World Englishes, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 336348, 2010.

0883-2919

English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation

LUBNA ALSAGOFF
ABSTRACT: Singapore is placed in the Outer Circle of the Kachrus Three Circles Model, and has over the years developed an English which is uniquely Singaporean. This paper argues that in order to understand the ways in which Singapore English is developing its own standards and ways of speaking, a new model needs to be developed that takes culture, capital and identity into consideration. This sociocultural perspective is one grounded in an understanding of the dualistic role of English in Singapore both as a global language and a local language. It is argued that this duality is consistent with the cultural identity of Singaporeans who negotiate fluidly between two divergent orientations that of the global citizen and the local Singaporean. The paper explains how a culturally focused model which examines the identities of Singaporean speakers is able to provide a finer-grained and thus more explanatorily adequate account of Singapore English than previously proposed models, in particular, the diglossic analysis.

INTRODUCTION

This paper argues for a new approach to the analysis of Singapore English, an Outer Circle variety in the Kachruvian pluricentric paradigm (Kachru 1992). The three models of analysis that have previously dominated much of the research on Singapore English namely, the lectal continuum (Platt and Weber 1980), the diglossia model (Gupta 1994a), as well as the expanding triangles model (Pakir 1991) have primarily considered the variation of English spoken in Singapore either in terms of educational competence, or in terms of code-switching between a colloquial and a formal variety to suit either domains of use or register. However, as the paper seeks to demonstrate, neither proficiency nor register is able to adequately account for the subtle shifts in the use of English in modern Singapore. Although some of the shifts we see can be explained by the speakers level of education, as well as accommodations to the formality of the context, it is argued here that such shifts are more saliently used to establish, represent, negotiate and signal identity, group membership and cultural orientations. This new perspective of the patterns of variation of the English in Singapore also takes its cue from recent literature on language policy and planning issues with regard to Singapore English. Perceptibly, the discursive approach in such literature from researchers like Rubdy (2001), Wee (2003), Bokhorst-Heng (2005), Silver (2005) and Chew (2006) has changed, and now draws on a number of new paradigms that have become increasingly influential in the study of the sociology of language, which develop critical frames of reference for talking about language in terms of culture, capital, identity, and politics (see work by Bourdieu 1991; Pennycook 1994; 2007; and Canagarajah 1999; 2006). The basis of the proposed approach described in this paper comes from a parallel consideration of the two functions English plays in Singapore: as a global language, and as a local language. This observed tension between these two divergent roles of English
English Language and Literature Academic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616. E-mail: lubna.alsagoff@nie.edu.sg
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation

337

is not a new one, and has been well documented in the literature on the global spread of English (e.g. Phillipson 1992; Pennycook 1994; 2007; Crystal 2003; and Canagarajah 1999; 2006), as well as the sociolinguistic literature on Singapore English (e.g., Pakir 1994; 1999; Rubdy 2001; Wee 2003; Bokhorst-Heng 2005). This paper demonstrates how the duality of the forces of the global and the local that shape the use of English in Singapore, is in fact founded in the cultural perspectives and orientations of Singaporeans, and it is the tension between such orientations that accounts for the fluidity and movement between the standard variety and the vernacular variety, Singlish.1
NEED FOR A NEW MODEL

There have basically been three models that have dominated the ways in which researchers have talked about Singapore English. The first widely circulated model of analysis that rightfully acknowledged Singapore English as an autonomous variety of English was developed by Platt and his associates (Platt and Weber 1980; Ho and Platt 1993) in the late 1970s.2 Simply put, the lectal continuum sees the variation of Singapore English in terms of a correlation with proficiency, education and socio-economic status (Platt and Weber 1980: 108 ff). In this model, variation of Singapore English is described along a proficiency cline, with the acrolectal variety at one end, the mesolectal variety in the middle, and the basilectal at the other. The acrolectal variety, more closely resembling other standardized varieties of English, is associated with the social group with a higher socio-economic status and, correspondingly, higher levels of education (in English). The basilectal variety, most commonly identified with Singlish, is at the other end of this cline, and represents the uneducated variety of Singapore English, associated with speakers of a lower socio-economic status who command lower levels of education (in English). As the effects over time, of postcolonial democratization and the widening spread of English education began to take hold, the number of Singaporeans using English as their dominant language began to increase exponentially. New patterns of variation began to develop, and Platt and Webers lectal continuum model was no longer able to provide a comprehensive picture of the use of English in Singapore (Gupta 1992: 324). This was because it did not address why educated proficient speakers of Singapore English who are able to command the standardized variety choose also to use the non-standard one in their speech. As Pakir (1991: 174) points out: Platt and Webers (1980) static depiction of the acrolect, mesolect and basilect speakers of Singapore English obscures the fact that speakers switch back and forth all the time. The model of diglossia (as described in Ferguson 1959) was proposed by Gupta (1992; 1994a) to address this code-switching between the varieties. It re-casts Singlish as a colloquial form of Singapore English namely, Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) spoken by educated Singapore English speakers to indicate informality or solidarity.3 Singlish, which was seen as the basilectal form of Singapore English in the lectal continuum model, is now described as a variety with a sociolinguistic purpose and design, rather than one arising from a lack of competence to command the standardized variety. This change in perspective is a crucial one because it means that Standard English is no longer monolithically the target language, desired by speakers as their preferred variety. The diglossia model essentially sees SCE as an L-form, existing side by side with the standardized variety of Singapore English, namely, Singapore Standard English (SSE), its H-form counterpart. Each of these varieties is seen as having a specific set of functions the
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

