) social networking enhances the user´s creativity in applying different languages. All of which is then reflected in the user´s written language. As seen from the given examples in Singaporean context, using acronyms and inventing new ones, or slipping into Singlish and Malay seems frequent. In Austrian context, as the author of this thesis has noticed, Facebook users often tend to use their local dialect (e.g. "Daschlog di holt net" as opposed to "Verletze dich nicht"). Even spelling does sometimes play a rather subordinated role (e.g. "grigst" as opposed to "kriegst").

59 5. Empirical part: The Study

5.1. Methodology

5.1.1. Participants A total of 120 young Singaporeans participated in this study. All were students either at a tertiary institution or at a higher education institution (Figure 7). Their ages ranged from 17 to 28 (Figure 8). The participants were volunteers and the author herself distributed the anonymous questionnaire. Of the 120 participants, 60 were female, and 60 were male. The ethnic make-up of the participants corresponds with the 3 major ethnic groups prominent in Singapore´s population (Table 3).

Figure 7. Distribution of students in tertiary and higher education1

1 Since SPSS was used in the German version, numbers with decimals are given throughout with commas (e.g. 15,83% instead of 15.83%).

60

Figure 8. Age pyramid according to gender

Table 3. Ethnic make-up of the participants

Race/Ethnicity Chinese Malay Indian

Participants 40 40 40

% 33.3 33.3 33.3

The majority (87%) of the participants (Figure 9) received their education with English as their first school language and a second school language respectively to their ethnic belonging. However, it is worth mentioning that 9.2% chose an 'English only' education and 4.2% underwent schooling in 'English and other language'.

61

Figure 9. School languages chosen by students

The languages which the participants claimed to speak at home are given in Figure 10. These languages include English and Malay (21.7%); English and Tamil (15.8%); English only (15%); English and Mandarin (11.7%); Mandarin only (10%); Malay only (10%); Other language only (5%); English, Mandarin and other language (4.2%); English, Tamil and other language (2.5%); Tamil only (2.5%); English, Malay and other language (1.7%).

Within the group of Chinese participants it is interesting to note that some, however small the proportion might be, use other languages besides English and Mandarin. Referring to the statements they have given, these participants use also Hokkien and Cantonese. Two varieties of Chinese which were commonly spoken in the old days of Singapore and the participants only speak with their grandparents or more elderly aunts and uncles.

Within the Indian community a diversity of languages exists, a fact which has also been highlighted by the students´ responses. For instance, under the label 'English, Tamil and other language' participants stated Dravidian languages such as Telugu and Malayalam.

62 Although the label 'Other language only' comprises the responses of participants belonging to all three ethnic groups, it is again worth mentioning, that the Indian representatives stated Indo-Aryan languages like Oriya, Urdu and Hindi. Thus, the responses of the Indian students underline not only the diversity of ethnic-tribal groups within the Indian community in Singapore, but also present a diversity of languages spoken by them.

Figure 10. Languages commonly spoken at home by students

5.1.2. The Questionnaire The questionnaire (see Appendix) used in the study consisted of five main sections. It started off with very general questions about the respondent´s age, gender, race/ethnicity, her/his chosen languages in education and which languages she/he speaks at home and the current educational level. Section A was on social networking websites (e.g. Facebook), blogs, micro- blogging services (e.g. Twitter) and SMS/text messaging. It was intended to determine degrees of alternation between Singapore Standard English (SSE) and Singlish (SCE) when the participants use the given tools. In order to achieve this objective the participants were asked in question 1 to 3 to state, if they used these tools at all. Answering required to simply

63 circle the given 'Yes' or 'No'. Additional instructions informed participants that they had the opportunity to skip certain upcoming questions in section A, if they had answered one or the other questions with 'No'. On the next page, they were asked in questions 4 to 20 to consider each tool and its different features individually and to 'circle the number that you feel best represents the local variety or varieties of English you use for each action'. Responses were then given in terms of a 7 point scale. Number 7 referred to an exclusively use of SSE, whereas number 1 signalled an exclusive use of SCE. Numbers 2 to 6 represented different degrees of mixing and switching between SSE and SCE.

Section B was concerned with the acceptance of 4 varieties of English. It was intended to determine the participants' attitudes towards SSE, their local variety, by ranking it with 3 other varieties to which they are usually exposed to, but in various degrees. In an attempt to achieve this objective respondents were asked to rank SSE; British English; Australian English; American English; with the given numbers from 1 to 4. Thus, number 1 would label 'the most prestigious variety' and number 4 would present 'the least prestigious variety'.

Section C provided 7 statements about English in general which respondents were asked to respond on a Likert scale. Agreement or disagreement was expressed in terms of a 5 point scale: 1- strongly disagree; 2- disagree; 3- neutral; 4- agree; 5- strongly agree.

Section D of the questionnaire was designed to determine the subjects' attitudes towards SCE. A total of 23 statements were offered. Of the 23 statements, 8 statements were negative. Responses for these statements meant to measure negative attitudes and were scored as 5 to 1, whereas, statements measuring positive attitudes were scored 1 to 5 respectively. The total score on the scale indicates positive or negative attitude, with high total score indicating positive and low score indicating negative attitudes towards different aspects of SCE, and in following section E on Singapore.

Section E was exclusively on Singapore and identity. It was intended to determine how the participants identify with or relate to Singapore. Various statements were given. Again, of the 18 statements, 6 statements were negative. Same procedure, as mentioned above, was applied.

All statements in the sections C to E were designed during reviewing literature in Singaporean context, reading local newspapers and blogs. Especially helpful and inspiring were the works of researchers such as Chong (2007), Rubdy (2001), Simpson (2007),

64 Cavallaro and Chin (2009) and Bokhorst-Heng (1999). Further, discussions with staff members and students of NTU´s Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies had a huge impact on the developing process of the questionnaire. The questionnaire in its main parts is based on work by Cavallaro and was adapted to the purpose of my study.

SPSS Version 17 in German was used for data and statistical analysis. The main goal in processing the data was to establish an overview of attitudes towards SSE and SCE, a ranking of different types of English and the involvement of SSE and SCE in Social Media usage. What followed were analytic procedures to identify significant differences between groups in terms of gender and ethnicity. In fact, these analytic procedures coincided with procedures commonly suggested for data analysis with SPSS and which have been applied in previous research papers by members of the Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies at Nanyang University.

Given the size of the data (i.e. samples) parametric testing is conventionally suggested and preferred. This applies even to cases where specific assumptions about normally distributed populations are infringed. Parametric tests are more meaningful and should therefore be preferred over nonparametric tests (Tabachnik and Fidell 2007).

Following (parametric) statistical tests were applied: Independent-Samples T-test, One-Way ANOVA and Pearson Correlation test. The first testing method identifies whether the mean between two groups differs significantly. If so, it allows drawing conclusions about the population. The second method allows identifying the mean of more than two groups and whether they differ significantly from each other or not. In the line of One-Way ANOVA, a follow-up test is only carried out if the means of groups differ significantly from each other. It then determines which group mean differs significantly from which of the others. The last method measures the strength of a supposed straight line which stands for association or relationship between two variables.

65 5.2. Analysis and Results Section A

5.2.1. Social networking

Figure 11. Percentage of students using social networking websites

Figure 11 shows that 113 students (94.2%) use social networking websites like for example Facebook and MySpace.

Means

Questions 4 to 13 were constructed to measure the usage of SSE and SCE in its various degrees when using typical features of networking websites. Means of scores made on each item by the subjects as a whole, or separately by ethnicity, are given, where appropriate, in Table 4 and 5.

66

Table 4. Means (M) of scores on items 4-7, 9, 12, 13 Item M

Creating your profile page 5.65

Stating personal matters 5.69

Using the status update tool 5.50

Commenting on friends´ status updates 4.45

Writing comments about friends´ photos 4.28

Writing on discussion boards 5.51

Commenting your own photos 4.24

Table 5. Means (M) of scores on items 8, 10, 11 Item M Chinese Malay Indian

Using features like quizzes and games 5.27 4.92 5.31 5.57

Chatting with friends 3.91 3.73 3.77 4.24

Writing on message boards 4.76 4.62 4.59 5.08

As it can clearly be seen at Tables 4 and 5 above respondents mainly use 'More SSE than SCE' when they are active on social networking websites. As for item 8, Chinese students tend to use SSE and SCE in equal amounts for features like quizzes and games. The same applies to Indian students when chatting with friends, whereas Chinese and Malay students tend to use more SCE than SSE for chatting. In contrast, all students use SSE and SCE in equal amounts when it comes to commenting on their own photos, on their friends' status updates and photos, or when writing on message boards. Only Indian respondents indicated that they use more SSE than SCE when writing on message boards.

Although there are differences between Chinese, Malay and Indian students on 3 items, a central tendency can be observed. A total of 10 features of social networking websites were given in the questionnaire. None of the respondents uses SSE or SCE exclusively for them. Instead, the means of scores point to a mixing and switching between SSE and SCE. Results on items 4-6, 8, 12 seem to point out that students use more SSE than SCE for 5 common features of social networking websites. Items 7, 9, 11 and 13 show the usage of SSE and SCE in equal amounts for 4 other common features. Only item 10 refers to an usage of

67 more SCE than SSE. Thus, a drift towards SCE can only be observed for 1 popular feature of social networking websites which is chatting.

