Approaches to Singapore English

There have been two main approaches to the study of Singapore English: in terms of a lectal continuum, and in terms of diglossia. The lectal approach is primarily associated with the work of Platt and Weber (1980), and treats Singapore English as a range extending from a basilect (which is supposed to show features associated with creoles) to an acrolect, which approximates a superstrate standard, with the two mediated by a transitional mesolect:

Unlike other varieties of English such as British English… and the English spoken in the U.S.A., Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where there are two dimensions, one on a scale of regional variation and one of social variation, the variation in SE can be observed along one axis which is related to the educational level and the socio-economic background of the speaker. There is considerable variation within spoken, and to some extent written, English from the more prestigious variety of SE, the acrolect, through mesolects down to the basilectal sub-variety, and speakers of SE can be placed along a scale according to a range of linguistic features.

(Platt and Weber 1980: 46-7)

This approach has been criticized (e.g. Kandiah 1998: 95) for, one, assuming that concepts developed in the study of pidgins/creoles can be straightforwardly applied to Singapore English; two, for treating the superstrate as the standard that is aspired to by speakers of Singapore English; and three, for assuming that the continuum is mainly a cline of proficiency.

The diglossia approach (Gupta 1994), in contrast, treats the continuum in terms of communicative choice rather than proficiency. It also treats Singapore English as a native variety which can and should be described autonomously. Thus, Gupta (1994: 7-9) suggests that the Low differs from the High mainly in syntax and morphology, and that the use of the Low “is not the result of error in using a language which may or may not be native, but a matter of choice based on context and affective messsage.” However, the diglossia approach is not without problems of its own. The fact that the Low and High are not strictly compartmentalized and ‘leak’ into each other suggests that the concept of diglossia is being used here in a non-traditional manner. Either that or we are simply looking at cases of code-switching without any society-wide functional organization of codes. Also, a large number of Singaporeans do share the government’s negative attitude towards the colloquial variety, pointing to a degree of linguistic self-flagellation and suggesting that this continuing anxiety over issues of standards and intelligibility may well encourage an attitude of exonormativity. As such, we need to recognize that while some Singaporeans easily code-switch between the standard and colloquial varieties, the very pervasive negative attitude towards the colloquial variety suggests that rather than simply assuming the correctness of one approach over the other, it may be more pertinent to combine insights from both if we are to achieve a better understanding of the grammatical and sociological issues surrounding English in Singapore. The dichotomy between the lectal and diglossia approaches, at this point, is thus best viewed as an unresolved debate.