338

Lubna Alsagoff

colloquial variety or L-form functions in social contexts that orientate towards friendliness, rapport and solidarity (Gupta 1994a; 1994b), while the H-form, on the other hand, is used in formal and literary domains, namely, what Bao and Hong (2006) term as register variation. This functional distinction critically assumes that the two varieties, H and L are grammatically distinct hence utterances must be identifiable as either SCE or SSE (Gupta 1994a). Consequently, Gupta spells out criteria to identify whether an utterance is SCE or SSE. However, Gupta uses only sentence-level grammatical structure, and does not include phonetic, pragmatic or lexical features (e.g. borrowing). Thus, whether a sentence is identified as SCE is very narrowly defined by Gupta through the use of four structural features, namely, the occurrence of pragmatic particles, the presence of verb groups without subjects, the use of -ing forms as finite and verbless complements, and the construction of conditional clauses without subordinating conjunctions. Based on such criteria, the following excerpt of teacher talk, which Kwek (2005) would clearly identify as SCE, would not be, in Guptas framework, identified as SCE, since none of the four features show up in the excerpt:
T: Why. Because they saw misery, hatred. They saw rage in his eyes. He has something. We dont know who he was. He stomp in because he was able to make a presence as he enter. You know hes not like some small person here for ( ) fashion show (Kwek 2005: transcription LL2, lines 149152).

For Gupta, this stretch of speech would not be described as SCE, even though the teacher uses features that are clearly not of the standard variety such as the use of base forms of verbs rather than those morphologically marked for the past tense hence, stomp and enter rather than stomped or entered ; in addition there is the use of bald singular noun phrases hence, ( ) fashion show rather than a fashion show. In addition, the use of the culturallylocal phrase small person a possible calque of the Chinese expression xiaorenwu to refer to someone who is insignificant would likewise not be seen in Guptas diglossic framework as an indicator of SCE. The narrowness of Guptas characterization of SCE ostensibly for the purposes of being able to draw boundaries between the standard and vernacular varieties of Singapore English is problematic for three reasons. First, a large number of studies of Singapore English have, contrary to Guptas list of features, pointed to a wide range of other structural features that define Singlish, including the use of wh- in situ questions, the use of adverbials such as already to mark aspect (Bao and Hong 2006), the lack of consistent morphological marking of the past tense (e.g. Alsagoff and Ho 1998; Deterding 2007), and the use of bald singular noun phrases (e.g. Alsagoff and Ho 1998; Ziegler 2003; Deterding 2007). Examination of recordings of Singapore English also demonstrates that there is a need to also take into account the segmental, rhythmic and intonational features of SCE (Brown, Deterding and Low 2000). Second, a sentence with clear non-standard features such as She give him what? is not labeled by Gupta as SCE or Singlish because it does not contain any of the four structural features. And yet, another sentence, uttered by the same speaker, a well-educated Chinese Singaporean, which appears much closer in grammar to other standardized varieties apart from the use of the pragmatic particle is, in contrast, labeled as SCE: Shes given him the correct file, lah. Third, the inclusion of Singlish features into what would otherwise be a standard English sentence is, I agree with Gupta, pointing towards a standardized variety as a norm. However, the Singlish features contained in that sentence serve a purpose, and that purpose cannot be explained by the diglossia model.
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation

339

Guptas method of classification, additionally, does not necessitate labeling something as SCE even if there are SCE features. She points positively, for example, to Pakirs (1991) analysis of classroom discourse where certain stretches of utterances are not marked as SCE even though they contain SCE features. What appears in Guptas data is in fact the presence of blurred boundaries, where it is not always possible to demarcate clearly the presence of either SCE or SSE. Instead, it is a continuum of features that is encountered. I would argue that Guptas use of a percentage count of a series of features of SCE and SSE to determine degrees of focus on either of these varieties, is an admission of the blurred distinction, giving evidence that there does not in fact exist two grammatically distinct varieties of English in Singapore as would be expected if diglossic variation were the case. Guptas weakens the diglossic model to one of a continuum, arguing that it is possible to identify a [Singapore English] speaker [as] pointing in one or another direction (Gupta 1994a: 122), namely, to either the H or L variety, so that despite there being a sense of a continuum, that speakers experience a clear gap between their H and L varieties is in fact a concession that the diglossic model does not quite fit the Singapore context. Her analysis of Singapore speech necessitates the description of patterns of use not in terms of the use of either one variety or the other, but in terms of degrees of focus, expressed as percentages:
By the fourth session . . . he was already distinguishing between the kind of English he spoke to me (at 35 per cent SCE) and the kind he spoke to his mother and his younger brother (YB) (still around 70 per cent till the end of the study) (Gupta 1994a: 127).