Other language use

In addition to SSE and SCE, respondents were asked to indicate for items 4-13 if they used any other languages like Mandarin, Malay, Tamil or other dialects.

Responses show e.g. item 4: Of the 113 (94.2%) students, 99 (76.7%) stated that they do not use any other language. Only 21 (17.5%) confirmed that they use other languages and to a minimal degree also other dialects. Table 6 summarises the results on items 4-13 for a better overview.

Table 6. Other languages items 4-13 Item Mandarin Malay Tamil Other dialects Total

4 2 (1.7%) 12 (10%) 4 (3.3%) 3 (2.5%) 21 (17.5%)

5 2 (1.7%) 10 (8.3%) 2 (1.7%) 1 (0.8%) 15 (12.5%)

6 2 (1.7%) 11 (9.2%) 3 (2.5%) - 16 (13.3%)

7 3 (2.5%) 15 (12.5%) 4 (3.3%) 2 (1.7%) 24 (20%)

8 3 (2.5%) 7 (5.8%) 3 (2.5%) 1 (0.8%) 14 (11.7%)

9 3 (2.5%) 15 (12.5%) 4 (3.3%) 2 (1.7%) 24 (20%)

10 4 (3.3%) 17 (14.2%) 5 (4.2%) 4 (3.3%) 30 (25%)

11 4 (3.3%) 10 (8.3%) 2 (1.7%) 1 (0.8%) 17 (14.2%)

12 3 (2.5%) 4 (3.3%) 2 (1.7%) 1 (0.8%) 10 (8.3%)

13 3 (2.5%) 10 (8.3%) 5 (4.2%) 1 (0.8%) 19 (15.8%)

Other languages are given a rather minor role in relation with social networking. It seems that Malay is the most prominent 'other language' which students use while handling

68 the presented features. Items 7 ('Commenting on friends' status updates), 9 ('Writing comments about friends' photos') and 10 ('Chatting with friends') show the highest proportion of Malay use. Other dialects comprise the Chinese varieties Hokkien and Cantonese. They are obviously used marginally but surprisingly found their entrance into social networking.

69 5.2.2. Blogs

Figure12. Percentage of students reading or writing blogs

Figure 12 gives the number of students who use blogs. Of 120 students asked in this study, 96 (80%) stated that they read or write blogs.

Means

Questions 14 to 16 were dedicated to blogs. Respondents were asked to indicate their language use when reading, writing blogs or commenting on them. Means of scores on each item are given in Table 7 and 8.

Table 7. Means (M) of scores on item 14 Item M Chinese Malay Indian

Reading blogs 4.76 4.47 4.74 5.15

70

Table 8. Means (M) of scores on item 15, 16 Item M Male Female

Writing blogs 5.24 4.93 5.51

Commenting on blogs 4.83 4.56 5.06

Similar to some of the responses on features of social networking websites, there is evidence for different usage of SSE and SCE in terms of ethnicity. For item 14 Indian students stated that they read blogs more in SSE than in SCE as compared to their Chinese and Malay counterparts, who read them in equal amounts of SSE and SCE. When looking at the results of item 15 and 16, ethnicity was not as important as gender. When writing blogs, male students stated to do it in equal amounts of SSE and SCE. On the other hand, answers of female students indicate that they use more SSE than SCE. Item 16 gives a similar picture, with male students commenting on blogs in equal amounts of SSE and SCE and female students using more SSE than SCE. So far, it can be noted that language use for the given items are linked to differences in terms of gender and ethnicity.

Other language use

When being asked if they used any other languages in relation to blogs, 79 (65.8%) students on item 14, 82 (68.3%) students on items 15 and 16, declared not to use any. The rather small group of students who do use other languages are given in Table 9.

Table 9. Other languages items 14-16 Item Mandarin Malay Tamil Other dialects Total

14 4 (3.3%) 9 (7.5%) 2 (1.7%) 2 (1.7%) 17 (14.2%)

15 4 (3.3%) 8 (6.7%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 14 (11.7%)

16 3 (2.5%) 10 (8.3%) 1 (0.8%) - 14 (11.7%)

Malay dominates the 'other languages' category. The proportion of students who use other languages when they are reading, writing blogs or commenting on blogs are as a whole are lower than compared to the items on social networking. At this point Mandarin, Malay,

71 Tamil, and Chinese varieties such as Hokkien and Cantonese seem to emphasise the rather minor role they play in terms of usage with social media.

5.2.3. Micro-blogging

Figure 13: Percentage of students using micro-blogging services

Figure 13 shows the number of students who make use of micro-blogging services (e.g. Twitter etc.). From a total of 120 students, 34 (28.3%) students declared that they use mirco-blogging services (e.g. Twitter, Pownce etc.). In contrast, 86 (71.7%) students do not use such services.

Means

Questions 17 to 19 reflect some of the most common features used with micro-blogging. Means of scores are given in Table 10.

72

Table 10. Means of scores (M) on items 17-19 Items M Chinese Malay Indian

Following friends 4.81 5.25 4.42 4.71

Sending messages or "tweets" 4.70 5.08 4.67 4.22

Responding to messages or "tweets" 4.85 5.25 4.67 4.56

All 3 items show that ethnicity is a key factor for alternating SSE and SCE. Item 17 suggests, as well as item 18 and 19, that Chinese students use more SSE than SCE when making use of the given features. Mean values of Malay and Indian students point to a '50/50' alternation of SSE and SCE. For these particular items gender differences did not occur.

Other language use

Responses were given for all items. However, only very few students, actually in total 3 (2.5%) for item 17, also 5 (4.2%) for item 18 and 4 (3.3%) for item 19 use other languages for micro-blogging and a brief summary is given in Table 11.

Table 11. Other languages items 17-19 Item Mandarin Malay Tamil Other dialects Total

17 - 3 (2.5%) - - 3 (2.5%)

18 - 2 (1.7%) 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.8%) 4 (3.3%)

73 5.2.4. Texting or writing short messages (SMS)

Means A total of 119 (99.2%) students stated to write brief messages via mobile phones or internet services. Table 12 gives the computed mean values for item 20.

Table 12. Means of scores (M) on item 20 Item M Male Female

Texting or writing short messages (SMS) 4.16 3.98 4.33

With SMS/text messaging done by students on a daily basis, it is interesting to note that male respondents stated to use more SCE than SSE when doing it. This means that male students are more drawn to SCE when texting, while their female counterparts feel they make equal use of both, SSE and SCE.

Other language use

The proportions of students who use other languages for texting remain small in number and are shown in Table 13.

Table 13. Other languages item 20 Item Mandarin Malay Tamil Other dialects Total

20 4 (3.3%) 16 (13.3%) 3 (2.5%) 1 (0.8%) 24 (20%)

Out of 119 students, 24 (20%) students stated that they use other languages beside English for texting. Similar to the presented results of networking websites, blogs and micro- blogging, Malay is the most frequently used language.

5.3. Analysis and Results Section B

Table 14. Ranking English varieties Rank Varieties of English

1 British English

74 2 Singapore Standard English

3 American English

4 Australian English

The participants in the survey were asked to individually rank the given varieties of English according to what they personally considered to be the most prestigious variety and the least prestigious variety. Table 14 shows the outcome of students' ranking with British English at the top, followed by Singapore Standard English, American English and Australian English. Thus, Singaporean students think that British English is the most prestigious variety and Australian English the least prestigious variety. Their local variety, Singapore Standard English, scored second in their individual ranking which suggests a high level of confidence attributed to their very own variety.

5.4. Analysis and Results Section C

This section reports on the 7 statements that were given to the respondents with respect to how their attitudes to English are in general. The survey indicates that all students share positive attitudes towards English. In the following the means of scores on the items are given. For items, where arithmetic differences between male and female students or Chinese, Malay and Indian students in scores occurred, statistical significance was found at p<0.05 with application of t-test or One-way-Anova test.

Table 15. Means of scores (M) on items 1-2, 6-7 Item M

English secures economic survival 4.11

English helps to gain personal success 4.05

English is a high-value language 4.10

English is the lang. that all ethnic groups share equally 3.99

Table 15 gives the computed mean values of attitudes towards English. The respondents show agreement on 3 items. They appreciate English as a high-value language and that it secures economic survival. They also consider English as having an impact on

75 personal success. The average score of item 7, which labels English as a language shared equally by all ethnic groups within Singapore, hovers around 4. Thus, it shows another favourable response to English.

Table 16. Means of scores (M) on item 3 Item M Male Female

English is a 'neutral' language for inter-ethnic communication 4.17 3.98 4.35

Table 16 gives the responses to item 3. Significant differences between male and female students for this statement were found with the help of the t-test. Female students (M = 4.35, SD = 0.77) significantly agreed more than male participants (M = 3.98, SD = 1.17) that English is a 'neutral' language for inter-ethnic communication, t(118) = -2.02, p< .05 (two- tailed).

