Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlish (last accessed: 12/03/09)
"Acrolectal Singaporean English “is the
"highest-class" form of speech, used by the well-educated in formal situations.
Acrolectal Singaporean English is roughly the same as formal British English with the exception of
some pronunciation differences
that occur due to the influence of Singlish pronunciation. Acrolectal
Singaporean English does exhibit, however, a much smaller degree of Singlish pronunciation
features than do mesolectal, basilectal, and pidgin variants of Singlish. For
example, speakers of acrolectal Singaporean English attempt to restore the phonemes
/θ/ and /ð/ (as in thin and then).
Basilectal Singaporean English is the colloquial speech used by almost everyone, educated or not, in informal settings, and is the speech usually referred to as "Singlish". Here can be found all of the unique phonological, lexical, and grammatical features of Singlish. Many of these features can be attributed to Asian languages such as the Chinese languages, Malay, or Indian languages such as Tamil, though some cannot.'
By and large, I agree with the Wikipedia descriptions.
ReplyDeleteAcrolectal Singaporean English is often only used in formal situations, such as in job interviews and work presentations. It is perceived as a form of 'higher-class' English, and is frequently associated with the upper-class and well-educated in society. There have been efforts taken by the government to encourage the use of Standard English. Former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong have denounced Singlish as a form of sub-standard English that poses as an obstacle to the learning of proper English, while current PM Lee Hsien Loong previously launched the Speak Good English Movement, in an attempt to eradicate Singlish(but to no avail). These governmental measures and campaigns might have led to the notion that Standard English is for the educated, powerful and influential people in society(or rather, people of a higher social standing), to the extent that if one speaks proper English in daily conversation, one might be regarded by others as an arrogant fellow, eager to show off his social status.
Basilectal Singaporean English, commonly known as Singlish, is used by everyone in informal situations. As acrolectal Singaporean English is percieved as 'high-class', it is no wonder that Singlish is regarded as something that is low in prestige. Being low in prestige, Singlish is used only in informal communication, like in conversations between friends or at coffeeshops and hawker centres.
I want to disagree with your point of view, and thus the definition of acrolect and basilect as described by Wikipedia. I believe that the acrolect in Singapore is not perfect English, but a mix between English and Singlish. Let me explain why I have come to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThe description of acrolect given to us is that acrolect is the upper-class form of language in any society, while basilect is the lower-class form of language in society. However, it is rather obvious that Singlish does not fit the description of a basilect because it is not the lowest class of English in Singaporean society, and similarly, "Standard English" as you put it can't be the acrolect.
When you look at a Western foreigner, and you hear him/her speak, the first comment we think of is not one of adulation or jealousy, but rather the first comment we would most likely come up with would be "Ang moh". (That's westerner, for clarity's sake) So, rather than the Westerner earning a high social status with his language, it is more or less damning to his prestige, allowing him to get labelled into his own social class that can even be derogatory depending on the particular choice of tone.
However, this is not to say that raw Singlish is our acrolect either. I agree with what Sarah mentioned above, that Singlish by itself is definitely perceived as belonging to that of a lower class as well. So what would our acrolect be?
I think we have this weird situation where a person who is able to code switch efficiently is what we call truly the upper class in Singapore. We are considered high class only if we are able to blend "Standard English" with Singlish based on the situation at hand. Perhaps it is the side effect of our meritorious society, where we judge a person mostly by his/her actions (and often money) rather than demeanor.
I agree with Clarence about disagreeing with the descriptions of how English is used in Singapore.
ReplyDeleteAs he mentions, the description of acrolect is that it is the upper class form of language while basilect is a less prestigious “dialect” of a sort. Admittedly, there does seem to be two forms of Singaporean English being used on a daily basis. One form is the “higher class” version that one uses at more official functions where one should exhibit the ability to speak proper English and the other form is the Singlish that we use in our daily lives that a foreigner might not necessarily understand.
However, I do not think that this certifies the classification of these two different types of Singaporean English under two such different categories.
Take, for example, the Chinese language. There are some people who speak in the more traditional Chinese way that may seem overly courteous to a modern day speaker and there are others who speak in “modern” Chinese, so to speak, where there are less pleasantries used in the average sentence. Although these two are very different, the traditional chinese is not perceived as acrolectal Chinese and the modern one, basilectal. Thus, by this logic, Singapore English should not have the classification mentioned on Wikipedia.
Even though the two types of Singapore English may seem like almost two completely different types of English, I think that it is not right to classify one as higher class and the other as more of a dialect because who is to say which one is genuinely the higher class one? Perhaps to an uneducated aunty at a hawker the so called acrolectal Singaporean English is just gibberish and is in fact, to her, the basilectal Singaporean English that only the younger generation understands. I think the Wikipedia article bases its definition on a more westernized point of view and I disagree with its descriptions to a large extent.
Deborah
13AO3B
I do agree with Sarah’s perspective, and thereby the Wikipedia definition, for similar reasons. In Singapore, there does exist a large dichotomy between to the usage of “acrolectal Singaporean English” (although this is generally termed as Standard British English) and the usage of Singlish. The Wikipedia definition classifies the usage of the different types of English into a dichotomy between formal and informal situations, which is indeed true. As Sarah has already mentioned, we do not see Singlish being used in realms of academia or work – the descriptions of the types of English that is used in Singapore are largely accurate.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I disagree that there should be a strict distinction between the two – there exists overlaps where the acrolectal form of Singaporean English pervades the informal social sphere. The usage of Standard English in informal situations does not imply any sort of arrogance or pretentiousness; it is merely the way people speak (a large proportion of people around the world, I might add).
On this note I would like to address Clarence’s point on how we label Western foreigners as Ang mohs on hearing them speak. To a large extent, I do not think that prestige is affected simply by listening to the language he speaks. Rather, this is affected more by the accent of a person rather than the “English” that he speaks. The difference would come in when we take it in a local context where there actually exists a sociolect continuum such as between Standard English and Singlish.
How we come up with definitions between an acrolect and a basilect, therefore, should be determined by the social context in which both sociolects are used in. By this definition, there will always be an upper-class sociolect and a lower-class sociolect, and due to its usage in informal situations Singlish should be classified as such. In argument against Clarence’s point that “Singlish does not fit the description of a basilect because it is not the lowest class of English in Singaporean society”, there will always exist a sociolect that is of a high-class than the other – if that is not Singlish, that what is?
The ability to code-switch does not contradict the point that one language can be of a higher status than the other. What I feel Clarence’s point is arguing for is not the perception of the status of the language, which is classified by the social context it is used in, but the perception of the status of the person speaking it instead.