Thus, by her own admission, Guptas application of diglossia in describing linguistic variation in Singapore is leaky, allowing for the intrusion of the H variety into L variety domains or functions (and possibly vice versa). I would argue, however, that what is described as leaky diglossia is in fact the use of English patterned according to hearerorientation, and not one dictated by function or domain. In the above excerpt, we see the White researcher, Anthea Fraser-Gupta, who is not a family member, being treated as an outsider through a greater degree of use of Standard English; and is differentiated from family members who are treated as insiders through the greater degree of use of SCE. Such leakage of L into what is an H variety domain is something that indicates the weakness of diglossia as a descriptive model of variation for Singapore English. Although it is well accepted that diglossia in fact almost never describes variation between two distinct and separate varieties (Ferguson 1959), the use of English in Singapore is more clearly variation that is better characterized as a continuum, rather than one that can be described in terms of two varieties being used in complementary distribution. The shortcomings of the diglossia model in explaining the English in Singapore are not addressed in Pakirs (1991) expanding triangles model. This model, diagrammatically explained through a series of expanding triangles, which represent the differing ranges of repertoires of English speaking Singaporeans, includes the explanatory range of the diglossia model, but expands in predictive scope by incorporating another cline of variation the educational cline, as in the lectal continuum. In this way, Pakirs model aims to account for the type of English used by the percentage of the population of speakers in Singapore which still does not use English as a primary home language, something which the diglossia model excludes in its description. Pakirs model correctly acknowledges the role that bilingualism English-knowing bilingualism affects the patterns of
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

340

Lubna Alsagoff

use of English in Singapore, where the range and depth of speakers repertoires in relation to register correlates with the differing English proficiencies of the speakers. However, because Pakir essentially relies on diglossia to explain register shift, it suffers the same predictive weakness as the diglossia model.
THE CULTURAL ORIENTATION MODEL4

In this section, I outline a new model that describes the variation of English in Singapore in relation to the alignment of the cultural orientations of speakers with the dualistic role of English in Singapore. In particular, I would like to argue that the two divergent roles of English as a global language as well as a local inter-ethnic lingua franca (and their subsequent associated capital) are representative of, and inextricably associated with, Singaporean macro-cultural perspectives and identities; and that the variation in the use of English in Singapore comes about from a cultural tension between being/doing global and being/doing local. I will argue that the variation of Singapore English can be better understood from the perspective of glocalization a social process that contextualizes the local in the global and vice versa (see Robertson 1995; 1997). Before continuing with the discussion, the use of the term culture must be clarified. Culture as used in this paper, differs from the way in which it is often used in the sociolinguistic literature on Singapore English, which is tied primarily to ethnicity (e.g. Pakir 1999; Wee 2002; Bokhorst-Heng 2005). Thus, there is a Chinese culture, a Malay culture and an Indian culture, for example, which can be identified based on race, religion, ritual practices, and so on; and which is often associated with the use of the corresponding mother tongue of the ethnic groups. In contrast with this perspective of culture as fixed, static, and objectified and necessarily associated with ethnicity or race, the notion of culture as used in this paper what I have referred to as macro-culture refers to the ways in which people reflexively enact and negotiate multiple roles and identities as they participate in everyday activities as members of a community; namely, culture is peoples ways of making sense of their lives (Pennycook 1994: 66). Culture, in this sense, is understood as the active process of meaning making (Street 1993: 25), and seen as the act of doing rather than just being, namely, as dynamic and fluid rather than static and predefined. Macro-culture thus refers to constructed and negotiated identities forged through common ways of speaking, living and doing, and is thus associated with notions of citizenry, national identity based on a collective disposition and history. The notion that the English in Singapore can be characterized in terms of the global-local contrast is not new. Pakir (1999: 346) used the term glocal English to describe the meeting of both global and local forces in the shaping of Singapore English and its use, while BokhorstHeng (2005: 185) introduces the term glocalism in speaking about the ways in which the debate about Singlish is structured around two opposing perspectives: internationalism versus national identity. Neither of these authors, however, has presented a description of how such a concept can be used to describe the variation of English in Singapore. Glocalization, as used by Robertson (1995; 1997), was a concept that originated in Japanese economics, and was essentially a neologism coined to refer to the ways in which products could successfully penetrate global markets through a right mix of globalization and localization strategies. In the context of this paper, glocalization refers to the dynamic simultaneity of the presence of both global and local forces. This simultaneity of the global and the local frames a multidimensional variational space where speakers negotiate
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation

341

between the global and the local in relation to constructs such as capital, identity and culture where fluidity and flux of movement rather than constancy of clear boundaries is the norm.5 I will first begin with a discussion of the globalist orientation followed by that of the localist orientation, after which I expand on how these different orientations of the Singaporean macro-culture in relation to language choice contribute to an understanding of the variation of use of Singapore English.
The globalist orientation In the Singapore macro-discourses, globalization has become a key tenet, underlying the recognition of Singapores dependence on being competitive in an increasingly internationalized economy and market. Indeed, this global perspective has extended to exhortations by the Singapore government for Singaporeans to transform themselves into global citizens, able to live, work and succeed economically in other countries. Global benchmarking has also become a trademark of the governments continual push to have Singapore recognized as a global player. Singapore prides itself in being the best, or becoming the best in the world. Its education system, in particular, has been lauded as exemplary in many respects, primarily because of outstanding achievements in internationally benchmarked studies such as TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study) and PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), where Singaporean students regularly outdo students from more developed Inner Circle countries. With this globalized perspective and Singapores clear economically driven social policies, importance is naturally placed on advocating an English that is of international currency hence the reference to an exonormative norm is implied. The role of English as a global language is always discussed hand in hand with its economic capital and status as a language of science, commerce and technology, clearly indicating that the need to use English is motivated and associated with a global perspective English is clearly seen as an instrument and means of global participation in financial and economic markets (Wee 2003: 211). Pakir (1994: 81), for example, in discussing the codification of Singapore English suggests that Standard English is needed in international arenas or in looking outwards, as she calls it. Lest we construe this as being only a government-driven policy, a number of studies reveal that these sentiments and beliefs are similarly embraced by Singaporeans English holds as a global ticket to economic success (Chew 1995; 2006; Khng 2007). Thus, the globalist perspective in the Singaporean macro-culture, driven by economic capital, motivates and is inextricably bound with the linguistic orientation towards an English that is international in its intelligibility and form, as articulated in the 2001 English Language Syllabus of the Ministry of Education, Singapore. (Ministry of Education 2001: 3). The localist orientation In keeping with the characterization of English as the workhorse of economic capital, the Singapore government consistently refers to the language in utilitarian, pragmatic terms, divorced from emotional ties, as exemplified here in the excerpt of a speech by the then Deputy Prime Minister (now Prime Minister) of Singapore:
Our common working language is English the language of global business, commerce and technology. But it is the mother tongue which gives us a crucial part of our values, roots and identity. It gives us access
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

342

Lubna Alsagoff

to our cultural heritage, and a world-view that complements the perspective of the English-speaking world (Lee 2000).

An examination of the Singapore political discourse additionally points to a unfailing separation of English from any cultural or ethnic association, designed to discursively perspectivize and construct English as cultureless, in two senses. First, English is dissociated from Western culture in order to obviate concerns that knowing English may mean being corrupted by Western values (cf. Ho and Alsagoff 1998) hence English is now increasingly referred to as a global rather than a Western language.6 In this way, English as a global language belongs to the world, to a multiplicity of cultures, but not to any one culture. The second sense of cultureless is in being ethnically neutral. In this regard, English is typically contrasted with the other three official languages the ethnic mother tongues of Mandarin, Malay and Tamil, which are presented as repositories and mediums of ethnic culture and identity. Wee (2002), for example, documents how the authorities maintain the purity of English as a lingua franca by officially denying it any native speakers, even in relation to the Eurasian community who are effectively monolingual, and for whom English is a de facto mother tongue (as it is as well for many other Singaporeans). As a language that is constructed as cultureless, in the sense of not belonging to any ethnic group (Wee 2002; 2003), English is seen as neutral, and a perfect candidate for a local lingua franca, able to foster social cohesion among the various ethnic groups (Pakir 1991: 1689) by affording a neutral means of communication (see also Rubdy 2001: 345). The Singapore governments position is that while English can be imbued with such social capital, it must still be denied any association with cultural capital in Singapore, this is solely the reserve of the mother tongues of Chinese (Mandarin), Tamil and Malay (Silver 2005). Linguistic common sense tells us, however, that there cannot be language sans culture. Thus, in performing its social function as a common language among the ethnic groups, English has, inevitably been transformed in its form and structure by the cultures it has come into contact with what Ho (2001: 104) terms the cultural grounding of Singapore English. By this, he means that English, although one language, has many voices in order to realize different cultural ways of thinking and behaving, characteristic of the Singaporean experience (see also Bhatt 2005: 25). This enculturation has led to the development of an English which is significantly different from Standard English Singlish. And it is this English, rather than the English of international intelligibility, that is the lingua franca in multicultural, multiethnic Singapore. Even the Minister Mentor, Lee Kuan Yew, who has publicly disparaged the use of Singlish, quietly concedes to the wide appeal of Singlish as the de facto lingua franca among the ethnic groups:
Up to the 1970s in our markets and hawker centres, Bazaar Malay was the lingua franca. Everybody could understand and speak some Malay. Because of our bilingual policy, today the lingua franca is English, or Singlish (Lee 2005).