Table 17. Means of scores (M) on item 4 Item M Chinese Malay Indian

English implies Western values and cultures 3.17 3.48 3.13 2.90

Table 17 shows the scores on item 4. Through Oneway Anova, there is significant difference among the ethnic groups' attitudes to this statement: F(2, 117) = 2.97, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Chinese participants (M = 3.48, SD = 0.71) significantly agreed more than Indian participants (M = 2.90, SD = 1.21) that English implies Western values and cultures.

Table 18. Means of scores (M) on item 5 Item M Chinese Malay Indian

English serves as a unifying language for Singaporeans 4.03 3.68 4.25 4.18

Through Oneway Anova, there is significant difference among the ethnic groups' attitudes to this statement: F(2, 117) = 4.39, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Malay participants (M = 4.25, SD = 0.63) significantly agreed more than Chinese participants (M = 3,68, SD = 0.97) that English serves as a unifying language for Singaporeans.

76 5.5. Analysis and Results Section D

In the following the computed mean values of the attitudes towards SCE (Singlish) are given. All in all 23 items were constructed to measure the attitudes in this direction. The responses showed differences between male and female students and/or between the respective ethnic groups. Details of the follow-up statistical testing with application of t-test and One-Way- Anova test are given where appropriate.

Table 19. Means of scores (M) on items 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 18 Item M

SCE feels more like a Southeast Asian language 3.14

SCE is bad English 2.56

SCE acts as a national bond 3.22

SCE emphasizes solidarity 2.99

SCE is useful for cracking jokes 1.92

SCE indicates low social status 3.43

SSE and SCE coexist in Singapore 3.91

In Singapore you do not need SCE 3.10

Speaking SCE makes me feel more Singaporean 3.29

SCE a marker of authenticity, localness or affability 3.09

Table 19 consists of ten items. Respondents show neutral attitudes towards eight items. Item 6 hovers around 3 and thus points to a neutral attitude towards SCE and its role for solidarity. As for the remaining two items, results show that they disagree that SCE is bad English, and that SCE is useful for cracking jokes. Item 2, 7, 9 and 13 consisted of negative statements and it is interesting to note that while students do not consider SCE as bad English and useful for humorous reasons, they remain neutral about its relation to low social status.

Table 20. Means of scores (M) and t-test (t) on items 3, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, 20 Item M Male Female t

SCE is important for Singaporean identity 3.02 3.25 2.75 2.29*

77 SCE enhances creativity in literature and poetry 2.58 2.98 2.18 3.49*

SCE may give foreigners the idea that Singaporeans can´t 2.28 2.50 2.05 2.23* speak proper English

SCE hinders students from learning SSE 2.48 2.68 2.27 2.06*

SCE makes Singapore unique 3.50 3.72 3.28 2.15*

I speak SCE to feel at home 2.82 3.07 2.57 2.35*

I switch to SCE to mark myself Singaporean 2.80 3.02 2.58 2.10*

*p < 0.50 Sig. (2-tailed).

Table 20 shows neutral responses on item 3 and 15. As for as items 8, 10, 11, 17, and 20 are concerned, students disagree with views considering SCE as a source for creativity in literature and poetry or for identity. In addition, students do not qualify SCE as an obstacle when learning SSE or as damaging for Singaporeans' linguistic reputation.

A t-test performed on the items showed that all gender differences on the items are statistically significant (p<0.05) with the following outcomes:

 Item 3: Male participants (M = 3.28, SD = 1.28) significantly agreed more than female participants (M = 2,75, SD = 1.27) that Singlish is important for Singaporean identity, t(118) = 2.29, p< .05 (two-tailed).  Item 8: Male participants (M = 2.98, SD = 1.21) significantly disagreed more than female participants (M = 2.18, SD = 1.30) that Singlish enhances creativity in literature and poetry, t(118) = 3.49, p< .05.  Item 10: Male participants (M = 2.50, SD = 1.27) significantly disagreed more than female participants (M = 2.05, SD = 0.91) that Singlish may give foreigners the idea that Singaporeans cannot speak proper English, t(118) = 2.23, p< .05.  Item 11: Male participants (M = 2.68, SD = 1.20) significantly disagreed more than female participants (M = 2.27, SD = 1.01) that Singlish hinders students from learning Standard English t(118) = 2.06, p< .05.  Item 15: Male participants (M = 3.72, SD = 1.03) significantly agreed more than female participants (M = 3.28, SD = 1.18) that Singlish makes Singapore unique

78 t(118) = 2.15, p< .05.  Item 17: Male participants (M = 3.07, SD = 1.23) significantly agreed more than female participants (M= 2.57, SD = 1.10) that speaking Singlish makes them feel at home t(118) = 2.35, p< .05.  Item 20: Male participants (M = 3.02, SD = 1.19) significantly agreed more than female participants (M = 2.58, SD = 1.06) that they switch to Singlish to mark themselves as Singaporean t(118) = 2.10, p< .05.

Table 21. Means of scores (M) on item 4 Item Sample Chinese Malay Indian

SCE is the lang. of everyday life 3.33 3.80 3.18 3.03

Table 21 gives the mean of scores on item 4 and shows neutral responses. Through Oneway Anova, there is significant difference among the three ethnic groups' attitudes to this statement: F(2, 117) = 5.03, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Chinese participants (M = 3.80, SD = 1.09) significantly agreed more than Malay participants (M = 3.18, SD = 1.21) that Singlish is the language of everyday life. Chinese participants also significantly agreed more than Indian participants (M = 3.03, SD = 1.16) to this statement.

Table 22. Means of scores (M) on items 16, 19, 22 Item M Male Female Chinese Malay Indian

SCE is a beautiful language 2.57 2.85 2.28 3.08 2.35 2.28

I use SCE for interacting with mem- bers of the lower-middle or working 2.95 2.72 3.18 2.58 2.95 3.33 class

Speaking SCE is unacceptable out- side of home and close friends. 3.19 3.40 2.98 3.48 2.87 3.23

The means of scores on the items in Table 22 show neutral responses on item 22 and disagreement on items 16 and 19. However, differences between female and male students and the ethnic groups occurred. With application of t-test and Anova a better overview of these differences was achieved and is presented in the following:

79  Item 16: Male participants (M = 2.85, SD = 1.16) significantly disagreed more than female participants (M = 2.28, SD = 1.16) that Singlish is a beautiful language, t(118) = 2.66), p< .05 (two-tailed). Through Oneway Anova, there is significant difference among the three ethnic groups' attitudes to this statement: F(2, 117) = 5.94, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Chinese students (M = 3.08, SD = 1.12) significantly agreed more with the statement than Malay participants (M = 2.35, SD = 1.25). Chinese participants also significantly agreed more than Indian participants (M = 2.28, SD = 1.06) to this statement.  Item 19: Female participants (M = 3.18, SD = 1.11) significantly agreed more than male participants (M = 2.72, SD = 1.18) that they use Singlish for interacting with members of the lower-middle or working class, t(118) = -2.23, p< .05 (two-tailed). Through Oneway Anova, there is a significant difference among the ethnic groups' attitudes to this statement: F(2, 11 7) = 4.37, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Indian students (M = 3.33, SD 1.07) significantly agreed more than Chinese students (M = 2.58, SD = 1.08) to this statement.  Item 22: Male participants (M = 3.40, SD = 1.06) significantly agreed more than female participants (M = 2.98, SD = 1.07) that speaking Singlish is unacceptable outside of home and close friends, t(118) = 2.15, p< .05 (two-tailed). Through Oneway Anova, there is significant difference among the ethnic groups' attitudes to this statement: F(2, 117) = 3.27, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Chinese students (M = 3.48, SD = 0.96) significantly agreed more with the statement than Malay participants (M = 2.88, SD = 1.04).

Table 23. Means of scores (M) on item 21 Item M Chinese Malay Indian

Speaking SCE is acceptable at home and amongst close 3.78 4.10 3.73 3.53 friends

Through Oneway Anova, there is significant difference among the ethnic groups' attitudes to this statement: F(2, 117) = 3.51, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Chinese students (M = 4.10, SD = 1.01) significantly agreed with this statement more than Indian students (M = 3.53, SD = 0.99).

In addition, there is a significant difference among the four education level groups' attitudes to this statement: F(3, 116) = 3.34, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD

80 post hoc showed that University students (M = 4.18, SD = 0.90) significantly agreed more than ITE students (M = 3.13, SD = 1.13) that speaking Singlish is acceptable at home and amongst close friends.

Table 24. Means of scores (M) on item 23 Item M Polytechnic ITE Various

I desire my children to be able to speak SCE 2.38 2.19 1.63 3.00

Table 24 gives the means of scores on item 23 and it is note worthy that significant differences among the educational groups' attitudes to the statement occurred: F(3, 116) = 3.64, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that the group of students from various institutions (M = 3.00, SD = 1.37) significantly agreed more with this statement than ITE students (M = 1.63, SD = 0.74) that they desire their children to be able to speak Singlish. The group of students attending various institutions also significantly agreed more than Polytechnic students (M = 2.19, SD = 1.20) to this statement.

