Introduction
Four National Language, One National Linguistic Threat: The linguistic insecurity of the anti-Singlish advocates.
In societies where two varieties of a language exist alongside one another, a diglossic situation is bound to arise. Such is the case for Singapore where Standard English is considered the ‘high’ and more prestigious variety while the ‘low’ or colloquial variety, Singapore English (herein referred to as Singlish), is considered to be ‘sub-standard’ and largely disapproved by the government (Gupta, 1989). The inauguration of the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) in April 2000 marked the beginnings of governmental efforts to eradicate the use of Singlish in Singapore. Such attempts have provoked a myriad of discursive responses from both pro- Singlish and anti-Singlish advocates, each side espousing their attitudes towards Singlish to the masses.
The debate on Singlish has captured the attention of the government, scholars and citizens alike and many papers have been published on the topic. One paper reasons that the opposing opinions of Singlish arose because citizens have differing conceptions of the Singaporean identity (Gupta, 1989). Another paper conducts a discursive analysis on the discourse between the proponents and opponents of Singlish to understand how their attitudes manifest in the public sphere (Yoong, 2009). Across the literature, the discussion on the disglossia in Singapore invariably converges to a ‘clash of values’ between the pro-Singlish and anti-Singlish advocates, with the former striving for identity and the latter championing economic pragmatism (Yoong, 2009; Tan, 2015; Gupta 1989; Rubdy, 2003). However, most papers only offer tenuous explanations on why such a friction in values even exists within the nation-state in the first place.
As such, my paper will enrich current studies by further analysing the rhetorical fragments surrounding Singlish in order to explain the origins of the differing attitudes towards it. These rhetorical fragments encompass official speeches by the state, published articles and letters from citizens of the local press Straits Times, and online posts by citizens on mass media. Here, it is important to note that due to prescribed limitations1, my paper will largely focus on
1 Due to the imposed word limit and length of the module, a full investigation that encompasses the discursive analysis of both pro-Singlish and anti-Singlish advocates is not permissible.
the discourse pertaining to the anti-Singlish advocates. Ultimately, I contend that the narratives of the anti-Singlish advocates extend beyond mere ‘economic pragmatism’ as previously suggested. Instead, it points to a linguistic insecurity they have about Singlish in comparison to Standard English. This insecurity would also explain their over-valorisation of the ‘standard’ form and criticism against those who do not adopt it.
Literature review
The concept of linguistic insecurity was first highlighted by Hall (1950) when he commented on how a society having an idea of ‘correct speech’ could lead to a prejudice against other language varieties. Such prejudices usually manifest as a form of social discrimination in the name of “correctness” and portrays the creole language as an inferior form (Hall, 1950). In Singapore’s context, Hall’s observations seem to hold true. With the conception of Standard English as the lingua franca of international trade and business, the anti-Singlish advocates have consistently invoked the role of Standard English as a tool for economic success on the global stage (Lee in SGEM, 2001) and remarked how the incomprehensibility of Singlish speakers would become a bugbear to the country’s economic prosperity (Goh, 1999).
While Hall identifies the symptoms of linguistic insecurity in a society, Labov identifies the main factors that drive it. Keen awareness of the stigmatized features and prestige markers of the linguistic norms often cause speakers’ to feel self-conscious when they perceived their speech as not conforming to the ‘standard form’ (Labov, 2006). Some have also pointed to other motivators for linguistic insecurity such as a sense of cultural inferiority (Kovesces, 2000) or due to historical relationships with colony parents (Degraff, 2005).
Although there have been numerous research on linguistic insecurities around the world, its literature in Singapore is far and few between. Instead, most studies in Singapore attempts to understand the various English forms, the two most common being Standard English and Singlish. While many models portray the two varieties as distinct (Gupta, 1995; Platt & Weber, 1980), others view the broad category as a continuum (Alsafogg, 2007). Only one paper analyses how linguistic insecurities manifest in the English language educational policies in Singapore (Foo, 2017).
Many scholars believe that the crux of the debate over Singlish is due to a ‘clash of values’ amongst the citizens (Yoong, 2009; Tan, 2015; Gupta 1989; Rubdy, 2003), evidencing
a disparity in the conception of the Singaporean identity between the two camps. Yet, a deeper investigation into the discourse surrounding Singlish reveals an implicit insecurity of the anti- Singlish advocates. My paper will build on the works of previous studies to explore in greater details the emergence of such linguistic insecurity among the anti-Singlish advocates through a discursive analysis of their narratives from different channels.
Critical Approach
As text and discourse are related to sociocultural practices, Fairclough’s (1995) framework is useful in analysing the relationship between language, ideology and power in the Singapore society as well as how prevalent each force is in shaping the public mind. It provides a systematic analysis of how discourse on Singlish reflects the attitudes of the people and how such attitudes manifest as a practice in the public sphere.
Giles and Johnson’s (1987) ethnolinguistic identity theory, in conjunction with Baron’s (1976) study of linguistic insecurity on language production, will aid in showing how the favour of a core language in society (or in this case, perceived favourably) can lead to the attempted suppression and planned erosion of other peripheral languages.
Lastly, the results will be compared to Hall’s (1950) description of characteristics that points towards linguistic insecurity and the emergence of such insecurity in Singapore would be explored in greater detail using Labov’s (2006) framework on linguistic insecurity.
Tentative Conclusion
Over the years, there seems to be growing divergence between the image of a Singaporean English speaker constructed by the anti-Singlish advocates and the reality of the average Singaporean speaker as supported by the pro-Singlish advocates. (Foo, 2017). More than just a ‘clash of values’, the core of the debate points deep to a dissimilarity in the conception of the Singaporean identity by the two camps. Such differing ideals of what it means to be a Singaporean warrants attention as it has far-reaching implications on the linguistic identity, landscape and policies of the nation. Ultimately, this paper strives to elucidate a more fundamental difference between the two camps in hopes to steer the debate from a ‘battle of values’ to a more constructive and collaborative resolution in defining ourselves.