Singlish as a lingua franca is not merely a language of convenience used to bridge communication among the different ethnic groups. Debates over the legitimacy of Singlish in the media show that there are significant numbers of Singaporeans who see it as being inextricably linked with a sense of their macro-culture and national identity as Singaporeans (Bokhorst-Heng 2005: 1934). Bokhorst-Heng demonstrates in her
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation

343

discussion of the Singlish debate that here is a sense of a Singaporean identity that is inextricably bound with Singlish, seen as the common language spoken in Singapore that bridges ethnic and cultural boundaries of race and religion. Thus, while clearly understanding the value of English as a global language, English speakers in Singapore increasingly voice their allegiance to speaking Singlish, which they see as a representation of their culture and identity as Singaporeans.
Variation as a negotiation of cultural orientations As we have seen above, there are basically two types of demands made of English in Singapore. One can be seen as a need for international intelligibility, motivated by economic capital, thereby giving support to the necessity of a standard variety of English. The other is borne out of the desire for national identity. While it is governmental policy to have the latter need fulfilled by the ethnic languages (Crystal 2003: 127), Singaporeans appear to see a need for the adoption of English in its local vernacular form to express their voice and identity. In short, the two different demands on English give rise to two opposing orientations or norms one international and one local, each of which is associated with, and motivated by, two contrasting macro-cultural orientations: one globalist, the other localist, respectively. The globalist orientation looks outwards at the world, and the localist looks within. The association of two distinct ways of speaking English with the two opposing cultural orientations demonstrates the bipolarity of speaker orientations in terms of goals, preoccupations and practices. On the one hand, the local(ist) perspective is separatist in nature. As such, its concern is for a uniqueness of the English in Singapore that must set its citizens apart from other English speakers, what is Bakhtins (1981) centrifugal force, which pushes speakers towards differentiation or heterogeneity, and represents a collective history. The globalist perspective, on the other hand, is assimilationist thus, its demand is for exonormatively, defined standards and rules of English which emphasize homogeneity or same-ness with the rest of the world (Phillipson 1992). This idea is similar to the Bakhtinian concept of the centripetal force exerted on language by political and institutional forces that try to impose a standard variety over others to enforce adoption of a unitary linguistic identity (Bakhtin 1981). It is the tension created by the pull of these two different orientations in language and culture which is key to explaining the sociolinguistic variation of English use in Singapore. The model, which I termed the cultural orientation model (COM; Alsagoff 2007), framed the variation of Singapore English along a multi-dimensional socio-cultural and linguistic space created through tensions between two opposing macro-cultural orientations at one end is the global(ist) perspective, and at the other is the local(ist) perspective. Each of these perspectives is associated with a cluster of referential ideologies relating to culture, capital and identity. Each perspective also includes an association with a reference variety of English for the globalist perspective, it is Standard English. At the opposing perspective defined by localism, the reference variety is Singlish. COM posits that speakers of Singapore English vary their style of speaking by negotiating and exploiting the multidimensional space defined by the contrast between these two contrapuntal cultural perspectives. Thus, the use of features typically associated with Singlish indicates a symbolic movement towards a local(ist) orientation that stresses sociocultural capital: at the level of the individual, Singlish represents rapport, familiarity and
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