Pearson Correlation Test

So far, all results of section C and D are summarised. In addition a Pearson Correlation test was made. The main aim was to find out if any association between the responses of the two sections existed. A total score for section C and D was made and the testing process ended with the following outcome:

81 Correlation

120,00

100,00

80,00

Datenreihen1 60,00 Linear

(Datenreihen1) Total_Section_D 40,00

20,00

0,00 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 Total_Section_C

Figure 14. Correlation between attitudes towards English and Singlish2

The Pearson Correlation test showed significant correlation value (see Figure 14) and thus, a strong association between section C and D. Participants with positive attitudes on English (Section C), have negative attitudes on Singlish (Section D); r = - .25, p < .01, (two- tailed), N = 115.

2 Since Microsoft Excel was used in the German version, numbers with decimals are given with commas (e.g. 5,00 instead of 5.00).

82 5.6. Analysis and Results Section E

Table 25 gives the computed mean values of the attitude towards Singapore. A total of 18 items were constructed to measure the attitudes in this direction.

Table 25. Means of scores (M) on items 1-2, 4-6, 8-18 Item M

Singapore is a nation with well-educated and skilled people 4.17

Performing well at School and at University builds the foundation for a prosperous 4.06 life

I desire my children to grow up in Singapore 3.77

Being Chinese/Malay/Indian is more important to me than being Singaporean 3.30

The mixture of different ethnic groups makes Singapore so special 4.25

I think that Singapore has a prosperous future 4.07

Hard working people are one pillar of our nation 4.02

I feel a kindred bond with other Singaporeans 3.68

I have faith in our government and its decision making 3.83

Other countries have a favourable view of Singapore and its people 3.87

Singapore´s good reputation has a lot to do with its successful economy 4.07

I often regret that I am Singaporean 3.87

I often feel restricted in my personal freedom 3.28

Every individual should contribute to the continuing growth of Singapore 4.06

Westerners have more individual freedom 2.48

Westerners have more liberty to pursue their own interests 2.37

83

Respondents agree on seven items, as given in Table 25. They show neutral responses towards other seven items. Two items received disagreement. No statistically significant differences for these items were observed.

Table 26. Means of scores (M) on items 3 and 7 Item M Chinese Malay Indian

Family and relational bonds are important for 4.26 4.08 4.58 4.13 Singapore's society

I would like to live in a country with more 3.14 2.83 3.48 3.13 Western values

The respondents show agreement on item 3. They appreciate the importance of family and relational bonds in Singapore's society. As for item 7, Chinese students disagree with the statement. This stands in contrast to their Malay and Indian peers who remain neutral about it.

Through Oneway Anova, there are significant differences among the three ethnic groups' attitudes to both statements: Item 3, F(2, 117) = 5.30, p< .05. A follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Malay students (M = 4.58, SD = 0.59) significantly agreed more than Chinese students (M = 4.08, SD = 0.73) that family and relational bonds are important for Singapore's society. Malay students also significantly agreed more than Indian students (M = 4.13, SD = 0.91) to this statement. For item 7, F(2, 117) = 4.76, p< .05, a follow-up test through Turkey HSD post hoc showed that Malay students (M = 3.48, SD = 1.09) significantly agreed more than Chinese students (M = 2.83, SD = 0.78) that they would like to live in a country with more Western values.

Pearson Correlation Test

A correlation test found no significant association between section D and E. However, when negative statements were separated from each section, a correlation was given. Therefore, negative statements from both sections have association but not the entire sections D and E. Participants with positive attitudes to Singlish also have positive attitudes to Singapore; r = .28, p< 0.1 (two-tailed), N = 117.

84 6. Discussion The results of the study give a good picture of the role of SSE and Singlish. They confirm that Singlish, like in other aspects of Singaporean life, takes up its role in relation to social media. As mentioned previously, young people and in particular students are avid users of social networking websites. And as the study revealed, Singaporean students are no exception in this respect. They do not, in general, use SSE or Singlish exclusively while handling typical features of social networking. Responses showed that there is a rather balanced usage of SSE and Singlish. A drift to the use of more Singlish is only evident for one feature which is 'Chatting with friends', which, as in students' real conversations, frequently sees Singlish coming in. It could suggest that they choose Singlish over SSE to sound less formal and more amicable. But as social networking websites provide a meeting spot in a virtual way and no conventional geographic boundaries are valid, it seems plausible that students therefore mainly opt for SSE. That explains the reasons why half of the questions were answered with 'more SSE than Singlish'.

The students also confirm that blogs are widely appreciated. Here again, they follow a balanced usage of SSE and Singlish when it comes to reading blogs or commenting on them. In terms of writing blogs they choose 'more SSE than Singlish'. A sensible choice, given the fact, that blogs are accessible to a wide global audience. But if intelligibility is of great concern to these students engaged in writing blogs, here can only be assumed. The survey indicates that the trend of micro-blogging has not yet reached its height among Singaporean students. However, the small group of students who do follow this trend indicate that Singlish and SSE is used '50/50'. The same is stated for texting from all students. In comparison to micro-blogging, texting has already become a well established communication tool among students. The analysis of all responses has revealed that gender and ethnicity play key roles in the alternation between SSE and Singlish in relation to social media. This observation was later also confirmed in correlation with attitudes towards Singlish and Singapore in general. Responses received concerning the usage of 'Other languages' in relation to Social Media attribute them a rather minor role. And of which Malay leads over the other languages.

In a general context, the importance of Singapore Standard English is solidly recognised among students. All of them experienced a school system based on Standard English. Although exposed to other varieties of English in different ways (e.g. in the media), they share a certain confidence in their very own variety. This confidence was shown explicitly as students ranked SSE second, right after British English, in terms of prestige.

85 Such a response clearly indicates that this very group of Singapore´s population and in Kachruian (1985) terms members of the Outer Circle take a positive stance on Singapore Standard English. Although the students' linguistic backgrounds vary (see Figure 10, section 5.1.1.), what apparently seem to unite them are their highly positive attitudes towards English. Results confirm that English is valued by the students because it has the ability to 'secure economic survival' and 'help to gain personal success'. Whereas the first ability is very often stressed by government officials, the latter seems to reflect on individual personal prospects. Each of the participating students has experienced a highly competitive school environment where a good command of English is essential. They are aware of the fact, that after graduation they will enter another highly competitive area: the job market. Professional life in Singapore requires a good command of English and also candidates with other language abilities, regardless of the person´s ethnicity. These other language abilities are seen as assets. At present, Chinese is seen as such an asset, resulting in a vast number of Singaporeans (mainly of other ethnicities than Chinese) and even Expats (Expatriates) enrol in Chinese language classes. Students indicate that English 'is a high-value language'. As suggested before, it takes up a key role in the economy, education and personal advancement (especially in relation to job opportunities). But on a more general level it seems to connect Singapore with the world. Local academics would concur that English in Singapore, very broadly speaking, not only generates and attracts money but also is a main criterion for attracting intellectual capital. In that sense e.g. Universities and companies are eager to welcome 'top brains' from overseas. In return, such academics or professionals get the opportunity to work and live under top conditions in an English-speaking city-state. In contrast, local graduates can easily find work placements overseas due to an education in English. But different to its neighbouring country Malaysia, which is currently suffering from 'brain drain', Singapore manages to keep its graduates. It is also very often the case, that those Singaporean graduates who underwent tertiary education abroad (mostly in Australia, America, Great Britain) gladly return to the city-state.

While evidence shows that English is widely seen as a 'neutral' language, especially for the communication between Singapore´s various ethnic groups, no clear responses were given in terms of English and its label of being Western. Students chose to remain neutral about this subject. Only a more profound testing method showed that Indian students in particular disagree with such a label. It is note worthy that this response comes from an ethnic group which is perceived as the smallest of all three main ethnic groups in Singapore. English and its ability to act as a 'unifying language' for Singaporeans is generally appreciated. But on

86 a more profound level, results showed that while Malay and Indian students agreed to that ability, Chinese students remained neutral about it. Again, like in section A of the survey ethnicity plays a key role in finding significant differences in students' responses.

The results of section D of the study reflect on the role of Singlish and students' attitudes towards Singlish. Although Singlish has caused controversies over the past it is still the variety which many people like or choose to converse in while handling everyday matters (Rubdy 2001). However, responses of the students who participated in this survey neither showed that they take an emphatic stance for Singlish nor against Singlish. As suggested by Cavallaro and Chin (2009) and before them by Kamwangamalu (1992) and by Chng (2003) ambivalence seems to persist and grow in relation to attitudes towards SCE.

