Language Policy

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 217–239

Language ideologies and standard English language policy in Singapore: responses of a ‘designer immigrant’ student

Original Paper

Abstract

This article reports on year-long critical ethnographic study conducted in a Singapore school and examines how the standard English language educational policy is interpreted by a Secondary 3 (Grade 9) female student from China. She is a member of an exclusive group of academically able students who has been carefully recruited by the local authorities and awarded scholarships in order to pursue their education in Singapore. This study sheds light on the language learning experience of a so-called designer immigrant, that is, an immigrant who possesses high-level skills and global goals and interests (Simmons 1999). By focusing specifically on how this student managed the ideologies embedded in the standard English language educational policy, the present study also explicates how operations of power at a local level are realized. The data of the study, including interviews, classroom interaction data, and written artifacts, revealed that even in the face of overwhelming forces, the student was able to exercise her agency and to do so in ways complementary to prevailing ideologies which subsequently bolstered her learning. This study contributes to a better understanding of designer immigrant students in contemporary language policy research and more broadly to advance the sociolinguistics of globalization (Blommaert 2003).

Keywords

Language ideology Designer immigration Standard English Global flows Governmentality Singapore Model minorities Singlish 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  2. Bachman, L. F., & Purpura, J. F. (2008). Language assessments: Gate-keepers or door-openers? In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 456–468). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Blommaert, J. (1999). State ideology and language in Tanzania. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
  4. Blommaert, J. (2003). Commentary: A sociolinguistics of globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blommaert, J. (2006). Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 238–2544). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Blommaert, J. (2009). A market of accents. Language Policy, 8, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slemrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blommaert, J., Leppänen, S., & Pietikänen, S. (2009). Media, multilingualism and language policing: an introduction. Language Policy, 8, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 153–170). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Chandrasegaran, A. (2005). A success story: English language teaching in Singapore. In G. Braine (Ed.), Teaching English to the world: History, curriculum, and practice (pp. 135–145). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Chew, P. G. L. (2007). Remaking Singapore: Language, culture, and identity in a globalized world. In A. B. M. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture, and identity in Asian contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Chua, C. S. K. (2006). Singaporean education planning: Moving from the macro to the micro. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2&3), 214–229.Google Scholar
  15. Clegg, J. (1992). The cognitive value of literate talk in small-group classroom discourse. Thames Valley Working Papers, 1, 1–22.Google Scholar
  16. Corson, D. (1999). Language policy in schools: A resource for teachers and administrators. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Dixon, L. Q. (2009). Assumptions behind Singapore’s language-in-education policy: Implications for language planning and second language acquisition. Language Policy, 8, 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  19. Gal, S., & Irvine, J. (1995). The boundaries of languages and disciplines: How ideologies construct difference. Social Research, 62(4), 967–1001.Google Scholar
  20. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Hornberger, N. H. (2007). Commentary: Biliteracy, transnationalism, multimodality, and identity: Trajectories across time and space. Linguistics and Education, 18, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hornberger, N., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.Google Scholar
  23. Ibrahim, A. E. K. (1999). Becoming black: Rap and hip-hop, race, gender, identity, and the politics of ESL learning. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaffe, A. (1999). Ideologies in action: Language politics on Corsica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. Kachru, B. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English langauge in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (Eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures (pp. 11–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kenway, J., & Bullen, E. (2005). Globalizing the young in the age of desire: Some educational issues. In M. Apple, J. Kenway, & M. Singh (Eds.), Globalizing education: Policies, pedagogies and politics (pp. 31–43). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  27. Kramer-Dahl, A. (2003). Reading the “Singlish Debate”: Construction of a crisis of language standards and language teaching in Singapore. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 2(3), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kramer-Dahl, A. (2007). Teaching English language in Singapore after 2001: A case of change in progress. In V. Vaish, S. Gopinathan, & Y. Liu (Eds.), Language, capita, culture: Critical studies of language and education in Singapore (pp. 47–72). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 49–517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Labov, W. (2006). The social stratification of English in New York City (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin, A., & Martin, P. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonization, globalization: Language-in-education policy and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  32. Linton, A. (2009). Language politics and policy in the United States: Implications for the immigration debate. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 199, 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGroarty, M. (2008). The political matrix of linguistic ideologies. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), Handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 98–112). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. McGroarty, M. (2010). Language and ideologies. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 3–39). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  35. McKay, S. L., & Wong, C. S. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577–608.Google Scholar