344

Lubna Alsagoff

intimacy; on the larger collective level, Singlish denotes group membership and the framing and positioning of community identity. Contrastively, the use of features of Standard English indicates a symbolic shift towards a global(ist) orientation, stressing economic capital: at the level of the individual, the use of Standard English represents formality, authority and distance while at the larger collective level, it denotes institutionalism and economic power. The degree to which features of each of the referential varieties is focused on depends on the degree to which speakers wish to signal these values or practices. In describing COM, I have, in the above paragraphs, spoken not of an alternation between two varieties of English, but rather of the greater or lesser degree of inclusion of features associated with stereotypes of Standard English and Singlish. In doing so, I would like to emphasize that COM does not see variation as being binary; rather, Standard English and Singlish are indicative norms and serve to provide points of reference that define a variational space. Thus, COM moves away from a description of the variation of Singapore English in terms of code-switching between grammatically distinct varieties (as does diglossia), and towards an understanding of the variation in more fluid terms that results not in shifts from one variety to another, but of forms and ways of speaking that reflect the hybridity and complexity of speaker and hearer identities. COM operates on the notion of language as a cultural resource, realized as a range of styles, where choice over culturally-loaded features may be used to indicate associative macro-cultural orientations. In developing a model of variation that is fluid, COM builds the explanatory power to take into account the complexity of speech situations where the degrees of orientation of each of these features do not necessarily align in terms of strength or even direction of orientation. Thus, a speaker may choose to stress authority and yet signal community membership. As a consequence, while they may decide to orientate towards Standard or International English to indicate authority, they might also exhibit some degree of Singlish features to indicate a local perspective in order to stress membership in the community. In addition, there are clearly instances where the inclusion of local Singapore English, namely, Singlish, features in what would otherwise be recognized as Standard English is emblematic used simply for the purposes of marking the speaker as local, as an insider, stressing the importance of community membership alongside educational attainment or authoritarian power. Movement between the two poles, characterized by the symbiotic presence of both Singlish alongside Standard English, is fluid and negotiated in relation to the demands of the communicative act. This thick description (as in Geertz 1973) that COM provides is of multivariate perspectives of understanding, of a differential multidimensional variation within a binarily defined space. In other words, the continual tension between the two perspectives results in degrees of variation, rather than poles of separation, as Gupta herself has shown in her own data (e.g. Gupta 1994a; 1994b). The subtle use of Singlish in the classroom demonstrated by Kwek (2005) and attested to in Rubdy (2007), and in part by Pakir (1991) as well as Guptas own data shows the inadequacies of the diglossia model. COM accounts for the subtle switching by considering the multiple forces at play in the use of English in Singapore. The interconnectedness of possibly conflicting forces such as the need to maintain authority, yet achieve rapport, the need to weave formality with familiarity as the moment necessitates gives rise to a sophisticated use of English. These ostensible anomalies actually indicate that even within the broadly complementary distribution, there exist micro-variations produced as a result of interconnected interactions among a cluster of features which are referenced with each of the two macro-cultural orientations.
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation

345

COM, as a model, therefore more correctly presents the variation of the use of Singapore English as subtle shifts of style at the interactional levels, while still accommodating, at a broad macro-sociolinguistic level, the binary either/or picture that the diglossia model aims to explain. COM suggests that variation within Singapore English is therefore more aptly cast as style-shifting, suggesting a fluidity of movement rather than as binary code-switching. Style-shifting should not, however, be confused with code-mixing. Code-mixing suggests that the extent of the contact of the local languages with English gives rise to the formation of a separate code. This clearly is not the case, since there is, linguistically, at the broad level, a complementary distribution of domain as well as function. Style-shifting, on the other hand, employs the idea that speakers of Singapore English can avail themselves of a variety of lingua-cultural resources in order to identify or mark a change in cultural orientation or style. Singapore English speakers can vary the degree and type of Singlish and Standard English features in their speech, as well as employing heterolinguistic resources, such as the indigenous languages spoken in Singapore, namely, Malay, Chinese (including the dialects of, for example, Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese) and Tamil, resulting in a variety of different ways of saying the same thing, and different ways of representing self (see St. Andr e 2006). These ways of saying and enacting through language represent the cultural grounding of the speakers as discussed in Ho (2001). Variation, however, is also in part determined by the English proficiency of the speaker. In Singapore, there is still a group of speakers whose only resource is Singlish. Some of these are learners, as Gupta (1994a) claims, although others simply fall into the group of older speakers who have had little formal education in English. Proficiency in English is often equated with educational attainment which would then mean that a speaker more proficient in English is also likely to have a wider macro-cultural repertoire, as well as a broader socio-cultural spectrum, resulting from a greater ability to participate in a wider range of vocational choices. Access to jobs in higher positions in almost all private and public sectors of business and commerce in Singapore are associated with high levels of educational attainment, and consequently a higher degree of proficiency in English. COM accounts for this variation in relation to education by stating this correlation between proficiency and the use of SSE as the ability to participate in domains of high economic capital, where globalism frames the perspective. It is important to note, however, that cultural repertoires can also be fulfilled by languages other than English, especially those with regional economic currency. For example, a business person educated in Mandarin Chinese will deal with domains relating to a globalist macro-cultural orientation through Chinese, rather than English. And as Chinas economic power grows, Mandarin Chinese grows in its economic capital.
CONCLUSION

The nature of variation of the English in Singapore has been presented here as being principally determined by the opposing socio-cultural orientations of its users towards a global perspective, on the one hand, and a local perspective, on the other. The use of a standardized variety of English, for example, signals a globalist perspective which necessarily implies formality, distance, and authority and is associated with educational attainment and economic value. On the other hand, the vernacular, Singlish, signals a local(ist) perspective which is associated with informality, familiarity, equality, membership in a
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