The results show that students when asked directly about their attitudes towards SCE seem to avoid taking up an active position for or against it. Although they do not, in general, see SCE as 'bad' English. They avoid to attach SCE with the ability e.g. to function as a national bond, to emphasise solidarity or to act as a marker of authenticity, localness or affability. The latter quality of SCE has been previously observed by Chong as being fundamental why members of the media "consciously choose" and "occasionally lapse into Singlish [...]" (Chong 2007: 66). However, in the present context Singlish does not appear to function as an identity marker ('Singlish makes me feel more Singaporean') and students also avoid linking it to low social status. When confronted with a statement which suggests that SCE is not needed in Singapore, students still remain neutral. In contrast to this, the coexistence of SSE and SCE in Singapore is also answered with a neutral response.

The results of this study obviously seem to widen the ambivalence in relation to attitudes towards SCE. Whereas researchers like Tan and Tan (2008: 476) successfully seem to trace Singlish as a marker for identity and solidarity. The findings by Cavallaro and Chin suggest "the absence of high solidarity rating for SCE to be a surprise" (Cavallaro and Chin 2009: 154). Indeed, it is rather surprising as e.g. blog entries (see section 2.5.1.3.) nurture the common belief that SCE is an essential part of Singaporean identity and important for solidarity within the community. Similar to this, Cavallaro and Chin recall a propagated existence of "the widespread anecdotal belief and experience that SCE is the 'glue' that binds Singaporeans together" (2009: 154). However, further responses in this study revealed a key role for gender and give a more varied picture of the prevailing attitudes. Thus, female students openly rejected that SCE is important for identity. They further rejected the idea of speaking SCE in order to feel at home and switching to SCE in order to emphasise being

87 Singaporean. For all three items male students opted for a neutral response. Therefore, female students openly rated SCE low in terms of identity. These findings point to gender differences in terms of attitudes. Gender has conventionally been associated with variation of and affects on research results. According to Yule, who draws his assumption from dialect surveys, "female speakers tend to use more prestigious forms than male speakers" even though they come from "the same general social background" (Yule 1996: 242). In relation to Singapore, Cavallaro and Chin (2009: 151) point to similar findings and link them up with findings by Lund (1997) whose work suggests clear references between female speakers and a greater solidarity towards the standard language.

Government officials and their organised Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) promote SSE and attempt to influence the public image of SCE (Rudby 2001; Bokhorst-Heng 2005). Especially at school and in higher education context SSE is essential and vital. Tan and Tan (2008: 477) suggest that although schools are officially maintained as "Singlish-free zones", their findings point to the fact that pupils "want to carve out a space for Singlish in some finely calibrated contexts". That means that pupils consciously choose "occasions when some Singlish is appropriate" and "[..] as well as occasions when it is not" (Tan and Tan 2008: 477). The participants of this survey have experienced such a conventional school setting and are aware of the position the government takes in relation to SCE. But results show that they do not share opinions brought forward by the SGEM. In detail this comprises: SCE is simply 'bad' English; SCE hinders students from learning SSE; SCE may give foreigners the idea that Singaporeans can not speak proper English. Participants rejected all three opinions. In this respect they do not conform to opinions by government officials. However, they do not see SCE as a 'beautiful' language either. They also fail to acknowledge that SCE enhances creativity in literature and poetry. And they remain neutral about SCE and its potential of making Singapore unique.

Furthermore, some responses comment on the language choice (i.e. If SCE is/is not acceptable.) especially in and outside of the Family and Friendship Domains (cf. Ferguson 1959; Fishman 1971). One interesting fact that emerged from the responses is that students in general remained neutral about it. Expectations were, given the fact that both domains are private and rather informal spheres in which everyday communication takes place (cf. Platt and Weber 1980), that students would openly declare speaking SCE as acceptable in these domains. Therefore, it is rather surprising that the students gave a neutral response and only further testing results revealed that Chinese students are the only ethnic group approved of

88 SCE in these domains. In contrast, speaking SCE outside these domains received similar neutral responses. But through further testing more notable results were revealed. Malay students and female students disagreed with the statement claiming the use of SCE as acceptable outside of the Family and Friendship Domains. This certainly gives ground for the speculation that especially Malay and female students see no harm in using SCE outside these, as previously mentioned, private and rather informal spheres.

Two other statements prompted expectations that SCE could perhaps be linked to class. However, students' responses gave no clear indication whether SCE indicates low social status. What the responses remarkably showed was that the students as a group rejected the idea of using SCE exclusively for interacting with members of the lower (working) class. Especially male students, Chinese and Malay students disagreed with this statement. In contrast, female students and Indian students remained neutral about it. When the author asked a member of the research team at NTU´s Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies, if previous studies have managed to reveal some sort of link between class and SCE, she replied, "No, it seems that participants prefer not to make any links between class and Singlish". That could mean that these students and also their peers who use SCE themselves, obviously qualify an attempt of labelling SCE as exclusively working-class as rather pointless. Perhaps in context of higher education students seek to follow in the footsteps of "Proficient adult speakers in Singapore" (Gupta 1989: 34). Thus, they choose and switch between SSE and SCE. And only the individual situation dictates their choice.

When considering the question of passing Singlish on to their children, all students rejected that idea. This is rather surprising as the previous responses showed no clear opposition to SCE. Added to this, students although sometimes vague (i.e. neutral) in their responses, did not confirm the statements portraying SCE as negative or harmful. This indeed leaves room for speculations. One reason for their response to this particular statement could be that they feel no special attachment to Singlish. Perhaps they prioritise SSE for the upbringing of their future children. Another reason could be that they simply see no benefit in passing Singlish on to the next generation. As they have not clearly indicated to see any relation between Singlish and identity it seems that they have no special attachment to it. Perhaps some students even speculate with the chance, that their children will sooner or later pick Singlish up by themselves. Similar to their own experiences, there are potential places where children might encounter Singlish. For instance, at playgrounds, hawker centres and probably at school. Further testing revealed that for this particular statement neither gender

89 nor ethnicity marked key roles. Surprisingly, the splitting of participants into educational groups yielded a significant result. Thus, the group comprising students from various institutions (e.g. students at LASALLE College of the Arts and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts) have a rather relaxed (neutral) attitude towards this statement. In contrast, ITE students and Polytechnic students perceive SCE as clearly no option for their future children. Perhaps these very students reflected on their own experiences with Singlish and it might have influenced their rejection of it.

At this point it is again note worthy, that results show that participants have positive attitudes towards English in general. On the contrary, their attitudes towards Singlish are rather ambiguous. In an attempt to find out if students who have positive views on English also support Singlish, a correlation test was made. Findings revealed an association between answers given for both sections. Remarkably, students who have positive attitudes on English do hold negative attitudes on Singlish. A possible explanation for this could be that students are especially aware of the importance of (Standard) English for their forthcoming career and professional life. But it is not solely vital for gaining personal success, as the government has brought forward in their annual campaigns of the Speak Good English Movement. It gets also portrayed as vital for Singapore in general. First and foremost, it is the main language in which Singapore as Asia´s key business hub operates. Second, it has been established as the main language for education. Therefore, it also attracts students from neighbouring countries. But Singapore is not only prepared to provide thriving Universities and to cooperate with prestigious overseas Universities like Stanford. Plans have been publicised that the city-state also strives to become a top medical hub in the near future. With such an economic outward orientation and plans like the latter ahead of them, Singaporean students seem to have accepted what major role English plays in their lives. However, their attitudes towards SCE may have been altered partly due to the government´s outspoken dislike for it.

In an attempt to get the greater picture of Singapore and its young generation in particular, it seemed appropriate to evaluate the students' attitudes towards Singapore in general. The initial idea was to find out how students perceived Singapore in relation to themselves. Through different statements the impression of a common ground or bond, so to speak, was challenged. Furthermore, some statements reflected on how Singapore could possibly be seen by other countries. In addition, an opportunity for declaring potential resentment towards the government and its regulations and measures, which often get portrayed as rather intrusive, was given. Also, in order to get the full perspective, some

90 statements were used to contrast individualism prevailing in Western countries, with collectivism which certainly is an element of Singapore´s cultural make-up. All the responses to these different statements should contribute to a better understanding of Singapore´s linguistic landscape and identity making. For the purpose of the study, the focus lay especially on students who are on the verge of becoming young professionals. They therefore will join Singapore´s elite and as part of it will shape and influence Singapore´s future.

The results confirm that students go in line with most of the publicly celebrated attributes of Singaporean culture. The participating students showed some agreement to eight out of eighteen statements. These statements pointed partly to Singapore´s image, its future and made references to concepts of meritocracy and collectivism. Thus, responses indicate that the students in question see Singapore as 'a nation with well-educated and skilled people' and agree that its good reputation relies on its successful economy. As a group they predict Singapore has a prosperous future and agreed that every individual citizen 'should contribute to the continuing growth' of it. They further believe that good performances at School and University lead to a prosperous life. In addition, they confirm that hard working people support the nation and its 'mixture of different ethnic groups makes Singapore so special'.