  36. Ministry of Education. (2001). English language syllabus 2001 for primary and secondary school. Singapore: Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  37. National Population Secretariat. (2008). Media release, 26 Sep 2008: State of the population. Retrieved on May 21, 2009 from http://www.nps.gov.sg/files/news/WoG%20media%20release%2020080926%20-%20final.pdf.
  38. Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 25–43). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific Region. TESOL Quarterly, 4(1), 589–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Organization for Economic Co-operation, Development. (2008). International Migration Outlook: Annual Report 2008 Edition. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Park, J. S., & Bae, S. (2009). Language ideologies in educational migration: Korean jogi yuhak families in Singapore. Linguistics and Education, 20, 366–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Park, J. S., & Wee, L. (2009). The three circle redux: A market-theoretic perspective on World Englishes. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 389–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennycook, A. (2000). Language, ideology and hindsight: Lessons from colonial language policies. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 49–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  45. Pennycook, A. (2006). Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 60–77). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Pennycook, A. (2007). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-Vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics and practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  48. Ramanathan, V., & Morgan, B. (2007). TESOL and policy enactments: Perspectives from practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 447–463.Google Scholar
  49. Ricento, T. (Ed.). (2000a). Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  50. Ricento, T. (2000b). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4, 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice: An introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 10–24). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Rubdy, R. (2001). Creative destruction: Singapore’s speak good English movement. World Englishes, 20(3), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seargeant, P. (2008). Ideologies of English in Japan: The perspective of policy and pedagogy. Language Policy, 7, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective of the uses of language tests. Singapore: Longman.Google Scholar
  55. Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Shohamy, E. (2007). Reinterpreting globalization in multilingual contexts. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2), 127–133.Google Scholar
  57. Silver, R. E. (2005). The discourse of linguistic capital: Language and economic policy planning in Singapore. Language Policy, 4, 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Silver, R. E., & Skuja-Steele, R. (2005). Priorities in English langauge education policy and classroom implementation. Language Policy, 4, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Silverstein, M. (1998). Monoglot ‘standard’ in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In D. Brennis & R. H. S. Macaulay (Eds.), The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology (pp. 284–306). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  60. Simmons, A. B. (1999). Economic integration and designer immigrants: Canadian policy in the 1990 s. In M. Castro (Ed.), Free markets, open societies, closed borders? Trends in international migration and immigration policy in the Americas (pp. 53–69). Miami, FL: North-South Press.Google Scholar
  61. Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board. (2010). Singapore-Cambridge General Cambridge Examination Ordinary (“O”) level examination. Retrieved on June 23, 2010 from http://www.seab.gov.sg/oLevel/schoolCandidates/2010_GCE_O.html.
  62. Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Stritikus, T. (2002). Immigrant children and the politics of English-only. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  64. Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2007). Consuming identities: Language planning and policy in Singaporean late modernity. Language Policy, 6, 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tan, C. (2006). Change and continuity: Chinese language policy in Singapore. Language Policy, 5(1), 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Teo, C. H. (2009, August 28). Say what you mean, mean what you say. Speech presented at the Speak Good English Movement Launch 2009 at Lasalle Campus Green, Singapore. Retrieved on June 25, 2010 from http://www.goodenglish.org.sg/about/over-the-years/2009/official-speeches-2009/minister-teo-chee-hean-launch-2009/.
  67. Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 42–59). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  68. Vasu, N., & Phua, J. (2008, August 14). A common tongue to foster Singapore spirit. The Straits Times, p. 34.Google Scholar
  69. Wallace, C. (2002). Local literacies and global literacy. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 101–114). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Wee, L. (2003). Linguistic instrumentalism in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 24(3), 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wee, L. (2005). Intra-language discrimination and linguistic human rights: The case of Singlish. Applied Linguistics, 26, 48–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wee, L. (2006). The semiotics of language ideologies in Singapore. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(3), 344–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wee, L. (2010). ‘Burdens’ and ‘handicaps’ in Singapore’s language policy: On the limits of language management. Language Policy, 9, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  75. Wiley, T. (2000). Continuity and change in the function of language ideologies in the United States. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics, and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 67–86). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  76. Willinsky, J. (1984). Well-tempered tongue: The Politics of standard English in the high school. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  77. Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Yeoh, B. S. A., & Lai, A. E. (2008). ‘Talent’ migration in and out of Asia: Challenges for policies and places. Asian Population Studies, 4(3), 235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Young, R. F. (2009). Discursive practice in language learning and teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monterey Institute of International StudiesMontereyUSA

Personalised recommendations