Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cartographic mismatches and language policy: the case of Hindi in Singapore

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Language Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we present Singapore’s language policy as a case of flexible responsiveness to demographic and societal shifts as a result of high migration. The particular need to accommodate the enhanced linguistic diversity among the linguistically heterogeneous Indians, previously served by Tamil, has led to the ‘semiofficial’ representation of Hindi, Punjabi, Bengali, Gujarati, and Urdu in the language policy in recent years. Notwithstanding the choices, a majority of the target Indians prefer Hindi over the familial languages as the national status of Hindi in India better meets the multilingual aspirations of transmigrants with uncertain itineraries. The language choices of Indian parents indicate that language values derive from the range of mobility (e.g., translocal or transnational) that languages have promoted or are perceived to help chart in the future. Adopting the metaphor of cartographies of language used by Park (2014), we suggest that these cartographic perceptions pose a challenge to language policies. We attribute the cartographic mismatches between policy and individual goals to distinctions between language valuations. Through an analysis of school enrolment data and ethnographic interviews, we suggest that language in education decisions of transmigrant populations are mediated through valuations of languages that allow the widest radius of mobility across multiple sites rather than attachments to linguistic, ethnic, or national communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Source: office of BTTSAL

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In distinguishing between ‘minority’ and ‘minoritised’, Wee (2014: 183) highlights that the status of languages is not ‘natural’ but the result of historical, political, and economic factors through which some languages are given prominence at the expense of others.

  2. The Ministry of Education mandates that Chinese, Malay, and Tamil students study the official language associated with their racial identity. Non-Tamil Indian students have a choice. While policy details have not been clearly articulated, Indian students interested in studying any language other than Tamil are required to apply for dispensation. This is usually granted to the applicant irrespective of background factors such as residency status, place or birth, etc. Asked to clarify the criteria for permission to study a language other than one’s mother tongue, the Minister of State for Education, Ker Sin Tze, clarified that the option was available only to the non-Tamil Indian students and to pupils of mixed parentage but other students were required to study the mother tongue if available (Ker 1993). This flexibility is not extended towards other ethnic groups such as the Chinese. Thus, the linguistic heterogeneity in the Chinese community has led the state to discourage the use of all dialects other than Mandarin, so that the latter is the only acceptable mother tongue for Chinese Singaporeans. For a discussion as to why this asymmetry in flexibility exists, see Wee (2014).

  3. Members of the category of ‘Others’ (e.g., Eurasians) are free to offer any of the official languages as second language in education.

  4. Despite having the second largest number of speakers, Malayalam could not be included, as it was not offered as an examinable subject by Cambridge.

  5. Administrators with the BTTSAL explain that the total enrolment in Urdu and Bengali includes students from Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively in addition to those from India. While Bengali has the highest rate of growth among all languages, the subject is beyond the scope of this paper.

  6. The only other language to offer PLP is Punjabi with a total enrolment of 13 in 2016.

  7. Since one of the two recruited families has withdrawn from the study, the data has been excluded from this paper.

  8. We thank the anonymous reviewer for rightfully pointing out that while such language perceptions are relevant among the highly educated and well qualified immigrants primarily from urban areas of India, they may not be necessarily shared by all Indians and certainly especially not the less educated Indians in the more remote and rural areas of the country.

  9. Students in most states study three languages given the nation’s TLF. However, since Tamil Nadu prohibits the teaching of Hindi, most students there opt for the classical language, Sanskrit, as the third language.

  10. The official languages can be studied at a higher level at school and grades used for extra academic credits.

  11. There is clearly a class dimension to these sentiments. Being mobile and flexible in terms of work options are affordances that accrue to better-educated and relatively affluent members of the community. It is their retention, either as formalized citizens or as resident elites, that the state is particularly concerned with and therefore it is they who are likely to have a greater voice and impact on language policy (see also Ong 1999).

Abbreviations

BTTSAL:

Board for the teaching and testing of South Asian languages

NTIL:

Non-Tamil Indian language

PLP:

Parallel language program

EP:

Employment pass

PR:

Permanent resident

SC:

Singapore citizen

F:

Female

M:

Male

LC:

Linguistic citizenship

References

  • Agnihotri, R. (2014). Multilinguality, education and harmony. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3), 364–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annamalai, E. (2001). Managing multilingualism in India: Political and linguistic manifestations. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J. (2013). Policy, policing and the ecology of social norms: Ethnographic monitoring revisited. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 219, 123–140.