Results for another eight statements were aimed to give a more detailed description of how students perceive Singapore. Surprisingly, participants were not as outspoken as for the other statements. They preferred to opt mainly for neutral responses. Under other circumstances it would have been very interesting to see if they had chosen to agree with statements pointing to a common national identity. However, students neither agreed nor disagreed with the following statement: 'I feel a kindred bond with other Singaporeans'. Similar results were achieved with a statement pushing ethnicity before a shared common ground of being Singaporean. Another statement which pointed to Singapore´s reputation, but this time not merely based on economical success like the previous one, received also neutral responses. Statements on a more personal level by suggesting an infringement of personal freedom, regrets about being Singaporean, a desire to bring up children in Singapore or a sense of faith in the local government and its decision making, were again answered with neutral responses. On the contrary, the very statements which suggest firstly, that Westerners have not only more individual freedom but secondly, more liberty to pursue their own interests, were both rejected. For two remaining statements of section E further testing revealed a key role for ethnicity. This concerns 'Family and relational bonds are important for Singapore´s society' and 'I would like to live in a country with more Western values', of which

91 the latter was clearly rejected by Chinese students but was given a neutral response by Malay and Indian students. This is remarkably interesting as the Chinese are not only the largest ethnic group within Singapore but are also perceived as the largest group which is represented at local Universities. This could mean that they are generally satisfied with their position in Singapore´s society and do not long for a place other than Singapore to live in. Results on the question concerning family and relational bonds on the other hand revealed that all three ethnic groups have positive attitudes to it. This came as no surprise for the author because it becomes obvious to any observer that family is indeed treasured in Singaporean society. This might stem partly from local traditions which are shared by all ethnic groups. But perhaps has more to do with a pro-family legislation. In the city-state the family takes up the core element in its society. The government has always been eager to promote the family as vital for a thriving community and as such a thriving nation. It seems that the participants of this survey share this view and have adapted to it. However, further testing revealed that among all ethnicities the Malay significantly agreed more to it. This could confirm the very own observations which the author of this thesis has made herself. Although, such observations are commonly seen as highly subjective, they can contribute to the reader´s understanding of Singapore´s mosaic-like society. Thus, it is important to note that the Malay population is very dedicated to its traditions and can be best described as a tight unit within multi-ethnic Singapore. They share a high regard for family, traditional customs and are devote Muslims. Therefore, Malay participant`s high appreciation for family and relatives comes as no surprise to the author.

In an effort to find a correlation between answers given in section D and E, a correlation test was made, however, it yielded no significant results. But when negative statements from both sections were contrasted, it resulted in an association. Unfortunately, common statistical methods dictate that only a section with a total of all statements should be contrasted with another. In order to obey this practice, no further comments about the latter result are made.

92 7. Conclusion Singapore epitomises, like no other state, an economical powerhouse. Economy is at the top of the government´s agenda. In the past, the city-state has successfully managed to become a top global player in different economic fields. Within this development, education and language became more and more vital. Given the multi-ethnic background of Singaporeans and the pressing economical agenda, language as such is of paramount importance.

Mandarin and English are deemed to have the most important roles of all four national languages. Of which English is prioritised and can broadly be seen as the language for education, business, administration and communication. This tendency is the result of Singapore´s outward business orientation and the government´s active role in language planning. The latter is reaching as far as to suppose a need to protect its local people from what is considered inappropriate. In this particular context this concerns Singlish which attracts opprobrium from the government. However, the whole issue of Singlish resembles a one-sided conversation, initiated by the government but left greatly unanswered by its people. Especially the younger generation of Singaporeans have accepted that Singapore English with its contact variety Singlish is simply a part of their daily lives.

In the beginning of this thesis, I formed five hypotheses. Based on my findings I can draw the following conclusions:

Hypothesis 1: Singapore is highly receptive to new technology. The Internet and with it Social Media has been taken on by young Singaporeans. Both, Singapore Standard English and Singlish, are used alternately in relation with Social Media. Thus, Singlish – like in other aspects of Singaporean life - takes up a role in Social Media. It is also likely that Chinese, Tamil, Malay and even dialects are used.

This hypothesis has proved to be correct, as Social Media is well received by students and Singapore Standard English along with Singlish is dominantly used in this very context. The influence of other languages such as Chinese, Tamil, Malay and local dialects turns out to be decidedly modest.

93 Hypothesis 2: Young Singaporeans are confident about Singapore Standard English when contrasted with dominant and traditional types of English such as British English, American English and Australian English.

The results of my study have shown support for this hypothesis. Participants turned out to be considerably confident about Singapore Standard English. When given the opportunity to contrast and classify it they chose to place it right after British English but before American English.

Hypothesis 3: Young Singaporeans appreciate English and its beneficial traits.

Again, support for this hypothesis can be drawn from the participants' responses. Young Singaporeans perceive English not only as an inter-ethnic lingua franca but appreciate it for its impact on personal advancement and on the economy. It can thus be suggested that English represents for them a vehicle for progress, connectivity and personal success.

Hypothesis 4: Singlish is under constant debate in Singapore. However, young Singaporeans hold no negative attitudes towards the colloquial variety. The current atmosphere rather suggests a possibility of a shared apathy towards the whole issue by local students.

Indeed, young Singaporeans reject those common negative properties of Singlish which are often suggested by the government. But all in all they have exercised restraint in relation to Singlish throughout the study. Results do not point to a link between identity, solidarity and Singlish either. Thus to assume an apathy towards Singlish is to some extent eligible.

Hypothesis 5: Singaporeans show high self-confidence. The main factors that have led to mutual confidence are financial prosperity and high quality academic education. Therefore, young Singaporeans identify and relate themselves positively with Singapore.

94 Based on the results of my study I can say that young Singaporeans confirm to some extent the prevailing opinion on Singapore´s high self-confidence. They agreed on many such elements (predominately linked to economy and education) which they had been presented with. These very elements combined with other social elements are commonly supposed to be at the core of their high self-confidence. However, those statements which point to rather social elements of their self-confidence arrangement were answered restrainedly. It can thus be suggested that young Singaporeans do partly express and represent high self-confidence. They identify mostly with Singapore´s economical and academic conditions. But when social elements come into play they opt for a neutral stance. Interestingly enough, they rejected suggestions which presented Westerners and their take on individualism as more advantageous. A fact which government officials would certainly appreciate as it has been the upmost goal since Singapore´s independence to foster a national identity based on economical goals and prosperity. Particular focus has thereby been laid on good "Asian values" and the exclusion of certain evil "Western values" (Chua and Kuo 1991). Thus, exaggerated individualism is certainly attributed to the latter.

This thesis has shown that Singaporean students value English. They tend to use it at home alongside Malay, Tamil or Chinese. Even a considerable number of them exclusively use English at home. They are aware of how important English is and what a great impact it has on Singapore´s economy and especially, in their case, on academic achievement. From very early on this has been instilled in them by English schooling and the government´s recurrent emphasis on English.

Yet, if the SGEM (Speak Good English Movement) has had a similar effect on the students would be an issue for further investigation. What the study manages to hint at is that they reject some of the most propagated and negative attributes of Singlish channelled through the movement.

This thesis also provides an overview of the main analyses of and the subsequent models for Singapore English, this certainly enables the reader to position this very group of students in a particular model. In Pakir´s (1991) model for instance, by taking one of the most recent ones, these students would take up top positions on both, the formality and the proficiency cline. Unlike less educated speakers they have the ability to go up and down "the diglossic continuum" (Pakir 1991: 361). It would therefore be interesting to contrast the presented findings of attitudes towards Singlish and perhaps even those linked to Singapore

95 with findings derived from a group of less educated speakers. The latter group would then include speakers of "varying proficiency levels" (Pakir 1991: 361). A circumstance which at this point seems promising in terms of gaining a more varied picture of attitudes on Singlish. Perhaps even some sort of attachment to Singlish could then be traced.

However, it will be interesting to see how Singapore progresses linguistically. Over the past it has shown an ability to adapt swiftly to economic changes. So far these changes have occasionally translated into linguistic changes. The very future depends on the current generation on the verge of becoming young professionals, of whom a small fraction took part in this study. These students do not seem particularly attached to Singlish but appreciate Singapore Standard English. Time will tell if they attempt to retain Singlish.

96 Bibliography

"Ah Beng" (n.d.). Coxford Singlish Dictionary. [Online]. Talking Cock. http://www.talkingcock.com/html/lexec.php [2009, Sept. 19].

Ang, Peng Hwa (2003). "Overview of the Internet in ASEAN: Social and Cultural Dimensions". In: Public Relation Academy, ed. Social and Cultural Impact of the Internet in ASEAN. Singapore: PRA. 21-30.

"Ang moh" (n.d.). Coxford Singlish Dictionary. [Online]. Talking Cock. http://www.talkingcock.com/html/lexec.php. [2009, Sept.19].

Angry Ang mo Never Mind (2009, April 14). Speak Good English Movement. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.angryangmo.com/2009/04/14/singapore-most-weird- campaigns/ [2009, April 21].

Ansaldo, Uberto (2004). "The evolution of Singapore English". In: Lisa Lim, ed. Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Company. 127-149.

Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy (1998). "Language planning and management in Singapore". In: Joseph A. Foley et al., ed. English in New Cultural Contexts. Singapore: Oxford University Press. 287-309.

Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy (1999). "Singapore's Speak Mandarin Campaign: Language ideological debates and the imagining of the nation". In: Jan Blommaert, ed. Language Ideological Debates. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 235-263.

Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy (2005). "Debating Singlish". Multilingua. 24: 185-209.

Bolton, Kingsley (2000). "The Sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English". In: Kingsley Bolton, ed. World Englishes. London: Routledge. 418-443.

Brown, Adam (1999). Singapore English in a Nutshell. Singapore: Federal Publications.

Cavallaro, Francesco and Ng Bee Chin (2009). "Between status and solidarity in Singapore". World Englishes 28 (2): 143-159.

Chng, Hoon H. (2003). "'You see me no up': is Singlish a problem?". Language Problems and Language Planning 27: 45-62.

Chua, Beng-Huat (2003). Life is not complete without Shopping: Consumption culture in Singapore. Singapore: Singapore Univ. Press.

Chua, Beng-Huat (2006). "Values and Development in Singapore". In: Harrison, L. and P. Berger, eds. Developing Cultures. New York: Routledge. 101-117.

Chua, Beng-Huat and Eddie C.Y. Kuo (1991). "The Making of a New Nation: Cultural Con- struction and National Identity in Singapore". Working Papers, Department of Sociology NUS 104: 1-43.

97

Chong, Terence. (2006, March 22). Beng is cool, Singlish a signal. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://thethirdweireading.blogspot.com/2006/03/beng-is-cool-singlish- signal.html [2009, October 29].

Chong, Terence (2007). "The Cultural Politics of English and Singlish in Singapore". In: Lee S.K., S.M. Thang, and K.S. Lee, eds. Border Crossings: moving between languages and cultural frameworks. Subang Jaya, Selangor: Pelanduk Publications. 56-75.

Crystal, David (1997). English as a Global Language. London: Longman.

Crystal, David (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: CUP.

DeCamp, David (1971). Towards a generative analysis of a post-creole speech continuum. In: Dell Hymes, ed. Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 349-370.

Edwards, John (1982). "Language attitudes and implications among English speakers". In: Ryan, Ellen B. and Howard G. Giles, eds. Attitudes Towards Language Variation. London: Arnold. 20-33.

Facebook (2011). "Statistics". Press room. [Online]. http://www.facebook.com/press/info. php?statistics [2011, March 8].

Ferguson, Charles A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325-340.

Fishman, Joshua A. (1972). The sociology of language: An interdisciplinary social science approach to language in society. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.

Foley, Joseph A. (1988). New Englishes: the case of Singapore. Singapore: NUS University Press.

Foley, Joseph A. (1998). "Why New Englishes?". In: Joseph A. Foley, ed. English in New Cultural Contexts. Singapore: Oxford University Press. 1-15.

Garrett, Peter, Coupland Nikolas and Williams, Angie (2003). Investigating language attitudes: social meaning of dialect, ethnicity and performance. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Garrett, Peter, Williams, Angie and Evans, Betsy (2005). "Attitudinal data from New Zealand, Australia, the USA and UK about each other´s Englishes: recent changes or consequences of methodologies?". Multilingua 24: 211-235.

Giles, Howard and Ellen Bouchard Ryan (1982). "Prolegomena for developing a social psychological theory of language attitudes". In: Ryan, Bouchard Ellen and Howard Giles, eds. Attitudes towards language variation: social and applied contexts. London: Edward Arnold. 208-222.

Goh Chin, Lian (2009, March 18). "Learning dialects 'adds to burden'". Prime Minister´s Office. Media Centre. Minister Mentor. [Online] http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosite/

98 mediacentre/inthenews/ministermentor/2009/March/learning_dialectsaddstoburden.html [2009, March 20].

Görlach, Manfred (1998). Even More Englishes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Company.

Görlach, Manfred (2002). Still More Englishes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gupta, Anthea F. (1989). "Singapore Colloquial English and Standard English". Singapore Journal of Education 10: 33-39.

Gupta, Anthea F. (1998). "The Situation of English in Singapore". In: Bolton, Kingsley and Braj. B. Kachru, eds. World Englishes. London: Routledge. 369-387.

Gupta, Anthea F. (1992). "The pragmatic particles of Singapore Colloquial English". Journal of Pragmatics 18: 31-57.

Gupta, Anthea F. (1994a). The Step Tongue: Children´s English in Singapore. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Gupta, A. F. (1994b). "The truth about Singapore English". English Today, 10 (2): 15-17.

Gupta, Anthea F. (2001). "English in the linguistic ecology of Singapore". Paper presented at Conference dedicated to the cultural politics of English as a World Language, University of Freiburg, 6-9 June.

Hello Singapore.info Blog (2009). Singlish, the unofficial Singapore English. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://hellosingapore.info/singlish/ [2009, October 29].

Hill, Michael (1999). Asian Values as Reverse Orientalism: The case of Singapore. Paper presented at 13th International Conference, Asian Nationalism in an age of Globalization, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 24-27 Nov.

Kachru, Braj B. (1982). The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana, IL: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Kachru, Braj B. (1985). "Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: the English languages in the outer circle". In: Bolton, K. and Braj B. Kachru, eds. World Englishes. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. 241-269.

Kachru, Braj B. (1988). "The spread of English and sacred linguistic cows". In: Bolton, K., ed. World Englishes. London: Routledge. 484-499.

Kamwangamalu, Nkonko M. (1992). "Multilingualism and social identity in Singapore". Journal of Asia Pacific Communication 3: 33-47.

Kluver, Randolph (2003). "The Singapore Experience". In: Public Relation Academy, ed. Social and Cultural Impact of the Internet in ASEAN. Singapore: PRA. 36-50.

99 Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.

Le Page, R. B. and A. Tabouret-Keller, (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lim, Colin. (2008, May 16). English vs Singlish. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://community.jobscentral.com.sg/node/54. [2009, October 29].

Lim, Jaclyn (2009, June 23). "Twitter". Her World.

Lim, Lisa and Joseph A. Foley (2004). "English in Singapore and Singapore English". In: Lisa Lim, ed. Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Publishing Company. 1-18.

Lim, Lisa (2007). "Mergers and acquisitions: on the ages and origins of Singapore English particles". World Englishes. 26 (4): 446-473.

Llamzon Teodoro (1977). "Emerging Patterns in the English Language Situation in Singapore Today". In: William Crewe, ed. The English Language in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Univ. Press. 39-46.

McArthur, Tom (2001). The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Mesthrie, Rajend and Rakesh M. Bhatt (2008). World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Michelle. (2009, March 13). Don´t Speak Singlish Lah! [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://xprsso.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/dont-speak-singlish-lah/. [2009, October 29].

Mühlhäusler, Peter (1996). Language ecology: language change and linguistic imperialism in the Pacific region. London: Routledge.

Mühlhäusler, Peter (1997). Pidgin and Creole linguistics. London: Univ. of Westminster Press.

Neil, David (2010, Jan. 27). "There are 75 million Twitter users". The Inquirer. [Online] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1589058/there-75-million-twitter-users [2010, Jan. 27].

Pakir, Anne (1991). "The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore". In: Bolton, Kingsley and Braj B. Kachru, eds. World Englishes. London: Routledge 352-367.

Pennycook, Alistair (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Harlow: Longman.

Platt, John (1975). "The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect 'Singlish' as a 'creoloid'". Anthropological Linguistics 17 (7): 363-374.

Platt, John (1977). "A model for polyglossia and multilingualism (with special reference to Singapore and Malaysia) ". Language in Society 6: 361-378.

100

Platt, John T. and Heidi Weber (1980). English in Singapore and Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria R. (1995). "Lectal variation in the media and the classroom: a preliminary analysis of attitudes". In: Teng Su Ching and Ho Miam Lian, eds. The English Language in Singapore: Impflications for Teaching. Singapore: Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics. 53-67.

Poedjosoedarmo, Gloria R. (2002). "Student teachers' differing attitudes to accents of English". In: Ee-Ling Low and Su Ching Teng, eds. The Teaching and Use of Standard English. Singapore: Singapore Association of Applied Linguistics. 146-155.

Richards, Jack C. (1983). Singapore English: rhetorical and communicative styles. In: Braj Kachru, ed. The Other Tongue: English accross cultures. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press. 154- 167.

Richards, Jack C. and Mary W. J. Tay (1977). "The la particle in Singapore English". In: William Crewe, ed. The English Language in Singapore. Singapore: Eastern Univ. Press. 141- 156.

Rubdy, Rani (2001). "Creative destruction: Singapore's Speak Good English Movement". World Englishes 20 (3): 341-355.

"Sarong Party Girl" (n.d.). Coxford Singlish Dictionary. [Online]. Talking Cock. http://www.talkingcock.com/html/lexec.php. [2009, Sept.19].

Singapore Tourism Board (2009). "People, Language, Culture". Your Singapore: About Singapore. [Online]. http://www.yoursingapore.com/content/traveller/en/browse/about singapore/people-lang-culture.html [2009, April 21].

Srilal, Mohan (1999, Aug. 28). "Quick Quick: 'Singlish' is out in re-education campaign". Southeast Asia. [Online]. http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/AH28Ae05.html [2009, Sept. 20].