346

Lubna Alsagoff

community and socio-cultural capital. COM sees language variation in terms of tension ensuing from the internationalism/identity nexus (Bokhorst-Heng 2005: 188), and develops a model that is founded on this tension. The proposed model is significant in four respects. The first is that it correctly aligns and correlates the broad picture of functional complementarity that has in the past been described by diglossia with the more delicate microvariations at the interactional level, which have previously been either generalized away, or ignored in light of the larger perspective. These micro-variations are in fact essential in understanding the true picture of English use in Singapore, as Gupta (2001: 365) points out: countries do not speak English people do. The second is that the model offers a different perspective of Singlish, and presents it as a lingua-cultural resource that is used to vary style in relation to macro-cultural constructions of identity and communicative purpose.7 Third, COM stresses the importance of seeing language in culture, something that is critical in multicultural, multiethnic Singapore; and that speaking a language is not simply a matter of the use of a linguistic variety, but also of the matter of representing and constructing culture. And if we consider that members of a society are agents of culture, not merely bearers of culture, and that culture is doing and not simply a state of being, we can then understand how an indigenized variety of English must inevitably change to accommodate this cultural function, as an agent of local culture (Bhatt 2005). Last, COM allows for future extrapolation. As the global landscape of the use of English evolves, and what is now considered to be of high linguistic capital shifts for Singaporeans from Inner Circle varieties such as British and American English, to something of a more international and inclusive (and perhaps more Asian) currency (Canagarajah 2006; Pennycook 2007), so too can the referential variety associated with the culturally global orientation switch to one that more significantly embraces English in its wider linguistic ownership.
NOTES
1. I will use the term Singlish in this paper without derogation to depict the English spoken in Singapore that is different from the standardized variety of Singapore English. 2. Tongue (1974), however, had earlier begun work on documenting Singapore English as an autonomous variety. 3. I use the term SCE at this point because it is, as is clear from the later discussion, different from Singlish. 4. An earlier version of the model described here was first developed in Alsagoff (2007). The one presented here emphasizes different aspects of the glocalization approach as articulated in the section that follows. 5. The notion of glocalization clearly does not mean eliding the global and the local as Pennycook (2007: 6) suggests in his discussion of the term, rightly criticizing such a conflation as lacking in depth and complexity as a descriptive perspective. In this paper, I use the term to discuss the fluidity and hybridity of language use, and the creation of spaces of negotiation for the expression of identity and culture. 6. However, given that globalization has often been characterized as Americanization through the use of terms such as McDonaldization, Coca-colarization, calling English global might therefore clearly not be an effective means of stemming the tide of Westernization. 7. Ho (2006) also discusses Singlish in relation to identity. However, her position that Singlish represents a confusion or flux of identity between East and West (as reflected in her title) does not, in my opinion, present an accurate portrayal of the use of English in Singapore. Ho (2001), for example, shows the inter-culturality of the Singapore youth, through an examination of the cultural acts performed by speakers in English. I also differ from Hos (2006) essentialist representation of culture in reified terms as exemplified by statements such as the use of Singlish hides an identity desperate to be found (Ho 2006: 23).

REFERENCES
Alsagoff, Lubna (2007) Singlish: negotiating capital, culture and identity. In Viniti Vaish, S. Gopinathan and Yongbing Liu (eds.), Language, Capital, Culture (pp. 2546). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
C

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

English in Singapore: culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation

347

Alsagoff, Lubna and Ho, Chee Lick (1998) The grammar of Singapore English. In Joseph Foley, T. Kandiah, Bao Zhiming, Anthea F. Gupta, Lubna Alsagoff, C. L. Ho, L. Wee, I. Talib and W. Bokhorst-Heng (eds.), English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 12751). Singapore: Oxford University Press. Bakhtin, Mikhail (1981) Unitary language. In Michael Holquist (ed.), The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (pp. 26995). Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bao, Zhiming and Hong, Huaqing (2006) Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English. World Englishes 25, 10514. Bhatt, Rakesh M. (2005) Expert discourses, local practices, and hybridity: the case of Indian Englishes. In A. Suresh Canagarajah (ed.), Reclaiming the Local in Language Policy and Practice (pp. 2554). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bokhorst-Heng, Wendy (2005) Debating Singlish. Multilingua 24, 185209. Bourdieu, Pierre (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Translated by Gino Raymond & Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, Adam, Deterding, David, and Low, Ee Ling (2000) The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation. Singapore: Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics. Canagarajah, Suresh A. (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, Suresh A. (2006) Negotiating the local in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 26, 197218. Chew, Phyllis G. L. (1995) Lectal power in Singapore English. World Englishes 14, 16380. Chew, Phyllis G. L. (2006) Remaking Singapore: language, culture and identity in a globalized world. In Amy B. M. Tsui and James W. Tollefson (eds.), Language Policy Culture and Identity in Asian Contexts (pp. 7393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Crystal, David (2003) English as a Global Language, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deterding, David (2007) Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Ferguson, Charles (1959) Diglossia. Word 15, 32540. Geertz, Clifford (1973) The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books. Gupta, Anthea F. (1992) Contact features of Singapore Colloquial English. In Kingsley Bolton and Helen Kwok (eds.), Sociolinguistics Today (pp. 32345). London: Routledge. Gupta, Anthea Fraser (1994a) A model for the analysis of Singapore English. In S. Gopinathan S., Anne Pakir, Ho Wah Kam and Vanitha Saravanan (eds.), Language Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and Trends (pp. 11932), 2nd edn. Singapore: Times Academic Press. Gupta, Anthea Fraser (1994b) The Step Tongue: Childrens English in Singapore. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gupta, Anthea Fraser (2001) Realism and imagination in the teaching of English. World Englishes 20, 36581. Ho, Chee Lick (2001) The cultural grounding of Singapore English. In Vincent Ooi (ed.), Evolving Identities: The English Language in Singapore and Malaysia (pp. 10211). Singapore: Times Academic Press. Ho, Chee Lick and Alsagoff, Lubna (1998) English as the common language in multicultural Singapore. In Joseph Foley, T. Kandiah, Bao Zhiming, Anthea F. Gupta, Lubna Alsagoff, C. L. Ho, Lionel Wee, I. Talib and Wendy Bokhorst-Heng (eds.), English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore (pp. 20117). Singapore: Oxford University Press. Ho, Debbie G. E. (2006) Im not West. Im not East. So how leh? English Today 22, 1724. Kachru, Braj B. (ed.) (1992) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, 2nd edn. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Khng, Irene (2007) Perceptions of students and young working adults on their experience learning the English Language: case studies in Singapore. Unpublished thesis, University of Melbourne. Kwek, Melody (2005) English Teachers Using Singapore Colloquial English: An Examination of Two Secondary School Teachers Lessons. Academic Exercise. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University. Lee, Hsien Loong (2000) Speech at the launch of Thumbs-Up [a Chinese weekly tabloid for primary school pupils.] 15 January. Retrieved 5 January 2005 from http://www.sprinter.gov.sg. Lee, Kuan Yew (2005) Speech by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at the Tanjong Pagar Chinese New Year Dinner at Radin Mas Community Club, 17 February. Retrieved 10 July 2006 from http://www.sprinter.gov.sg. Ministry of Education (2001) English Language Syllabus 2001 for Primary and Secondary Schools. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education. Pakir, Anne (1991) The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes 10, 16779. Pakir, Anne (1994) English in Singapore: the codification of competing norms. In S. Gopinathan, Anne Pakir, Ho Wah Kam and Vanitha Saravanan (eds.), Language Society and Education in Singapore: Issues and Trends (pp. 6384), 2nd edn. Singapore: Times Academic Press. Pakir, Anne (1999) Bilingual education with English as an official language: socio-cultural implications. Georgetown Roundtable of Linguistics Archive (pp. 341349). Georgetown University Press. Retrieved 20 October 2006 from http://digital.georgetown.edu/gurt/1999.cfm. Pennycook, Alastair (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman. Pennycook, Alastair (2007) Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London: Routledge. Phillipson, Robert (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

348

Lubna Alsagoff

Platt, John and Weber, Heidi (1980) English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press. Robertson, Roland (1995) Glocalization: time-space and heterogeneity-homogeneity. In Mike Featherstone, Scott Lash and Roland Robertson (eds.), Global Modernities (pp. 2544). London: Sage. Robertson, Roland (1997) Comments on the global triad and glocalization. In Proceedings: Globalization and Indigenous Culture. Institute for Japanese Culture and Classics. Japan: Kokugakuin University. Retrieved 20 October 2006 from http://www2.kokugakuin.ac.jp/ijcc/wp/global/15robertson.html. Rubdy, Rani (2001) Creative destruction: Singapores Speak Good English movement. World Englishes 20, 34155. Rubdy, Rani (2007) Singlish in the school: an impediment or a resource? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28, 30824. Silver, Rita (2005) The discourse of linguistic capital: language and economic policy planning in Singapore. Language Policy 4, 4766. St. Andr e, James (2006) Revealing the invisible: heterolingualism in three generations of Singaporean playwrights. Target 18, 13961. Street, Brian (1993) Culture is a verb: anthropological aspects of language and cultural process. In David Graddol, Linda Thompson and Michael Byram (eds.), Language and Culture (pp. 2343). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Tongue, R. K. (1974) The English of Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Wee, Lionel (2002) When English is not a mother tongue: linguistic ownership and the Eurasian community in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23, 283295. Wee, Lionel (2003) Linguistic Instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 24, 21124. Ziegler, Debra (2003) On the zero-plural in commercial Singapore English. In David Deterding, Ee Ling Low and Adam Brown (eds.), English in Singapore: Research on Grammar (pp. 4857). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Copyright of World Englishes is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.