Advertisement

Commentary on ‘Reforms’

  • David Cassels JohnsonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

Singapore is known for its linguistic diversity and a bilingual language policy that encourages English plus one other ‘mother tongue,’ including Tamil, Chinese, and Malay. The official educational language policy for Singapore is quadrilingual (Silver and Bokhorst-Heng, this volume), and each of the chapters in this section shows various ways in which the government and the Ministry of Education (MOE) attempt to promote all four languages. Yet, the linguistic ecology appears to be changing rapidly, with English becoming the dominant language in both educational and noneducational contexts. In this commentary, I reflect on what the growing prominence of English might mean for Singaporean education and educational language policy around the world.

References

  1. Arcand, J., & Grin, F. (2013). Language in economic development: Is English special and is linguistic fragmentation bad? In. E. J. Erling & P. Seargeant (Eds.), English and development: Policy, pedagogy, and globalization (pp. 243–266). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  2. Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  3. Grin, F. (2001). English as economic value: Facts and fallacies. World Englishes, 20(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grin, F. (2013, November). Language and development: A general introduction and a few (critical) considerations. Plenary lecture presented at the English Policy Forum, British Council, Santiago de Chile.Google Scholar
  5. Hornberger, N. H. (2002). Multilingual language policies and the continua of biliteracy: An ecological approach. Language Policy, 1(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hult, F. M. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 7–24.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, D. C. (2010). Implementational and ideological spaces in bilingual education language policy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kachru, B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed.). Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  9. Pan, L. (2011). English language ideologies in the Chinese foreign language education policies: A world-system perspective. Language Policy, 10, 245–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(2), 196–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ricento, T. (2005). Problems with the ‘language-as-resource’ discourse in the promotion of heritage languages in the U.S.A. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3), 348–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and Learning, College of EducationThe University of IowaIowaUSA

Personalised recommendations