SGEM Research Articles

The speak good English movement: a reflection and commentary

ABSTRACT Singapore has long been known for its plethora of campaigns, including annual campaigns to promote the use of each of the nation’s four official languages, viz. English, Mandarin Chinese, Malay and Tamil. The Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) was launched in 2000 amid official concern about Singaporeans’ pervasive use of Singlish and implications for the country’s global competitiveness. While early campaigns were perceived to be anti-Singlish and highly prescriptive, recent campaigns have been more nuanced, focusing on the usefulness of internationally intelligible English in connecting with others. This paper examines some challenges facing the SGEM today, such as scepticism about whether the campaign is still relevant today, especially when the use of English as a home language among households has more than doubled since the launch of the campaign, and when Singapore has been topping international rankings of English proficiency.

Conflicts between World Englishes

Abstract Negative attitudes of non-Singaporeans towards Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) are often used to support the “Speak Good English Movement” in Singapore. This article examines spontaneous metalinguistic discourse about SCE in an online Facebook group where Taiwanese migrants in Singapore gather for mutual support. Based on the idea that metalinguistic discourse is mediated through the social relation between interlocutors, this study reveals how the language ideologies surfacing in the investigated online space are formed through stance-taking processes between people sharing a nationality. We argue that this spatial context elicits and escalates negative ideologies of SCE, which are situated in popular hierarchies of varieties of English, and also hierarchies of Mandarin.

Colloquial Singapore English in advertisements

AbstractThroughout the history of Singapore, Colloquial Singapore English (CSE) has been treated as an obstacle to Singaporeans’ acquisition of standardized English. The Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) was launched in 2000 to promote standardized English while discouraging the use of CSE. Nonetheless, CSE is increasingly used in local commercial advertisements by private companies. Recently, the state has also changed its firm anti‐CSE position, and begun to recognize CSE as part of the unique identity that ties Singaporeans together. Rather surprisingly, government advertisements have begun employing CSE expressions, particularly since the state's 50th anniversary in 2015. This study investigates how the use of CSE is semioticized in both government and private‐company advertisements that have appeared in recent years. The findings suggest that CSE is integrated into government advertisements as an invocation of a pan‐Singaporean identity in order to naturalize the state's larger political discourses.

Debating Standard Language Ideology in the Classroom: Using the ‘Speak Good English Movement’ to Raise Awareness of Global Englishes

In this article, we describe and evaluate an innovative pedagogical task designed to raise awareness of Global Englishes and to challenge standard language ideology in an English language classroom. The task encouraged the learning and debate of the controversial Speak Good English Movement, which campaigns for Singaporeans to use a ‘standard’ form of English rather than the local variety, ‘Singlish’. The debate was introduced as a Global Englishes-inspired multi-lesson task at a Japanese university with 108 students in four classes. Data were collected in the form of written reflections, in which learners stated their own positions and beliefs. Data indicated that the majority sided against the Speak Good English Movement, viewing Singlish as a legitimate variety of English with important cultural attributes, which contributed to a national identity. Results showed that the debate achieved the aim of encouraging students to critically reflect on standard language ideology in both English and Japanese, their mother tongue. Overall, the activity was successful in raising awareness of the diversity of English, and encouraging critical reflection on the complexities surrounding standard language beliefs. This was seen to be essential given the dominance of the ‘native’ speaker episteme in Japanese language curricula.

Linguistic chutzpah and the Speak Good Singlish movement

ABSTRACTThis paper discusses the Speak Good Singlish Movement, which was started as a response to the Speak Good English Movement, the latter having been initiated by the Singapore government. The Speak Good Singlish Movement represents a good example of linguistic chutzpah, where speakers demonstrate confidence in their language choices while also having the metalinguistic awareness and sophistication needed to articulate rationales for these choices. The paper argues that linguistic chutzpah is especially important in relation to the global spread of English, where speakers are often confronted with the need to make decisions about language while not being able to rely on traditional sources of authority (such as the speech community or prescriptive grammars). Under such circumstances, speakers need to be able to adopt confident stances about their language choices, even while knowing that these choices may be met with criticism. To make this point, the paper also describes two cases involving anxieties about appropriate language use.

The biggest English corner in China

‘They all speak good English. So how come they are jobless?’ The Spring Festival Gala, broadcast alive on TV across China and among international Chinese communities, is one of the most popular and widely viewed performances for Chinese people on Chinese New Year's Eve. In a situational comedy at the 2012 Gala, one Chinese lady threw out the above remark to her friend with reference to the folk she had met in a foreign country she had just visited. The tone in which she said it was intended to invoke laughter at her sarcastic comment about the presumed almightiness of English. The audience, however, only reacted with a slightly audible mumble, which evidently reflected their ambivalence on this issue. After all, many in the audience – like the general population – are currently convinced that gaining a command of English is a very good thing, if not a national pursuit. To mock their pursuit of English is almost equal to mocking their view of life. This article takes a glimpse into this national craze towards English by presenting a brief ethnography of a new form of English learning in China: ‘English educational tourism’, that is, traveling for the purpose of learning English. By doing this, it explores the relationship between English and political economy, noting how English, the language of imperialism, at its current stage (re)produces new subjectivities among Chinese people as a semiotic form of modern/cosmopolitan imagination. Before outlining this argument and introducing the specific evidence upon which I base my claims, however, it is necessary to position this article with reference to previous theorizations relevant to the English language and the Chinese context.

Pragmatics of the sentence-final uses of can in Colloquial Singapore English

In11The following abbreviations are used in this paper. 1sg: first person singular; 1pl: first person plural; 2sg: second person singular; ASP: aspect; CSE: Colloquial Singapore English, DEM: demonstrative; GEN: genitive; LOC: locative; ICE-SIN: the International Corpus of English, Singapore English database; NEG: negation; NUS: National University of Singapore; NZ: New Zealand; PART; particle. Colloquial Singapore English (CSE), the default usage of the word can is congruent with that in Standard English. It functions as a modal auxiliary marking epistemic, deontic, and ability meanings. Additionally, the word can is used as a pragmatic marker in sentence final position in CSE. One such function of can represents a pseudo-tag question marker, as in the sentence, ‘Borrow me $5 can?’, which translates to Standard English, ‘Can you lend me $5?’22This example was publicized as a part of the Singapore Government's Speak Good English Movement 2010/2011 themed “Get It Right” (Taipei Times, 2010). Another pragmatic function of can is as a discourse marker. Discourse markers are a highly noticeable feature of CSE, with its rich inventory of available particles including lah, lor, leh, wat, hor, meh, and mah, on which a number of scholars have reported. This paper investigates the pragmatic uses of sentence final can in these two functions. Because the positions of pseudo-tag can and discourse marker can overlap, it is at times ambiguous whether can is behaving as pseudo-tag or a discourse marker. I suggest that (1) pseudo-tag question use of can is a type of a calque transferred from CSE's Chinese substrate languages, and (2) discourse particle can is an innovative feature that developed from semantic expansion of the word ‘can’ in CSE under the influence of ‘can’-equivalent terms in the Chinese and Malay substrate languages.

The Struggle for a Standard: Evidence From Place Names

AbstractIn Singapore several languages and several dialects of English contend for the distinction of “standard.” A brief history of standardization of English is given along with a consideration of the differences between the situations in Britain and the U.S. on the one hand and countries in East and Southeast Asia on the other, in particular the fact that in Britain and the U.S. there has been no official state involvement in developing a standard language or variety but in Singapore there is considerable government intervention through such programs as the Speak Good English Movement. Street names provide a useful source of data which suggest that the Singapore government prefers as “standard” names which echo English over Malay or Chinese, thus demonstrating the more prominent position of English.

At Home in Singaporean Sitcoms

At Home in Singaporean Sitcoms

Language Policy, Language Teachers' Beliefs, and Classroom Practices

The widespread use of a local variety of English, Singapore Colloquial English, or Singlish, has become somewhat of a controversial issue in Singapore especially in the eyes of the Singapore government. For example, in 2002 the Singapore government launched The ‘Speak Good English Movement’ (SGEM) with the objective of promoting the use of Standard English among Singaporeans. Furthermore, Singapore's newspapers have recently suggested that the responsibility for halting the deterioration (perceived or real) of the standards of English rests with Singapore's English language teachers. The case study presented in this paper offers one lens from which to view a policy-to-practice connection by outlining the impact of language policy on the beliefs and classroom practices of three primary school teachers concerning the use of Singlish in their classrooms. The results confirm those of previous studies that teachers’ reactions to language policy is not a straightforward process and as such it is important to understand the role teachers play in the enactment of language policy.

Intra-Language Discrimination and Linguistic Human Rights: The Case of Singlish

Although studies involving linguistic human rights (LHRs) have focused at length on cases of inter-language discrimination, much less attention has been given to intra-language discrimination (Blommaert 2001a; Skutnabb-Kangas et al. 2001). This paper highlights a number of theoretical issues that the LHRs framework needs to deal with once intra-language discrimination is seriously considered. It does this by analysing the case of English in Singapore, and in particular, debates surrounding the colloquial variety of Singapore English (known as Singlish). Supporters of Singlish are concerned with negotiating a space for the variety, especially in response to the Singapore government's Speak Good English Movement, which seems intent on eliminating Singlish. The implications of the Singlish case raise some very fundamental questions about LHRs, such as whether LHRs can be coherently attributed to groups (rather than just individuals), and whether LHRs can, in fact, be waived. The latter part of the paper considers these questions by drawing upon the work of scholars who have approached the issue of human rights from a more philosophical perspective (Donnelly 1989; Nickel 1987).

Process Modeling in Composites Manufacturing

9R13. Process Modeling in Composites Manufacturing. - SG Advani (Univ of Delaware, Newark DE) and EM Sozer (Koc Univ, Istanbul, Turkey). Marcel Dekker, New York. 2003. 436 pp. ISBN 0-8247-0860-1. $175.00.Reviewed by L Mishnaevsky Jr (MPA, Univ of Stuttgart, Pfaffenwaldring 32, Stuttgart, D-70569, Germany).This textbook introduces the reader to the concepts and methods of the modeling of polymer composite manufacturing processes on the basis of the fundamental principles of fluid mechanics, heat transfer, theory, and the analysis of the physics of the process. The authors are successful in their aim to create a self-contained text, which systematically demonstrates “how one would go about modeling a composite manufacturing process.”The book is logically divided into three major parts: introduction to the polymer composite materials and manufacturing processes (Ch 1 and 2), theoretical tools and approaches needed to model the processes (Ch 3–5), and the applications of the models to several manufacturing technologies (Chapters 6–8).The microstructures and classifications of polymer matrix composites, properties of polymer matrices (thermoplastic and thermoset resines), and fibers, are discussed in the Introduction.In Chapter 2, Overview of Manufacturing Process, different composites manufacturing techniques are outlined. The manufacturing methods are classified according to the dominant flow processes: short fiber suspension manufacturing methods (processes which involve the transport of fibers and resin as a suspension into a mold or through a die to form a composite; examples: injection and compression molding, extrusion), squeeze flow manufacturing methods (in which the fibers and resin deform together to form a composite shape), and porous media manufacturing methods (in which the resin impregnate and displace the air in a continuous fiber network).In Chapter 3, Transport Equations for Composite Processing, the basics of fluid mechanics and heat transfer are reviewed. The conservation equations of mass, momentum and energy, stress-strain rate relationships, and their application to modeling the resin flow in the presence of fibers are discussed. Many examples with solutions are included in this chapter.In Chapter 4, Constitutive Law and Their Characterization, constitutive equations of resins for different cases are discussed. Physical meaning, mechanisms, and temperature dependence of the viscosity of resins, as well as the effect of bundles of aligned fibers and the short fibers on the mechanical behavior of resin are explained. Modeling of the curing of the resin (kinetics of the reaction of forming 3D network from mono- or oligomers), techniques to monitor cure at macro- and microlevel, and the effect of reinforcement on the curing are described. Then, the authors discuss the mechanisms and the effects of the kinetics of crystallization of thermoplastics during solidification. The permeability concept, which serves as a basis for the analysis of the flow behavior of resin as it impregnates the preform, is described in this chapter as well.Chapter 5, Model Simplifications and Solutions, deals with the techniques of modeling the manufacturing processes on the basis of the physical laws and concepts described in the previous chapter. Several techniques and approaches, which can be useful in formulation of a model and finding a solution, are described: dimensional analysis, commonly accepted assumptions for polymer composites processing (like quasi-steady state assumption, lubrication approximation, this shell approximation), possible simplifications of boundary conditions and geometry, some mathematical techniques (like coordinate transformations, superposition of solutions, decoupling of equations).In Chapters 6 (Short Fiber Composites), 7 (Advanced Thermoplastic Composite Manufacturing Processes), and 8 (Processing Advanced Thermoset Fiber Composites), models of technological processes of the composite manufacturing, based on the ideas and principles given in Chapters 3–5 and grouped according to the classification from Chapter 2, are presented and discussed. Models of flow and heat transfer in the compression molding, a method of screw design in the extrusion process and a model of filling stage in injection molding (Ch 6), a model for consolidation and void reduction during the processing of thermoplastic composites, which is based on the consideration of a squeeze flow of a compressible viscous fluid (Ch 7), and the processes of autoclave molding, liquid composite molding and filament molding (Ch 8) are covered.The book is addressed to seniors and first-year graduate students in materials science and engineering, industrial, mechanical, and chemical engineering, and can also be very useful to specialists in composite manufacturing and modeling, working both in industry and in academia. The book is well structured, and all of the concepts, ideas, and solutions are explained clearly and with many examples and illustrations. Each chapter contains questions and example problems, fill-in-blanks sections, and original figures. The layout of the book is pleasant, and a subject index is available.Process Modeling in Composites Manufacturing is a very good and useful book, and can be highly recommended to students, scientists, and specialists in modeling and manufacturing of composites and to libraries.

“You see me no up”

Singlish, Singapore’s brand of colloquial English, is accepted by some as an essential marker of Singaporean identity but deplored by others as a variety of English that puts Singapore and Singaporeans at a disadvantage because of its lack of international intelligibility. For this reason, it has been argued that Singaporeans cannot afford to maintain Singlish as a viable linguistic resource. A campaign known as the “Speak Good English Movement” was established in 2000 to counter the ill effects of Singlish through the promotion of Standard English. This paper addresses the Singlish-Standard (Singaporean) English debate in terms of discourse resources and the politics of language planning in Singapore. It may be true that Singlish is not the most internationally intelligible of Englishes, but what is more interesting is the considerable disparity between the official concern over international intelligibility and the reality of life in Singapore, especially for the Singlish speaker. Such a disparity suggests differing notions of what constitutes an important linguistic resource for the nation as a whole and for specific speech communities. On another level, it provides insights into the politics of language management in Singapore. The Singlish-Standard English debate also provides clear evidence of struggles over the determination of the choice of a preferred variety of English and the control over linguistic resources. Through an examination of media reports, official statements, and letters to local newspapers, the author considers the implications of this debate for Singaporeans (especially Singlish speakers) and their participation within the society. In the process, the author also examines the power relations that are intertwined in this debate for determining the ideal Singaporean society.

Faculty Perceptions of Communication Skills and Needs of Business School Undergraduates in Singapore

In Singapore in 2000, the government launched a Speak Good English Movement to improve English language skills and to limit the use of Singlish (a local variety of English) by promoting the use of (Standard) English among the general popula tion. This campaign was motivated by govemment perception and media reports of a decline in English language skills. Using a 40-item questionnaire, this study investigated whether faculty at a large Singapore business school shared similar perceptions of inadequate communi cation skills, in this case among undergraduates, and also sought to explain their perceptions. The findings indicate that the faculty perceived undergraduate com munication skills to be in need of improvement, thus lending support to employer and government criticism. An analysis of survey responses revealed some probable underlying causes for faculty perceptions, including an apparent lack of real com mitment to the improvement of such skills.

Creative destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English movement

The increasing use of Singlish in the media, in early schooling and other everyday domains reflects its growing importance as a symbol of social identity and cohesion in Singapore. However, this trend runs counter to the country’s avowed economical goals of becoming a knowledge hub in the region, which it seeks to achieve by developing a highly skilled service sector that is proficient in (Standard) English. Thus, paradoxically, despite a new policy initiative to loosen their traditional tight grip on society in the interest of developing a nation of creative risk‐takers, the authorities have recently launched the Speak Good English movement, spawning a slew of editorials, cartoons, skits and commercials in a vigorous attempt at generating awareness among the public of the need to promote the use of Standard English. This paper attempts to show that this move to stem the popularity of Singlish is yet another manifestation of the notion of “creative destruction,” currently being proposed as a strategy to improve the efficiency of corporate and industrial businesses in the country. “Creative destruction” entails the partial destruction of existing economic ideas and structures which rapidly obsolesce with the emergence of new ones. Drawing a parallel with the Speak Mandarin campaign, which has successfully resulted in the dispersal of the local Chinese dialects, the paper argues that this attempt to replace Singlish by Standard English, while throwing up valid issues of social identity and cohesiveness, which are prone to get subsumed by the more urgent pragmatic and economic rationalizations proffered, can then be seen as a triumph of the relentless, hegemonic forces of globalization.