Simpson, Andrew (2007). "Singapore". In: Andrew Simpson, ed. Language and National Identity in Asia. New York: Oxford University Press. 374-390.

Smithers, Rebecca (2010, March 18). "University students expect to graduate with debts in excess of £ 15,000". The Guardian. [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/mar/18/ university-students-graduate-mouting-debts [2010, March 18].

SGEM (2009). Speak Good English Movement website. http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/. [2009, June 22].

S M Ong (2009, June 14). PCK promoting graciousness on MRT? [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://smong.net/2009/06/pck-promoting-graciousness-on-mrt-in.html [2009, June 25].

SPSS Inc. (2009). SPSS Statistics for Windows v17.0. [Computer program]. Somer, NY: IBM.

101

Schneider, Edgar W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tabachnik, Barbara G. and L.S. Fidell (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Bosten: Allyn and Bacon.

Tan, Peter K.W. and Daniel K.H. Tan (2008). "Attitudes towards non-standard English in Singapore". World Englishes, 27.3/4: 465-479.

Tan, Ying Ying (2008a). Handout for seminar 'Kachru´s Approach to World English' [PowerPoint Slides] Singapore: NTU Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies.

Tan, Ying Ying (2008b). Handout for the seminar 'The Dynamic Model' [PowerPoint Slides] Singapore: NTU Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies.

The Guardian (2009, April 24). "Country profile: Singapore". The Guardian. [Online]. http://www.guardian.co.uk/country-profile/singapore/print [2010, January 27]

Trudgill, Peter (2008). International English. London: E.A.

Tsjeng, Zing (2010, March 21). "Facebook: why we can´t live without it". The Guardian. [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/21/facebook-cant-live-without-it [2010, March 21].

Wen Wei J.Ee and Teo Wan Gek (2009, June 14). "Kids getting Internet savvy at a younger age". The (Sunday) Straits Times.

Wong, Jock (2006). "Contextualizing aunty in Singaporean English". World Englishes 25 (3/4): 451-466.

Xu, Daming, Chew, Cheng Hai and Chen, Sogcen (1998). "Language Use and Language Attitudes in the Singapore Chinese Community". In: Gopinathan, S., Pakir, A., Kam, H. W., and V. Saravanan, eds. Language, Society and Education in Singapore. Singapore: Times Academic Press. 133-155.

Yule, George (1996). The Study of Language. Cambridge: CUP.

102 Appendix: Questionnaire used

AGE:

GENDER:

RACE/ETHNICITY:

LANGUAGES SPOKEN AT HOME:

CHOSEN LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION

LANGUAGE 1:

LANGUAGE 2:

EDUCATION LEVEL:

A 1. I use social networking websites (e.g. Facebook, MySpace, Others) Yes/No

(If you answered question 1 with NO than please skip questions 4 – 13)

2. I read or write blogs Yes/No

(If you answered question 2 with NO than please skip questions 14 – 16)

3. I use micro-blogging services (e.g. Twitter, Pownce, Tumblr, Jaiku, Moodmill, Others) Yes/No

(If you answered question 3 with NO than please skip questions 17 – 19)

Please circle the number that you feel best represents the local variety or varieties of English you use for each action. The scale allows you to indicate degrees of alternation between Singapore Standard English and Singlish (Singapore Colloquial English), if you feel that this characterises best your language use for the given actions. For example, if you feel you use exclusively Singapore Standard English, then circle the number 7. If you feel you use exclusively Singlish, then circle number 1. Numbers 2 to 6 represent different degrees of mixing or switching between Singapore Standard English and Singlish, e.g. 2 means that Singlish dominates, with only very few Singapore Standard English words and expressions, while 6 indicates the opposite for Singapore Standard English. You should choose 4, if you feel that you use equal amounts of Singapore Standard English and Singlish for particular actions. In addition, please tick the box below, if you use any of the given languages (Mandarin/Tamil/Malay) or other dialects. Please do indicate which dialect you use in particular.

103

4. Creating your profile page

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

5. Stating personal matters like relationship status, political views, religious beliefs or special interests

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

6. Using the status update tool

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

104

7. Commenting on friends’ status updates

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

8. Using features like quizzes and games

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

9. Writing comments about friends’ photos

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

105

10. Chatting with friends

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

11. Writing on message boards

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

12. Writing on discussion boards

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

106

13. Commenting your photos

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

14. Reading blogs

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

15. Writing blogs

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

107 16. Commenting on blogs

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

17. “Following” friends on micro-blogging services

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

18. Sending messages (brief text updates) or “tweets”

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

108 19. Responding to messages (brief text updates) or “tweets”

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

20. Texting or writing short messages (SMS)

More More Singapore Mostly Singapore Singlish Standard Singapore Standard than Mostly Singlish 50/50 English Standard English Singapore Singlish only only English than Standard Singlish English

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mandarin/Tamil/Malay Other dialects

109 B Please list the following varieties of English according to your own individual ranking. Use the given numbers from 1 (being the most prestigious variety) to 4 (being the least prestigious variety). Singapore Standard English; British English; Australian English; American English

1 ______2 ______3 ______4 ______

110 C Please circle the number that best represents the degree in which you agree/disagree with the following statements:

1- strongly disagree; 2- disagree; 3- neutral; 4- agree; 5- strongly agree

1. English secures economic survival.

1 2 3 4 5

2. English helps to gain personal success.

1 2 3 4 5

3. English is a ‘neutral’ language for inter-ethnic communication.

1 2 3 4 5

4. English implies Western values and cultures.

1 2 3 4 5

5. English serves as a unifying language for Singaporeans.

1 2 3 4 5

6. English is a high-value language.

1 2 3 4 5

7. English is the language that all ethnic groups share equally.

1 2 3 4 5

111 D Please circle the number that best represents the degree in which you agree/disagree with the following statements:

1- strongly disagree; 2- disagree; 3- neutral; 4- agree; 5- strongly agree

1. Singlish feels more like a Southeast Asian language.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Singlish is bad English.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Singlish is important for Singaporean identity.

1 2 3 4 5

4. Singlish is the language of everyday life.

1 2 3 4 5

5. Singlish acts as a national bond.

1 2 3 4 5

6. Singlish emphasises solidarity.

1 2 3 4 5

7. Singlish is useful for cracking jokes.

1 2 3 4 5

8. Singlish enhances creativity in literature and poetry.

1 2 3 4 5

112 9. Singlish indicates low social status.

1 2 3 4 5

10. Singlish may give foreigners the idea that Singaporeans can’t speak proper English.

1 2 3 4 5

11. Singlish hinders students from learning Standard English.

1 2 3 4 5

12. Singapore Standard English and Singlish coexist in Singapore.

1 2 3 4 5

13. In Singapore you do not need Singlish.

1 2 3 4 5

14. Speaking Singlish makes me feel more Singaporean.

1 2 3 4 5

15. Singlish makes Singapore unique.

1 2 3 4 5

16. Singlish is a beautiful language.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I speak Singlish to feel at home.

1 2 3 4 5

113 18. I choose to use Singlish as a marker of authenticity, localness or affability.

1 2 3 4 5

19. I use Singlish for interacting with members of the lower-middle or working class.

1 2 3 4 5

20. I switch to Singlish in order to mark myself as Singaporean.

1 2 3 4 5

21. Speaking Singlish is acceptable at home and amongst close friends.

1 2 3 4 5

22. Speaking Singlish is unacceptable outside of home and close friends.

1 2 3 4 5

23. I desire my children to be able to speak Singlish.

1 2 3 4 5

114 E Please circle the number that best represents the degree in which you agree/disagree with the following statements:

1- strongly disagree; 2- disagree; 3- neutral; 4- agree; 5- strongly agree

1. I think that Singapore is a nation with well-educated and skilled people.

1 2 3 4 5

2. I think that performing well at school and at university builds the foundation for a prosperous life. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Family and relational bonds are important for Singapore’s society. 1 2 3 4 5

4. I desire my children to grow up in Singapore. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Being Chinese/Malay/Indian is more important to me than being Singaporean. 1 2 3 4 5

6. The mixture of different ethnic groups makes Singapore so special.

1 2 3 4 5

7. I would like to live in a country with more Western values.

1 2 3 4 5

8. I think that Singapore has a prosperous future.

1 2 3 4 5

115 9. Hard working people are one pillar of our nation.

1 2 3 4 5

10. I feel a kindred bond with other Singaporeans.

1 2 3 4 5

11. I have faith in our government and its decision making.

1 2 3 4 5

12. I believe that other countries have a favourable view of Singapore and its people.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I think Singapore’s good reputation has a lot to do with its successful economy.

1 2 3 4 5

14. I often regret that I am Singaporean.

1 2 3 4 5

15. I often feel restricted in my personal freedom.

1 2 3 4 5

16. I think that every individual should contribute to the continuing growth of Singapore.

1 2 3 4 5

17. I think that Westerners have more individual freedom.

1 2 3 4 5

18. I think that Westerners have more liberty to pursue their own interests.

1 2 3 4 5

116