  • Blommaert, J., Leppänen, S., & Spotti, M. (2012). Endangering multilingualism. In J. Blommaert, S. Leppänen, P. Pahta, T. Virkkula, & T. Räisänen (Eds.), Dangerous Multilingualism (pp. 1–21). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bokhorst-Heng, W. (1999). Singapore’s speak Mandarin campaign : language ideological debates in the imagining of the nation. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language Ideological Debates (pp. 235–265). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • BTTSAL—Board for the Teaching and Testing of South Asian Languages (2015). http://bttsal.com/. Accessed May 13, 2016.

  • Central Hindi Directorate. Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. http://mhrd.gov.in/language-education-3. Accessed June 7, 2016.

  • Duchene, A., & Moyer, M. (2013). Language, Migration and Social Inequalities: A Critical Sociolinguistic Perspective on Institutions and Work. Bristol, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Extra, G., Spotti, M. A., & Avermaet, P. V. (2009). Language Testing, Migration and Citizenship: Cross-National Perspectives on Integration Regimes. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. (2008). Language and the nation-state: Challenges to sociolinguistic theory and practice. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 504–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquemet, M. (2005). Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization. Language & Communication, 25, 257–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, R., & Wee, L. (2015). Multilingual education in Singapore: Beyond language communities? In A. Yiakoumetti (Ed.), Multilingualism and Language in Education: Sociolinguistic and Pedagogical Perspectives from Commonwealth Countries (pp. 67–85). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ker, S. T. (1993). Singapore parliamentary report. October 12, 1993. Vol. 61, Column 571ff. https://www.parliament.gov.sg/publications-singapore-official-reports. Accessed June 30, 2016.

  • LaDousa, C. (2010). On mother and other tongues: Sociolinguistics, schools, and language ideology in northern India. Language Sciences, 32(6), 602–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, P., & Schiller, N. G. (2004). Conceptualizing simultaneity: A transnational social field perspective on Society. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1002–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loring, A., & Ramanathan, V. (2016). Language, Immigration and Naturalization: Legal and Linguistic Issues. Bristol; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maryns, K., & Blommaert, J. (2001). Stylistic and thematic shifting as a narrative resource: Assessing asylum seekers’ repertoires. Multilingua, 20(1), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nail, T. (2015). The Figure of the Migrant. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, A. H. (1999). Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. (2014). Cartographies of language: Making sense of mobility among Korean transmigrants in Singapore. Language & Communication, 39, 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, D. P. (1981). Multilingualism and Mother Tongue Education. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sridhar, S. N. (1987). Language variation, attitudes, and rivalry: The spread of Hindi in India. In P. Lowenberg (Ed.), Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications, and Case Studies (pp. 300–319). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. (Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, C. (2001). African mother tongue programs and the politics of language: Linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(4), 339–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, T. (1989). Singapore Parliamentary Report. October 6, 1989. Vol. 54. Column 562 ff. https://www.parliament.gov.sg/publications-singapore-official-reports. Accessed June 30, 2016.

  • Tan, Y.-Y. (2014). English as a ‘Mother Tongue’ in Singapore. World Englishes, 33(3), 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tupas, R. (2016). Pragmatism, Mandarin and political culture in Singapore: Recent reprises of an ideology. Journal of World Languages, 2(2–3), 94–105.

  • Vaish, V. (2013). Globalisation and multilingualism: Text types in the linguistic ecology of Delhi. In L. Wee, R. B. H. Goh, & L. Lim (Eds.), The Politics of English: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Asia Pacific (pp. 37–60). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vertovec, S. (2009). Transnationalism. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

  • Weber, J. J. (2014). Flexible multilingual education: Putting children’s needs first. Bristol; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, L. (2003). Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(3), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wee, L. (2013). Governing English in Singapore: Some challenges for Singapore’s language policy. In L. Wee, R. Goh, & L. Lim (Eds.), The Politics of English (pp. 105–124). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wee, L. (2014). The minoritisation of languages in Singapore. In P. Sercombe & R. Tupas (Eds.), Language and Education in Southeast Asia (pp. 181–199). New York/London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wee, L., & Bokhorst-Heng, W. D. (2005). Language policy and nationalist ideology: Statal narratives in singapore. Multilingua: Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 24(3), 159–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, W. K. (2011). Census of Population, 2010—Statistical Release 1: Demographic Characteristics, Education, Language and Religion. Singapore: Department of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeoh, B., & Lin, W. (2012). Rapid Growth in Singapore’s immigrant population brings policy challenges. Migration Information Source. Retrieved October 9, 2016, from http://www.migrationpolicy.org/.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, 637332, Singapore

    Ritu Jain

  2. Dean’s Office, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, Block AS7, Level 5, 5 Arts Link, Singapore, 117570, Singapore

    Lionel Wee

Authors
  1. Ritu Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lionel Wee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ritu Jain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jain, R., Wee, L. Cartographic mismatches and language policy: the case of Hindi in Singapore. Lang Policy 17, 99–118 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9429-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-016-9429-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation